To person A standing on a railway platform, person B on the train travelling past would seems to be aging slower (if such a thing were perceptible) and to person B it would appear that person A was aging faster. But in the absence of a train, or a platform, or even a planet, the two people would appear to be moving apart. Without a frame of reference it would be difficult to say which is moving and which is not. However, they can't both be appearing to age faster than the other. So which one would be aging faster and which slower? Or rather, how can one tell which one is moving?

Amina Richards 2022-10-17 Answered
To person A standing on a railway platform, person B on the train travelling past would seems to be aging slower (if such a thing were perceptible) and to person B it would appear that person A was aging faster.
But in the absence of a train, or a platform, or even a planet, the two people would appear to be moving apart. Without a frame of reference it would be difficult to say which is moving and which is not. However, they can't both be appearing to age faster than the other.
So which one would be aging faster and which slower? Or rather, how can one tell which one is moving?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (2)

Ramiro Sosa
Answered 2022-10-18 Author has 13 answers
First: ditch A and B. Their names are now Unprimed and Primed.
So Unprime is on the platform in frame S, and Prime is on the in-bound train in frame S , moving at β = 3 / 2 in the x direction.
"Unprime" has two events: starting a stop watch at:
E 0 = ( t 0 = 0 , x 0 = 0 )
and stopping it T = 32 seconds latter at:
E 3 = ( t 3 = T , x 3 = 0 )
The time difference is, not surprisingly:
Δ t = t 3 t 0 = ( T 0 ) = 32 s
In Prime's frame of reference:
E 0 = ( t 0 = 0 , x 0 = 0 )
E 3 = ( γ [ t 3 β x 3 ] , γ [ x 3 β t 3 ] )
= ( γ T , γ β T )
Thus, Prime says the time between events is:
Δ t = t 3 t 0 = γ T = 64 s
Hence: Prime says that Unprime's clock is running slower.
Now suppose Prime also had a running stop-watch for T = 32 seconds. The start is the same event as Unprime's start:
E 0 = ( t 0 = 0 , x 0 = 0 )
while the stopping event occurs at:
E 2 = ( t 2 = T , x 2 = 0 )
Of course, the time difference is:
Δ t = t 2 t 0 = T = 32 s
How does this look in Unprimes's frame? We know E 0 , but we need to use the inverse of Lorentz transform we used before to transform E 2 to S:
E 2 = ( γ [ t 2 + β x 2 ] , γ [ x 2 + β t 2 ] )
= ( γ T , γ β T )
so that:
Δ t = γ ( t 2 t 0 ) = γ T = 64 s
and now Unprime says that Prime's clock in running slower.
That seems paradoxical at first, but it is resolved by the fact that Unprimes's stopwatch stops at x = 0, while Primes's stopwatch stops at x = 0, or x = + 55 light-seconds ( l s), and there is no way to define "simultaneous" across 55 light-seconds.
We can assign an event to the moment Unprime says Prime has stopped his watch, call it E 1 . We have in S that:
E 2 = ( γ T , γ β T ) = ( 64 s , 55 l s )
The event of Unprimed saying Prime's watch has stopped occurs simultaneously at Unprime's origin:
E 1 = ( γ T , 0 )
If we transform this to S , that event occurs at t = γ 2 T, or 128 s. So Prime stops his watch at 32s, which Unprime says happened after 64 seconds, while Prime says Unprimed said he stopped his watch after 128 seconds. Likewise in the other direction, Unprimed says Prime thought Unprimed watch was stopped after 8 seconds.
It is the relativity of simultaneity that allows each frame to see the other's clock moving more slowly.
Now the idea that you can't move relative to space is a good one:
1. There is no absolute rest frame.
2. The speed of light is always c in all directions.
So no matter how fast you move, space looks the same. There is a global electromagnetic field with E = 0 and B = 0, and any disturbance in that field propagates at:
c = 1 ϵ 0 μ 0
(and of course, charges and currents look "the same" in the lab through ϵ 0 and μ 0 ).
Moreover, we could add a third frame, Doubleprime, on the outbound train, moving at β = 3 2 , and discover that both the other clocks move slower, while Unprime says it moves at the same speed as Prime.
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access
Danika Mckay
Answered 2022-10-19 Author has 5 answers
