Can Relativity Explain the Confusion of the Twins Paradox?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Twins Paradox and the implications of relativity on aging and time perception between two observers moving at constant velocities relative to each other. Each observer perceives the other's clock as running slower, leading to confusion about who is actually older when they reunite. The resolution lies in understanding that "actual age" can only be determined when both are in the same frame of reference, which is not the case during their separation. The conversation also touches on the constancy of the speed of light, emphasizing that it holds true only in inertial frames, and the complexities introduced by acceleration. Ultimately, the paradox highlights the relativity of simultaneity and the necessity of defining frames of reference to resolve apparent contradictions in time dilation.
  • #121
M1keh said:
Ouch. More maths. :-( ... inevitable I guess.

Ah. Okay. So the \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} is just the start of it and a specialisation of the real formula ?

Ok. Apologies for my ignorance, but the notation used isn't familiar.
t^{\prime}
\gamma (t - v x / c^2) ? Is the \gamma just a shorthand for \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} ?
\gamma is the inverse of that, \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}. Note that I discussed the use of the Lorentz transformation formula, and gave an example, back in the second half of my post #65 earlier on the thread. And as jtbell shows, the length contraction formula can be derived from the Lorentz transformation, as can the other specialized formulas we've discussed like time dilation and the equation that shows how out-of-sync moving clocks will be if they are synchronized in their rest frame.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Wow. Thanks.

Obviously, this will take some time to go through. Should keep me quiet for a while. :-)
 
  • #123
JesseM said:
\gamma is the inverse of that, \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}. Note that I discussed the use of the Lorentz transformation formula, and gave an example, back in the second half of my post #65 earlier on the thread. And as jtbell shows, the length contraction formula can be derived from the Lorentz transformation, as can the other specialized formulas we've discussed like time dilation and the equation that shows how out-of-sync moving clocks will be if they are synchronized in their rest frame.

Thanks folks.

I thought there must have been some details I was missing.

These will take a bit of time to digest. A bit of light reading for tonight :-)
 
  • #124
JesseM said:
You break down the path into units of constant-velocity motion, but you use a single inertial frame to calculate how much time elapses on both the traveling clock and the Earth clock during each unit. No, because again, different inertial frames define simultaneity differently. At the instant of turnaround in the traveling twin's outbound rest frame, the time on Earth might be 2010; but at the instant of turnaround in the traveling twin's inbound rest frame, the time on Earth might be 2020. So, you'd get the wrong answer if you tried to figure out the total time elapsed on Earth between departure and return by saying something like "the ship left Earth in 2005, and in the outbound rest frame only 5 years passed on Earth between the moment of departure and the moment of turnaround, then in the inbound rest frame only 5 more years passed on Earth between the moment of turnaround and the moment of return to earth, therefore Earth's clock will read 2015 at the moment of return." This would miss the discontinuous gap between the Earth's time at the moment of turnaround in the outbound frame and the Earth's time at the moment of turnaround in the inbound frame, due to the two frames defining simultaneity differently--because of this gap, the actual time when the ship returned would be 2020 + 5 = 2025, not 2015 as in the naive calculation. If you stick to a single inertial frame for adding each segment you won't run into this sort of problem. OK, let's say our ship departs Earth and travels at 0.6c for 10 years in the Earth's frame, then turns instantaneously and travels back at 0.6c for another 10 years in the Earth's frame. In the Earth's frame, the time dilation factor is \sqrt{1 - 0.6^2} = 0.8, so the traveling twin's clock will only tick (10 years)*(0.8) = 8 years during the outbound leg, and (10 years)*(0.8) = 8 years during the inbound leg, so when they reunite the Earth's clock will show 20 years have elapsed while the ship's clock only shows 16. Note that both the 10 years and the 0.8 time dilation factor were calculated solely from the perspective of the Earth's inertial frame.

Now let's analyze the problem in a different inertial frame--the frame where the traveling twin is at rest during the outbound leg. In this frame, the Earth will be moving away at a constant speed of 0.6c, while the ship will first be at rest for 8 years, during which time the Earth has moved away a distance of (8 years)*(0.6c) = 4.8 light years, and its clock has advanced by (8 years)*(0.8) = 6.4 years, while the ship's clock has advanced forward by 8 years since it is at rest. Then after 8 years the ship will accelerate instantaneously, and using the velocity addition formula we know its speed in this frame after acceleration will be (0.6c + 0.6c)/(1 + 0.6^2) = 1.2c/1.36 = 0.88235c. Since the Earth is 4.8 light years away but only moving at 0.6c, the time for the ship to catch up can be found by solving for t in 4.8 + 0.6t = 0.88235t, which gives t = 17 years in this frame. During this time, the Earth's time dilation factor will still be 0.8, while the ship's will be \sqrt{1 - 0.88235^2} = 0.4706, so the Earth's clock will have advanced forward by (17 years)*(0.8) = 13.6 years while the ship's clock will have advanced forward by (17 years)*(0.4706) = 8 years. So, by the time the ship catches up to the earth, the Earth's clock will have advanced forward by the 6.4 years of the outbound leg plus the 13.6 years of the inbound leg, while the ship's clock will have advanced by the 8 years of the outbound leg plus the 8 years of the inbound leg. So, we find that the Earth's clock had advanced 20 years while the ship's clock has advanced only 16, just as we found in the Earth's frame.

