Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
No relativity with periodic universe?
Twin Paradox 2 2017-05-05 10:36:02 Post No. 8886854
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Twin Paradox 2 2017-05-05 10:36:02 Post No. 8886854
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: gemini.png (21KB, 861x953px) Image search:
[Google]
21KB, 861x953px
PHYSICS PEOPLE
So I posted this thread about a year ago but I thought it might be interesting to do it again, got some interesting discussion going.
Twins A and B are travelling close to the speed of light with no acceleration in a periodic universe (you go far enough and come back on yourself).
This means that each twin will see the other's clock run slower and will hence age quicker than the other.
>twinparadox.png
Obviously, the solution to the normal Twin Paradox in relativity is that one of the twins must accelerate, which breaks the symmetry.
Here however, you get the same twin paradox but with seemingly no solution - hence either relativity is bullshit or the periodic universe cannot work. Discuss.
>>
>>8886854
You have a tacit third frame of reference that experiences no force in the middle from which you measure the other two, dipshit.
>>
Learn about relativity. You need a 3rd reference frame in all cases when calculating relativity. That's basic 2nd semester physics that even *I* know and I'm a Geologist
>>
>>
>>8886858
>>8886863
Also all inertial frames of reference are equally valid, a third frame C in this case doesn't solve the problem. C would watch himself get older and older than A and B, so when they both meet back at C (assuming he's "stationary" and at the starting point), C would claim that A and B would be younger than him
>>
>>8886894
I have a masters degree in physics with theoretical physics and refuted both basic bitch attempts to /thread me ty
>>
No relativity with periodic universe?
2017-05-05 11:17:23
Post No.8886917
[Report] Image search: [Google]
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: gemini2.png (32KB, 862x1292px) Image search:
[Google]
32KB, 862x1292px
this helps the problem how?
>>
Your periodic universe has a very weird sense of causality since you can interact with light signals from yourself.
Usually light propagates away from you on the surface of your light cone, never to interact with you again (assuming you are in vacuum). In a periodic universe, your light cone would loop back to interact with you.
I'm not sure you can have a universe that is just periodic, more like you have to define a metric that forms some sort of closed manifold such that traveling in one direction eventually bends you back to where you started. That bending would be seen as acceleration, which would probably help ground the problem. A periodic universe seems at first unphysical...
>>
>>8886901
lmfao obvi bait then
Got a masters in "theoretical physics".
Must have been much easier than getting a degree in a literal field huh?
Last week i got my masters in all of mathematics. Does this make us friends?
>>
>>8886934
Dissertation looked at modes of decays and entanglement transport in chains of ultracold atoms, am I a big boy now?
Get back to bed buddy
>>
>>
>>8886921
It's be a pretty problematic metric is my guess but I'm by no means an expert in GR.
I guess you can think of the manifold in the problem as being a topological torus, which means that that's out (as it suffers from the paradox). I guess finding a manifold in which this problem goes away, but the universe remains closed is a pretty deep question not just physically but mathematically...
>>
>>8886854
solution: they are both faggots.
>>
>>8887006
/thread
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2