Twin paradox initial acceleration

In summary, the conversation discusses the twin paradox and the effects of special relativity on the aging of twins who travel at different velocities. It is ultimately concluded that due to the relativity of simultaneity, there is no absolute way for the twins to compare their ages if they remain separated. The possibility of using light signals to compare ages is also deemed impossible due to the unknown time it takes for the light to travel between the twins.
  • #36
flashprogram said:
But we've already seen the difference in clock rates will have measurable effects on things like half life, which will alter the composition of radioactive rocks or ships composed of such. Surely the physical composition of the ships cannot be frame dependent.

In previous posts related on this issue, others have commented that acceleration and deceleration need not be involved for effects to be measurable, for us to tell that clocks differ in rate of measuring time, and thus objects that are at constant speed and remain at such constant speed will experience different rates of 'aging'(passage of time) even while remaining at constant speed, if their speed differ.(example suppose we know the routes of the two ships, and put 2 messages with equal spacing along each such route. Between message one and message two of each route, the number of events in the two ships, say number of birthdays will vary between the two ships.)

Spontaneously created matter within a ship moving at high speed, close to C speed, if radioactive, will experience half life at a different rate(passing of time) as compared to the same matter created similarly in a slower ship.
Flashprogram, one problem with using radioactive rocks is that the radiation they give off is proportional to their initial size so determining their age or their aging rate from just the radiation is almost impossible so let's consider another object, totally imaginary, something like a pulsar except much smaller, that gives off a very bright flash of light at a regular interval, say once per second. And let's imagine that two exactly identical such objects exist and that one of them is traveling at 60% of the speed of light directly toward the other one which is stationary. Now let's also consider that each one can see the flashes from the other one and have been doing so for a very long time and that they are still very far apart from each other. Isn't this very much like the scenarios that you have been devising?

Now here's the question for you: How will each object observe the rate of the flashes from the other object compared to their own flash rate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
ghwellsjr said:
Now here's the question for you: How will each object observe the rate of the flashes from the other object compared to their own flash rate?

It would seem that one would see a higher number of flashes than the other, unless I'm missing something. It would seem that if you sped the object up arbitrarily close to C, it will experience the passage of time at a very slow rate during any interval of travel.

Say the following, we can put an even simpler example:

Two ships are headed to pass a destination say X.X lightyears away, they start from the same origin, and they're both covering the same distance(as previously measured by stationary observers at the origin and destination points). One ship is traveling at .9c, the other is traveling arbitrarily close to C(e.g. .999999999999...c). As they pass the destination they leave a message of what happened during the trip(a log of activities.).

It can be seen that as the two ships were traveling very close to C, from the observers at the destination's perspective they covered the distance within a similar span of time.

The log shows that on one ship the traveler only managed to view a single episode of 'LOST', the other ship shows a year's worth of activities in the log. How can there be any argument regarding which ship had more events and thus had faster rate of the passage of time, and which had a slower rate?
 
  • #38
flashprogram said:
It would seem that one would see a higher number of flashes than the other, unless I'm missing something. It would seem that if you sped the object up arbitrarily close to C, it will experience the passage of time at a very slow rate during any interval of travel.
No, they would each measure the other one's flashes as occurring at exactly double the rate of their own. This is an example of Relativistic Doppler. And the faster the one ship is going, the higher the ratio they both measure of the other one's flashes compared to their own.
flashprogram said:
Say the following, we can put an even simpler example:

Two ships are headed to pass a destination say X.X lightyears away, they start from the same origin, and they're both covering the same distance(as previously measured by stationary observers at the origin and destination points). One ship is traveling at .9c, the other is traveling arbitrarily close to C(e.g. .999999999999...c). As they pass the destination they leave a message of what happened during the trip(a log of activities.).

It can be seen that as the two ships were traveling very close to C, from the observers at the destination's perspective they covered the distance within a similar span of time.

The log shows that on one ship the traveler only managed to view a single episode of 'LOST', the other ship shows a year's worth of activities in the log. How can there be any argument regarding which ship had more events and thus had faster rate of the passage of time, and which had a slower rate?
This is correct in your implied stationary rest frame (except maybe for your statement about them both covering the distance in a similar span of time, since one of them is very close to C while the other one is only .9c, but I don't think this adversely affects your scenario).'

By the way, you have finally specified a scenario with enough details to unambiguously interpret what is going on. Good for you.

However, in the rest frame of the "faster" ship, the destination is traveling toward him at almost the speed of light and wasn't very far away (because of length contraction) and it only took one hour to get to him, whereas the other ship is traveling away from him and is "running away" from the approaching destination so even though the "faster" ship sees the "slower" ship as having time-dilated clocks, it still takes a year of the "slower" ship's time for the destination to catch up to him.

And from the rest frame of the "slower" ship, the destination is traveling toward him at .9c and takes a year to get to him but the "faster" ship is traveling at almost the speed of light toward the destination and even though the "slower" ship sees the "faster" ship's clock as running slower than his own, it still takes one hour of the "faster" ship's clock to reach the approaching destination.

So the issue of which had more events is different from the issue of the rate of the passage of time because you are overlooking the effect of length contraction. In a given frame, a clock can be running at a normal rate but the distance covered is very short and so the number of events can be very small.
 
