Understanding Einstein's Twin Paradox, past the usual level?

**physicsdude30** · Jun30-09, 08:33 PM

I heard some scientists say special relativity may not be relative to your frame of reference, but rather possibly distant galaxies or great sources of gravity?

I heard they sent a jet around the world with an atomic clock, and also decaying sub atomic particles down a tube, to test special relativity. Have they done any tests to see if it's really related to one's frame of reference, like the Twin Paradox tells us? Or could time/space rather be relative to distant galaxies or large sources of gravity?

Is anyone familar with this?

**DaleSpam** · Jul1-09, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by physicsdude30

Have they done any tests to see if it's really related to one's frame of reference, like the Twin Paradox tells us?

Here are some experimental tests of the Twin "Paradox".

**HallsofIvy** · Jul1-09, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by physicsdude30

I heard some scientists say special relativity may not be relative to your frame of reference, but rather possibly distant galaxies or great sources of gravity?

I've never heard or read of any scientists saying such a thing. In fact, it seems to contradict the very basis of relativity. Can you give a citation?

I heard they sent a jet around the world with an atomic clock, and also decaying sub atomic particles down a tube, to test special relativity. Have they done any tests to see if it's really related to one's frame of reference, like the Twin Paradox tells us? Or could time/space rather be relative to distant galaxies or large sources of gravity?

Is anyone familar with this?

I have no idea what being "relative to distant galaxies or large sources of gravity" could mean! Are you clear on what the word "relative" itself means?

**physicsdude30** · Sep10-09, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by HallsofIvy

I've never heard or read of any scientists saying such a thing. In fact, it seems to contradict the very basis of relativity. Can you give a citation?

I have no idea what being "relative to distant galaxies or large sources of gravity" could mean! Are you clear on what the word "relative" itself means?

My source is from ScienceDaily

Professor Resolves Einstein's Twin Paradox
ScienceDaily (Feb. 15, 2007)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0214220824.htm

The fact that time slows down on moving objects has been documented and verified over the years through repeated experimentation. But, in the previous scenario, the paradox is that the earthbound twin is the one who would be considered to be in motion -- in relation to the sibling -- and therefore should be the one aging more slowly. Einstein and other scientists have attempted to resolve this problem before, but none of the formulas they presented proved satisfactory. Kak's findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Science, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. "I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars," said Kak. Using probabilistic relationships, Kak's solution assumes that the universe has the same general properties no matter where one might be within it.

So I'm curious if there's a way we could empirically test this relative to distant stars rather than individual bodies of matter by sending a super fast jet across the world (calculate special relativity after accounting for general relativity) similar to past experiments? The jet would be moving faster in frame of reference to distant stars compared to the Earth's surface (even if both are moving extremely fast in reference to the stars). So as a logical consequence, what if in addition to seeing what the jet's clock is to the one on the ground, could there be some way to have a researcher from another frame of reference check the clocks the other way around? Would there be a way to find calculations for that to make the idea proposed in that article falsifiable?

I think critical thinking with experiments is fun.

**PeterDonis** · Sep10-09, 11:18 PM

This statement in the article:

Einstein and other scientists have attempted to resolve this problem before, but none of the formulas they presented proved satisfactory.

is not only false, it's egregiously false. As the Usenet Physics FAQ page linked to earlier shows, the Hafele-Keating experiment that tested the twin paradox directly, by flying atomic clocks around the world and then bringing them back together with clocks that had remained Earth-bound, was performed in 1972. And that experiment just confirmed what every sane physicist in the field expected to happen, and had expected for decades. As the Usenet Physics FAQ Entry on the Twin Paradox states,

the "paradox" has been no more than an entertaining (and educational) exercise since it first saw the light of day.

I've read a few articles on Science Daily before and gotten a feeling that they weren't quite all there, without being able to pin it down. Now I *know* they're out to lunch.

**PeterDonis** · Sep10-09, 11:24 PM

I just looked on arxiv.org and found this paper by Subhash Kak, the physicist referred to in the Science Daily article. I don't know if it's a preprint of the same paper the article refers to, but the subject seems similar. The abstract reads:

We show how the anisotropy resulting from the motion of an observer in an isotropic universe may be determined by measurements. This provides a means to identify inertial frames, yielding a simple resolution to the twins paradox of relativity theory. We propose that isotropy is a requirement for a frame to be inertial; this makes it possible to relate motion to the large scale structure of the universe.

