Your favourite Paradox

My favourite is the twins paradox.

According to Einstein, a moving clock runs slower than a stationary one.
t2=t1[1-(v^2/c^2)]^-0.5
Where t2 is the time measured by the 'stationary' observe and t1 is the time measured by the 'moving' one.
{To all physicsists, I know I am being ambiguous on my frame of refernces. Forgive me...I am trying to make it easier to understand.}

Suppose we can travel at 0.975c, where c is the speed of light (3.00X10^8).
Imagine there are two twin girls aged 18. One of them stays on earth and the other gets on a spaceship and whizzes around the galaxy at 0.975c for, according to the travelling twin, 15 years. Let 15 years =t1. When the travelling twin returns, the non-travelling twin will have aged by t2, where t2=t1[1-(0.975)^2]^-0.5. Hence t2=67.5. Which means the travelling twin is 33 but the one that stayed on earth would be a ripe old age of 82.5. Old enough to be her twins' mother. This is the reason why I think that I am going mad by studying A2 physics.

My favourite is the twins paradox.

According to Einstein, a moving clock runs slower than a stationary one.
t2=t1[1-(v^2/c^2)]^-0.5
Where t2 is the time measured by the 'stationary' observe and t1 is the time measured by the 'moving' one.
{To all physicsists, I know I am being ambiguous on my frame of refernces. Forgive me...I am trying to make it easier to understand.}

Suppose we can travel at 0.975c, where c is the speed of light (3.00X10^8).
Imagine there are two twin girls aged 18. One of them stays on earth and the other gets on a spaceship and whizzes around the galaxy at 0.975c for, according to the travelling twin, 15 years. Let 15 years =t1. When the travelling twin returns, the non-travelling twin will have aged by t2, where t2=t1[1-(0.975)^2]^-0.5. Hence t2=67.5. Which means the travelling twin is 33 but the one that stayed on earth would be a ripe old age of 82.5. Old enough to be her twins' mother. This is the reason why I think that I am going mad by studying A2 physics.

Can we actually send someone up in space to try this? lol or are we a little way off being able to do it? I like this paradox too!

Intelligentidiot. Apt name.

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

I love Catch-22.

What is Catch-22? I keep hearing that name.

It's a book by Joseph Heller. It's...strange, but once you get into it, it can be very funny in a sort of satirical way. I also found it quite unnerving. Definitely worth a read if you can get your hands on a copy!

Not yet. To get close to the speed of light we need an almost infinite amount of energy. Interestingly, it is impossible to reach the speed of the light since we need an infinite amount of energy to exert an infinite force but technically it is possible to reach 0.9999(place as many 9s as you want here) times the speed of light.

Let's all try to share abit of knowledge so that we can all grow. What is your favourite paradox? it can be anything from maths to physics to philosophy itself.

Also please try to give a very brief explanation of the paradox if you understand it.

I start;


Video: http://youtu.be/aH2fpmxMV4Q

Correct me or any other user if the explanation of the paradox is wrong.

Can we actually send someone up in space to try this? lol or are we a little way off being able to do it? I like this paradox too!

On opposite day... is it actually opposite day or not?

Is 2 really a paradox? It has an answer: you will never reach the destination...

Well no, not quite, although it has been tested several ways, such as firing odd particles round accelerators and looking at the rates of decay.

As for the paradox itself, it's not so much a paradox as a meaningless question. It only seems like a paradox because the understanding that we have of time is essentially wrong, or at least only applicable to slow speeds. In reality, the concept of time running at different speeds for different people doesn't create a paradox since if you were to actually meet with the person travelling at near the speed of light, there would be some form of acceleration involved, which would disrupt things.

Sorry for confusing explanation, it's probably wrong and certainly very vague. If you are interested in this sort of stuff I'd like to recommend A Very Short Introduction to Relativity. Very clear explanations there.

Thanks for that I am gonna get the e-book version of that book because its pretty cheap, looks very interesting! I am incredibly interested in all this stuff to be honest, but I don't understand it and I don't know hardly any of it. Blows my mind and makes me feel very very lucky to be alive living in this weird and wonderful universe!