We could also analyze everything from the point of view of the frame where the ship is at rest during the inbound leg. This will just be the mirror image of how things looked in the outbound rest frame--during the outbound leg, the Earth is moving at 0.6c while the ship is moving at 0.88235c in the same direction, which lasts for 17 years, then the ship instantaneously accelerates and comes to rest while the Earth continues to approach it at 0.6c from a distance of 4.8 light years, catching up to it after 8 years in this frame. And again, in a mirror image of the analysis in the outbound rest frame, the ship's clock elapses (17)*(0.4706) = 8 years during the outbound leg and (8)*(1) = 8 years in the inbound leg, while the Earth's clock elapses (17)*(0.8) = 13.6 years in the outbound leg and (8)*(0.8) = 6.4 years in the inbound leg, so you again predict the ship's clock elapses a total of 16 years while the Earth's clock elapses a total of 20 years.

Now look what would happen if you tried to switch frames in mid-problem, without worrying about simultaneity issues. Start out using the outbound rest frame during the outbound leg, and you'll conclude that at the moment before the ship does its instantaneous acceleration, the ship's clock reads 8 years and the Earth is 4.8 light years away, its clock reading 6.4 years. Now if you switch to the inbound rest frame, and you don't realize that because of the different definition of simultaneity the Earth should "jump" to reading 13.6 years, then you'll mistakenly continue to think that at the beginning of the inbound leg the Earth's clock reads 6.4 years, and since the inbound frame says the ship is at rest during the inbound leg while the Earth is approaching it at 0.6c from 4.8 light years away, in the inbound frame the ship's clock must advance by 8 years during the inbound leg and the Earth's clock must advance by (8)*(0.8) = 6.4 years, so you would conclude the Earth's clock only read 6.4 + 6.4 = 12.8 years when the ship returned? But this answer contradicts the answer you get when you stick to a single inertial frame throughout the problem, whether the Earth rest frame, the inbound rest frame or the outound rest frame; you get the wrong answer if you try to "patch together" different frames in mid-problem this way, without taking into account discontinuous jumps in clock time due to the frames defining simultaneity differently. Although the time dilation factor as measured in a given inertial frame is only a function of a clock's speed in that frame, not its velocity, a frame can only qualify as "inertial" in the first place if it is moving at constant velocity, not just constant speed. So even though the instantaneous acceleration means the traveling twin never changed speeds in the Earth's inertial frame (although he did change speeds in every other inertial frame, like the outbound rest frame), he did not stay at rest in a single inertial frame throughout the journey.

Analyzing the triplets problem wouldn't differ much from the twins problem. Let's again assume that in the Earth's frame, the two traveling triplets move at 0.6c, and turn around after 10 years. In the Earth's frame, each traveling triplet ages (10 years)*(0.8) = 8 years during their outbound legs, and another 8 years during their inbound legs, so that they have both aged 16 years when they return while the Earth twin has aged 20 years.

Now look at things from the perspective of an inertial frame where one of the triplets is at rest during the oubound leg. In this frame, for the first 8 years this triplet (call him A) will be at rest, while the earth-triplet (call him B) is moving away at 0.6c and the third triplet (call him C) is moving away at (0.6c + 0.6c)/(1 + 0.6^2) = 0.88235c. Since C's clock is ticking slow by a factor of 0.4706 in this frame, and he won't accelerate until 8 years have passed on his own clock, he won't turn around until 8/0.4706 = 17 years have passed in this frame; when he does turn around, he'll be at rest in this frame, and at this moment the distance between him and the Earth is (17 years)*(0.88235c - 0.6c) = 4.8 light years. The Earth will continue to approach him at 0.6c after this point, reaching him after an additional 4.8/0.6 = 8 years in this frame. And when A turns around after 8 years, he is now moving in the direction of the Earth at 0.88235c, with the Earth having moved a distance of (8 years)*(0.6c) = 4.8 light years in those 8 years. The time for A to catch up to the Earth is given by 4.8 + 0.6t = 0.88235t, or 17 years. So in this frame A starts out at rest, accelerates after 8 years, then takes another 17 years to catch up to earth, while C starts out at high speed, accelerates to rest after 17 years, and then the Earth takes an another 8 years to catch up to him, meaning all three twins reunite after 25 years have passed in this frame.