**sylas** · Sep10-09, 11:28 PM

Yes, I am familiar with this episode. I looked at in a bit of detail when it first came out. Most of this post is summarized from stuff I wrote at the time in another forum.

In brief, you're right PeterDonis. There's no "past the usual level" here; this is all no different from the errors of any beginner.

The twin "paradox" is a simple undergraduate level issue. It's a basic exercise that should be solved by a first year undergraduate at the start of the introductions to special relativity.

The author of the paper cited here is not a professor of physics. He is Subhash Kak, a professor of Electrical Engineering, and also Asian Studies. He's best known for work in computer science, like quantum computing and cryptography, and has an interest in philosophy of science also; but he doesn't understand relativity.

He's actually managed to publish this tripe. There's a copy at arxiv: Moving Observers in an Isotropic Universe, and it got into International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 46, pp. 1424-1430, (2007). This prompted the press release, which got picked up by sciencedaily.

The paper mangles basic first year level relativity, and the only real question is how on earth it got past the first level of review. Bad papers do get published from time to time. This is one such time.

In the text, Kak cites Unnikrishnan, another obscure writer who makes the same errors. Unlike Kak, Unnikrishnan does appear to be a physicist. Curiously, his understanding of relativity is no better; and being more technical his paper contains even more blatant outright errors in the details, where Kak is more inclined simply to waffle. I'm not going to attempt a critique of Unnikrishnan here; but there is one additional point that leapt out at me as soon as I looked up these references.

Kak's claimed solution is pretty much a vaguer repetition of a solution previously suggested by Unnikrishnan a couple of years ago – which he does not cite! Kak only cites Unnikrishnan for defending the claim that perfectly conventional discussions of the twin paradox are "wrong", but gives him no credit whatever for having worked out the "solution" that Kak implicitly claims for himself.

The paper trail:

Unnikrishnan, in 2004, wrote "Cosmic Relativity: The Fundamental Theory of Relativity, its Implications, and Experimental Tests", which can be found in the unreviewed arxiv archive as gr-qc/0406023. This error-riddled drek proposes that "all relativistic effects that are presently attributed to kinematics of relative motion in flat space-time are in fact gravitational effects of the nearly homogeneous and isotropic Universe. The correct theory of relativity is the one with a preferred cosmic rest frame."
Unnikrishnan, in 2005, wrote "On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox", in which he claims that Einstein's own explanations are full of errors. In this paper, Unnikrishnan also describes briefly his proposed solution with reference to the frame in which the CMBR is isotropic.
Kak, in 2007, publishes the paper that has been cited here. He cites the 2005 paper in support of the idea that prior resolutions of the "paradox" are in error; but fails to make any mention of the close similarity between his proposed solution and that given by Unnikrishnan.

In other words, as well as being drivel, Kak's paper is less original than he would like to imply; a crude derivative of work by a rather crankish Indian physicist.

Cheers -- sylas

PS. I agree with you about sciencedaily. They don't show a lot of discrimination and are inclined to publish pretty much anything. Can be handy sometimes, but they are highly unreliable on the significance or standing of what they report. Basically, they seem to be a convenient outlet for anyone who can get some kind of official press release from a usually credible source. In this case there was a university press release from Kak's university; and probably Kak wrote the main content release himself, as a working academic will often do. There's not a great deal of checking done at the level of a release. If a working professor has an article in a legitimate journal, then it's presumed the journal does the checking. In this case, they can't have!

**DaleSpam** · Sep10-09, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by sylas

The twin "paradox" is a simple undergraduate level issue. It's a basic exercise that should be solved by a first year undergraduate at the start of the introductions to special relativity.

I wonder in what other contexts a sophomore-level homework mistake gets the title of "paradox".

**physicsdude30** · Sep12-09, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by sylas

Yes, I am familiar with this episode. I looked at in a bit of detail when it first came out. Most of this post is summarized from stuff I wrote at the time in another forum.

So what I'm trying to figure out, and what experiments may tell us: If a twin goes travels through the Universe at the speed of light for 10 years and the other twin stays on the planet Earth, we know from the Earth bound twin the twin in the rocket through space is younger since he's moving at the speed of light. However, what about the perspective for the twin in the rocket? From his perspective, is the twin on Earth younger or older than him? I know they've tested Special Relativity by sending decaying subatomic particles down a tube and jet airplanes around the world. However, have they tested it the other way around to see the effects from the other's perspective?

For example, having a researcher stay with a clock on the surface of the Earth while the jet flies around the world, then comparing the clocks (which I guess they've done). Then next have the researcher get in the jet with that other clock and then compare the clock on the surface of the Earth when he gets back?