  • #39
Hmmm...

That relativistic doppler effect is very strange, almost like an escape clause. Yeah while you traveled a million light years from a distant galaxy, and your flashing machine which flashes each frame you manage to watch of a single 'lost' episode to us(you just managed to finish just a single episode during all this travel), and Earth has been using the identical flashing machine to loop the episode for a million years... there's this weird effect, and tada gotcha relativistic doppler effect meddles in and you got nothing.

ghwellsjr said:
So the issue of which had more events is different from the issue of the rate of the passage of time because you are overlooking the effect of length contraction. In a given frame, a clock can be running at a normal rate but the distance covered is very short and so the number of events can be very small.

The length contraction while a true phenomena I'd heard about, is still a bit tricky to picture, how about the following:

What happens if we imagine that instead of empty space, this is a very long road with identical houses at equal distances along the way(say a large neighborhood), and instead of spaceships we have very fast runners(same .9c and .9999...c). One runner breaks the mailboxes on the left and the other the mailboxes on the right. The runners reach house number 1 Trillion, and drop a message*(the message says the point at which they got while watching an identical video on their ipad.).

They each broke 1 Trillion mailboxes and passed along one trillion houses, yet at house 1T, one managed to see the whole video while the other did not. By measure of houses passed by and broken mailboxes, it would seem the length is the same even if the runners measure the road contracted to different extents.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
I think you're catching on.
 
  • #41
Meir Achuz said:
The effect of acceleration is proportional to the distance between the twins. At the start and end of the trip, this distance is zero.

if this is so instantaneous travel could land you anywhere and would require a practically infinite energy source, good luck finding that! Since antiquity it has been searched, and no one is supposed to have found it hence, the red queen dilemma... constant progress while appearing to show zero progress.
 
  • #42
idea2000 said:
Hi,

I've seen many variations of explanations of the twin paradox using special relativity, but i haven't yet seen an explanation that bothers to take into account the initial acceleration of the traveling twin away from planet Earth. Is it safe to say that this can be neglected? And, also, if the traveling twin were to accelerate away from Earth and then decelerate onto the distant planet and then stay there without coming back, would he still be younger than his twin at home?

Thanks for any help that anyone can provide!

acceleration and deceleration effects can not be the resolution of the so called twin paradox because we can make the interval of uniform motion long enough to neglct the effects of acceleration and deceleration.
There is no twin paradox if we look from one frame of reference...each of the twin will see that the other is younger ..when we ask ''who is younger?'' we must chose a frame .
 
  • #43
Mueiz said:
idea2000 said:
Hi,

I've seen many variations of explanations of the twin paradox using special relativity, but i haven't yet seen an explanation that bothers to take into account the initial acceleration of the traveling twin away from planet Earth. Is it safe to say that this can be neglected? And, also, if the traveling twin were to accelerate away from Earth and then decelerate onto the distant planet and then stay there without coming back, would he still be younger than his twin at home?

Thanks for any help that anyone can provide!
acceleration and deceleration effects can not be the resolution of the so called twin paradox because we can make the interval of uniform motion long enough to neglct the effects of acceleration and deceleration.
There is no twin paradox if we look from one frame of reference...each of the twin will see that the other is younger ..when we ask ''who is younger?'' we must chose a frame .
This is true, we must choose a frame to decide who is younger, but if we limit ourselves to the frame in which they both started out at rest and both ended up at rest, then the twin that traveled to the distant planet will be younger and they will both eventually see and agree that he is younger although while he is traveling, they will both see the other one as younger.

While traveling, due to relativistic doppler, they will both symmetrically see the other one as aging at a younger rate. When the traveling twin stops on the distant planet, he immediately begins to see his twin age at the same rate as himself but his twin back on Earth will continue to see the traveling twin aging at the same lower rate until he eventually sees that his twin has stopped traveling and begins aging at the same rate as himself. Since they are now both stationary in the same frame, according to Special Relativity, we can compare their ages and the traveling twin will be younger in that frame.
 
  • #44
From Meir Achuz' post no. 4...
The effect of acceleration is proportional to the distance between the twins.
Huh?? Meir [or anybody], can you show equations or web sites to support this statement?
 
  • #45
HarryWertM said:
From Meir Achuz' post no. 4...

Huh?? Meir [or anybody], can you show equations or web sites to support this statement?

This sounds like a distorted version of one way of talking about differential aging. In a real gravitational field, the further apart two clocks are in the gravity gradient, the larger the difference in their aging. If one uses a non-inertial frame, with metric modeling inertial force as gravity, you also see that the further apart two observers are (in the direction of acceleration), the greater the difference in clock rate. It is possible to explain almost all twin variants this way, but I don't find it the most natural way (personally).
 
  • #46
can you show equations or web sites to support this statement?
If you have the traveling twin at distance d change her velocity by dv, the "simultaneous" event at the origin shifts by dt = -dv*d, which is the essence of Meir Achuz' statement.
You can derive this from the Lorentz transformations by first solving for t' at the event t=0, x=d, then solving for t at the event t', x=0.
 
  • #47

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
625
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
31
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
923
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
85
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
701
Back
Top