So now let's figure out how much time has passed on each twin's clock after 8 years, after 17 years, and after 25 years in this frame, using this frame's values of the speeds and time dilation factors.

Between departure and 8 years:
-twin A has been at rest, so 8 years have passed on his clock
-twin B has been moving at 0.6c, giving a time dilation factor of 0.8, so (8 years)*(0.8) = 6.4 years have passed on his clock.
-twin C has been moving at 0.88235c, giving a time dilation factor of 0.4706, so (8 years)*(0.4706) = 3.765 years have passed on his clock.

Between 8 years and 17 years:
-twin A has been moving at 0.88235c, so in the 17-8=9 years of this section, (9 years)*(0.4706) = 4.235 additional years have passed on his clock.
-twin B has been moving at 0.6c, so (9 years)*(0.8) = 7.2 additional years have passed on his clock.
-twin C has been moving at 0.88235c, so 4.235 additional years have passed on his clock.

Between 17 years and 25 years:
-twin A has been moving at 0.88235c, so in the 25-17=8 years of this section, (8 years)*(0.4706) = 3.765 additional years have passed on his clock.
-twin B has been moving at 0.6c, so (8 years)*(0.8) = 6.4 additional years have passed on his clock.
-twin C has been at rest, so 8 additional years have passed on his clock.

If you add all these up, you again find that 20 years passed on twin B's clock while 16 years passed on both A and C's clocks between the beginning and end of the journey; also, twin A and C's clocks each registered 8 years before they turned around and 8 years after. This got a bit complicated, so let me know if there's any steps you don't follow.

Just noticed something.

If, from A's f.o.r, in the first 8 years A is stationery and B is 0.6c, then the furthest distance between A and B, according to A is 4.8 ly ? According to B this is 8 ly ? So did A reach his destination 8 ly from B or not ?

He would have had to measure his distance from B as 6.4 ly to have reached the destination ?
 
  • #125
M1keh said:
Just noticed something.

If, from A's f.o.r, in the first 8 years A is stationery and B is 0.6c, then the furthest distance between A and B, according to A is 4.8 ly ? According to B this is 8 ly ? So did A reach his destination 8 ly from B or not ?

He would have had to measure his distance from B as 6.4 ly to have reached the destination ?
Remember that in the frame of B (the Earth-twin) the traveling twin A was moving away for 10 years instead of 8. So, with their relative speed being 0.6c, the B sees A move 6 light years away before reaching the destination, not 8 light years. In A's frame, this distance is Lorentz-contracted to 6*0.8 = 4.8 light years, so it's consistent.
 
  • #126
Doh. Fools rush in ! Thanks.
 
  • #127
JesseM said:
Remember that in the frame of B (the Earth-twin) the traveling twin A was moving away for 10 years instead of 8. So, with their relative speed being 0.6c, the B sees A move 6 light years away before reaching the destination, not 8 light years. In A's frame, this distance is Lorentz-contracted to 6*0.8 = 4.8 light years, so it's consistent.

Ok. I'm not giving up ...

Instead of journeys out from Earth, how about the same measurements but two travellers traveling towards Earth at 0.6c from two satellites 6ly away from Earth ?

How do the figures work then ??

Now all three start in Earth time so they can synchronise watches ? The travellers instantly accelerate to 0.6c and measure the distances, in their new f.o.r.'s

A will see B as 4.8 ly away and C as 9.6 ly away ?
C will see B as 4.8 ly away and A as 9.6 ly away ?
B will see A as 6 ly away and C as 6 ly away ?

All three view themselves as remaining stationery in their new f.o.r ?

From A's f.o.r :

First 8 years.
* A will remain stationery for 8 years.
* B will travel at 0.6 and his watch will show 0.8 * 8years = 6.4 years and he will have traveled 0.6*8 = 4.8ly.
* C will travel at (0.6+0.6)/(1+0.6^2) = 0.88235c and will travel 0.88235*8 = 7.06 ly. Watch will have moved 3.765 years.

Now, B's watch must be 1.6 years earlier than A's, C's watch must be 4.235 years before A's and C won't have reached A ?


What's wrong ?
 
  • #128
M1keh said:
Ok. I'm not giving up ...

Instead of journeys out from Earth, how about the same measurements but two travellers traveling towards Earth at 0.6c from two satellites 6ly away from Earth ?

How do the figures work then ??