Do you see what I'm trying to figure out about what's been empirically tested? I know Special Relativity has been tested, but am trying to figure out if it has from the other angle/perspective?

**JesseM** · Sep12-09, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by physicsdude30

So what I'm trying to figure out, and what experiments may tell us: If a twin goes travels through the Universe at the speed of light for 10 years and the other twin stays on the planet Earth, we know from the Earth bound twin the twin in the rocket through space is younger since he's moving at the speed of light.

It's impossible for an object with mass to move at the speed of light (light itself has no mass), but relativity says that clocks moving at significant fractions at the speed of light relative to a given observer will be measured to be running slow in that observer's inertial rest frame (inertial meaning it's a non-accelerating frame of reference). Note that there is no notion of absolute speed in relativity--if I am moving at 60% the speed of light (0.6c) in the inertial frame where you are at rest, then there will be another inertial frame where I am at rest and you are moving at 60% the speed of light. In either frame, the one who is moving at 0.6c is aging slower by a factor of 0.8 (in general, if a clock is moving at speed v in a given frame, then it is slowed down by a factor of $LaTeX Code: \\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$ )

Originally Posted by physicsdude

However, what about the perspective for the twin in the rocket? From his perspective, is the twin on Earth younger or older than him?

In any inertial frame, the twin that is moving faster is aging more slowly. So, for example, you can pick an inertial frame where the Earth is moving and the rocket is at rest during the outbound phase of the trip, and in this frame the Earth twin is aging more slowly. However, if the rocket turns around to return to Earth so the two twins can compare ages at a single location, then this means the rocket changes velocity (accelerates), so there is no inertial frame where the rocket is moving slower than the Earth during both phases of the trip before and after the turnaround, and thus it works out that all inertial frames agree that the rocket twin has aged less overall when they reunite (on the other hand, if the rocket twin continued to move at constant velocity while giant rockets were attached to the Earth so that it could accelerated and catch up with the rocket, then the Earth twin would have aged less when they reunite--the twin that moves inertially between the two meetings will always have aged more than the one that accelerated).

Different inertial frames always agree about localized events like two clocks meeting at a single point in spacetime and comparing readings there, but they can disagree about issues relating to "simultaneity" when it comes to events that happen far apart, meaning that two events that happened "at the same time" in one frame may have happened at "different times" in another. For example, if the rocket twin has been moving away from the Earth at a constant speed of 0.6c in the Earth frame, having departed from the Earth when both twins were aged 20, then in the Earth frame the event of the Earth twin's 30th birthday is simultaneous with the event of the rocket twin's 28th birthday (so the rocket twin has aged less in the Earth frame); but in the frame where the rocket is at rest and the Earth is moving at 0.6c, the event of the rocket twin's 28th birthday is simultaneous with the event of the Earth twin being 26.4 years old (so the Earth twin has aged less in the rocket frame).

Originally Posted by physicsdude

For example, having a researcher stay with a clock on the surface of the Earth while the jet flies around the world, then comparing the clocks (which I guess they've done). Then next have the researcher get in the jet with that other clock and then compare the clock on the surface of the Earth when he gets back?

It's not like the jets were unmanned! Anyway, are you suggesting that the presence or absence of a human researcher next to a clock might somehow change which of two clocks has elapsed more time?

**Al68** · Sep12-09, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by physicsdude30

So what I'm trying to figure out, and what experiments may tell us: If a twin goes travels through the Universe at the speed of light for 10 years and the other twin stays on the planet Earth, we know from the Earth bound twin the twin in the rocket through space is younger since he's moving at the speed of light. However, what about the perspective for the twin in the rocket? From his perspective, is the twin on Earth younger or older than him?

Older. The answer is the same for either perspective, although the perspectives obviously are different.

Do you see what I'm trying to figure out about what's been empirically tested? I know Special Relativity has been tested, but am trying to figure out if it has from the other angle/perspective?

Yes. Each experiment's results apply to both perspectives.

The clock that was flown in a jet and compared to a clock left on earth showed that the jet clock had less elapsed time than the earth clock. This result logically can't be different according to those on the jet than for those on the ground.

**physicsdude30** · Sep14-09, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Al68

Older. The answer is the same for either perspective, although the perspectives obviously are different.Yes. Each experiment's results apply to both perspectives.

The clock that was flown in a jet and compared to a clock left on earth showed that the jet clock had less elapsed time than the earth clock. This result logically can't be different according to those on the jet than for those on the ground.