Your statement about aging is incorrect. Instead, time dilates relative to stationary, so they each see the other moving more slowly through time, and therefore aging more slowly.
Also, you say several times "with no frames of reference". There are frames of reference, it's just that there's no absolute frame of reference.
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-10-01
Consider a particle in two inertial reference frames Σ and Σ . The reference frame Σ is moving with uniform velocity v relative to Σ. The particle is at rest in Σ . Both reference frames have common axes x and x . When doing a certain calculation in both reference frames, which one of the obtained results is considered correct? Are they considered both correct or the one obtained by an observer in Σ ?
asked 2022-10-22
Having some issues regarding the Euler's angles. Following is the short description of them problem.
In the first step, I determined the Euler's angles to invert my frame of reference that is X, Y and Z axes become X, Y and Z respectively. I calculated the Euler's angles to be ( 135 , 109.47 , 45 ) in degrees for Z X Z scheme of transformation.
Now I expect that transforming any vector by same Euler's angles will invert it. For example, if I transform ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) vector with Euler's angles ( 135 , 109.47 , 45 ), I should get the vector ( 1 , 1 , 1 ), but I find that it remains unchanged.
asked 2022-05-10
What is the coordinate in this system then and how do they all connect to each other? I've read the mentioning of an observer and the observer's state of motion and I don't understand how that relates to a frame of reference.
asked 2022-10-02
Suppose a neutrino is seen travelling so fast that its Lorentz gamma factor is 100,000. It races past an old, no longer active neutron star, narrowly missing it. As far as the neutrino is concerned, it is the neutron star that is moving at extreme speed, & its mass is 100,000 times larger than 2 solar masses. Therefore, from the speeding neutrino's perspective, the neutron star should appear to be a black hole definitely large enough to trap the neutrino. So how come the speeding neutrino continues its travel right past the old stellar remnant? Is there an agreed name for this question or paradox?
asked 2022-07-21
In the frame of photon does time stop in the meaning that past future and present all happen together?
If we have something with multiple outcomes which is realized viewed from such frame? Are all happening together or just one is possible?
How the communication between two such frame s work meaning is there time delay for the information as c is limited? If there is time delay does it mean that time does not stop?
asked 2022-05-08
Whether Compton effect depends on the frame of reference or not. The wavelength change is a thing, but does not depend on frame of reference since it depends only on θ. But if I travel at a speed comparable to velocity of light, will there be any changes?
asked 2022-07-22
Orbital velocity of a circular planet is a R , where a is the centripetal acceleration, and R is radius of the planet. With v 1 as the tangential velocity of the rotating planet at the equator.
On the non rotating body, suppose that the orbital velocity is v 0 , and, for an object launched on the rotating body's "equator", that the orbital velocity will be in the form of v 1 + v 2 (the body and the object both going counterclockwise). Now, I half-hypothesized v 0 = v 1 + v 2 = a R and v 2 = a R where a is the "true" rotating body's acceleration, able to be calculated from the rotating frame of reference as
a = a v 1 2 R
The logic was that from rotating body's reference frame, the object would be traveling at v 2 , less than v 0 because of the centrifugal force, so v 2 has to be the orbital velocity if the gravity was "weakened" by centrifugal force.
Tried to solve for a and comparing it to the value, got from rotating frame of reference, ending up with
a = a ( v 1 ( v 0 + v 2 ) R )
Something's not right, and if I had to choose, I would guess the v 0 = v 1 + v 2 , that acceleration is not the same on those two planets, but I don't know how it would change, or why.

New questions