Now all three start in Earth time so they can synchronise watches ? The travellers instantly accelerate to 0.6c and measure the distances, in their new f.o.r.'s

A will see B as 4.8 ly away and C as 9.6 ly away ?
C will see B as 4.8 ly away and A as 9.6 ly away ?
B will see A as 6 ly away and C as 6 ly away ?
That's right.

edit: sorry, that's actually not quite right. In the frame of reference where A is at rest after acceleration, it's true that C was 9.6 light years from A before either C or A accelerated. However, in this frame C accelerated well before A (see below), so at the moment A accelerates C has already been traveling towards B for some time, so the distance is smaller. Something analogous is true in the frame where C is at rest after accelerating.
M1keh said:
All three view themselves as remaining stationery in their new f.o.r ?

From A's f.o.r :

First 8 years.
* A will remain stationery for 8 years.
* B will travel at 0.6 and his watch will show 0.8 * 8years = 6.4 years and he will have traveled 0.6*8 = 4.8ly.
Yes.
M1keh said:
* C will travel at (0.6+0.6)/(1+0.6^2) = 0.88235c
Right.
M1keh said:
and will travel 0.88235*8 = 7.06 ly. Watch will have moved 3.765 years.
This part is wrong, you're forgetting that in this frame, although C was 4.8 ly from B at the moment before it accelerated, after it accelerates B is still moving away from it at 0.6c, so C is only gaining on B at a speed of 0.88235c - 0.6c = 0.28235c. Also, because of the relativity of simultaneity, C accelerated much earlier than A in this frame.

The main thing you're forgetting is that even though all their clocks were synchronized at the moment of acceleration in the Earth's inertial rest frame, in the inertial rest frame where A is at rest after the acceleration, the three clocks were not synchronized at the moment A accelerated, because of the relativity of simultaneity. If you don't want to use the full Lorentz transform, you can use the formula vx/c^2 to figure out how out-of-sync the clocks are before any of them accelerate, in the frame where A is at rest after acceleration: here, x is the distance between two synchronized clocks in their own rest frame, and v is their velocity in your frame. Since A and B are 6 ly apart in their mutal rest frame before acceleration, in a frame moving at 0.6c relative to them, B will be ahead of A by (0.6c)(6 ly)/c^2 = 3.6 years. Likewise, C will be ahead of B by a constant factor of 3.6 years until it accelerates, in this frame. So since C accelerates when its own clock reads 0, in this frame A's clock read -7.2 years at the moment C accelerated. And since A's clock is ticking at 0.8 the normal rate until it accelerates, it takes 7.2/0.8 = 9 years in this frame before A's clock reads 0, at which point B's clock reads 3.6 years. Since C has been moving at 0.88235 c during these nine years, C's clock has been moving at 0.4706 the normal rate, so it only moved by 9*0.4706 = 4.235 years. It read 0 at the beginning of the 9 years, so it now reads 4.235 years.

So, in this frame, when A accelerates and comes to rest, A reads 0, B reads 3.6 years, and C reads 4.235 years. It takes 8 years for B to reach A in this frame, so during that time A ticks at the normal rate and advances to 0 + 8 = 8 years, B ticks at 0.8 times the normal rate and advances to 3.6 + 0.8*8 = 10 years, and C ticks at 0.4706 times the normal rate and advances to 4.235 + 0.4706*8 = 8 years. This is the point where they all meet, and the predictions about each one's clock-reading when they meet is the same as what you'd predict in the Earth's rest frame.
 
Last edited:
  • #129
Need to think about this some more ...

Yes. That does follow :

Following the same rules, if A, B and C all accelerate to 0.6c in the same direction, they will no longer be showing a synchronised time ? If A is 0y, B will be +3.6y and C will be +7.2y ?

Is this correct ?
 
Last edited:
  • #130
M1keh said:
Following the same rules, if A, B and C all accelerate to 0.6c in the same direction
I assume you mean they were originally synchronized in their mutual rest frame before accelerating, and they all accelerate "at the same time"? But "at the same time" according to which frame's definition of simultaneity? Do they all accelerate at the same time in the frame where they were initially at rest, or in the frame where they come to rest after accelerating?
M1hek said:
they will no longer be showing a synchronised time ? If A is 0y, B will be +3.6y and C will be +7.2y ?
If they all accelerate at the same time in the frame where they are at rest after accelerating, then since they were each out-of-sync with their neighbor by 3.6 years before accelerating (when they were all moving at 0.6c in this frame), and since their clocks will all speed up simultaneously when they come to rest in this frame, they will remain out-of-sync by the same amount. If they were all moving in the direction of A in this frame, so A was at the front and C was at the back, then your figures would be right. On the other hand, if they were all moving in the direction of C, then if A was 0y, B would be -3.6y and C would be -7.2 years--the clock in the back is the one whose time is ahead of the clock in the front.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
10K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
6K