So if I'm understanding correctly, from the Earth twin's perspective, the one in the rocket is younger? From the rocket twin's perspective, the one on Earth is older? And this has been resolved, meaning you can't say speed is subjective to what frame of reference you're in in determining time dilation/length contraction?

**JesseM** · Sep14-09, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by physicsdude30

So if I'm understanding correctly, from the Earth twin's perspective, the one in the rocket is younger? From the rocket twin's perspective, the one on Earth is older? And this has been resolved, meaning you can't say speed is subjective to what frame of reference you're in in determining time dilation/length contraction?

If you pick an inertial frame, then at a point on one twin's worldline when he's far away from the other twin, different frames can disagree on whether the other twin is older or younger (If the rocket twin is moving away from the Earth at constant velocity, then in the Earth's inertial rest frame the rocket twin is aging slower, but in the rocket's inertial rest frame the Earth twin is aging slower). However, if one twin accelerates to turn around after the two twins have been moving apart for a while, so that the two twins can reunite and compare clocks at the same location (not far apart), then all inertial frames agree that whichever twin accelerated will be younger when they reunite.

**Fredrik** · Sep14-09, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by PeterDonis

This statement in the article:
...
is not only false, it's egregiously false.
...
I've read a few articles on Science Daily before and gotten a feeling that they weren't quite all there, without being able to pin it down. Now I *know* they're out to lunch.

I think you're much too kind to it. I'm having a hard time finding strong enough words to express how bad that Science Daily article is. I'm just sitting here with my jaw dropped, shaking my head in disbelief. It was obviously written by someone who doesn't understand anything at all about relativity, someone who doesn't even understand the difference between time dilation and the twin "paradox".

**sylas** · Sep14-09, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Fredrik

I think you're much too kind to it. I'm having a hard time finding strong enough words to express how bad that Science Daily article is. I'm just sitting here with my jaw dropped, shaking my head in disbelief. It was obviously written by someone who doesn't understand anything at all about relativity, someone who doesn't even understand the difference between time dilation and the twin "paradox".

Remember: science daily is pretty much just repeating a university press release. The release itself was probably written by Kak himself or someone at the LSU press office, with Kak's help. The release was also picked up spaceref.com, and at physorg.com, and at eurekalert, and various other such outlets for press releases.

Here is a link to the original press release at LSU.

What really leaves me gobsmacked is that the paper was actually published, in "International Journal of Theoretical Physics". This is what prompted the release, and no doubt encouraged the uncritical acceptance of such nonsense. People normally trust a journal to have at least a basic level of review.

I've got a bit of an interest in how such material gets into a real journal (albeit a low impact journal). It happens from time to time, in various fields; and I'd like to see journals do better at publicly recognizing such a conspicuous failure of their own procedures for maintaining basic quality when it occurs.

Cheers -- sylas

**physicsdude30** · Sep18-09, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by JesseM

It's not like the jets were unmanned! Anyway, are you suggesting that the presence or absence of a human researcher next to a clock might somehow change which of two clocks has elapsed more time?

Hmmm, okay sorry for the confusion. Maybe this slight modification of the Twin Paradox will help you understand what I'm trying to figure out about actual empirical experimentation?

Hypothetically, lets say we have a researcher named Jill. For the first round, Jill stays on Earth for 5 years with the Earthbound twin while the rocket twin goes out. Then Jill writes down in her notebook that the returning rocket twin is younger than the Earthbound Twin. Then for the second round, Jill instead goes up in the rocket with that twin and carries her notebook with her previous notes. The rocket twin and Jill fly into space for five years and return. Obviously her notebook will still say for round one that the rocket twin lost time. However, if motion is relative to individual objects in determining time, Jill's notes will take a spin and say the Earthbound twin had slower time the second round even if the first round had faster time. If motion is relative to something else for determining time then it would seem Jill's notes will still say the rocket twin had slower time when she was with him the second round. If we had a researcher stay on Earth with an Earthbound atomic clock as the jet goes around the world, then the same researcher goes with the jet and jet's atomic clock the second time around, that could rule out if motion is due to individual objects for determining time, or if it really is that way? Does that make sense how I'm suggesting making what ScienceDaily possible to falsify with experiments? No matter how bad an idea may be, I like to think of ways to make it falsifiable.

Did the Twin Paradox get resolved with General Relativity, or was it resolved another time, or what happened? Sorry if I'm a little confused here, I'm just trying to develop an analytic conceptual understanding.