B Error in Einstein's Biography on Twin Paradox?

Vampke
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am reading the biography "Einstein's greatest mistake" from David Bodanis.

On page 39 the author explains some of the consequences of relativity by referring to (although he doesn't mention it by name) the twin paradox. He explains that someone accelerating at high speed away from Earth would see life on Earth passing by very quickly, while someone on Earth observing the man in the rocket would see him moving through time very slowly.

However, I remember reading a popular science book by some or other physician that in both cases one observer would see the other in slow motion and that it is only when one of the two makes a U-turn to catch up with the other that they have had time passing at different rates when they meet up.
Which is the correct interpretation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Vampke said:
He explains that someone accelerating at high speed away from Earth would see life on Earth passing by very quickly, while someone on Earth observing the man in the rocket would see him moving through time very slowly.

It seems like this author is confused. First, the word "accelerating" is unclear: is he talking about a rocket whose engine is constantly on? Or just about someone moving at high speed away from earth, but coasting, not firing a rocket engine to accelerate? I'm going to assume the latter, because that is usually how the twin paradox is presented, and it's a much simpler case to consider.

Vampke said:
in both cases one observer would see the other in slow motion and that it is only when one of the two makes a U-turn to catch up with the other that they have had time passing at different rates when they meet up

This is basically correct. For more details, I suggest the Usenet Physics FAQ article on the twin paradox:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

Note that there is a careful distinction to be drawn between what each observer actually sees (as in, the image in each one's telescope), vs. what they calculate for the coordinates of events in their respective frames of reference. The "Doppler Shift Analysis" page in the article discusses this.
 
I agree with Peter, if this is indeed how it is presented in the book, then the author is confused or not explaining himself very well. If it really was someone accelerating away from Earth and about what that person actually sees, the Earth would become more and more redshifted.

Vampke said:
I remember reading a popular science book by some or other physician
It is likely a language barrier problem, but just to point out that a "physician" is not the same thing as a "physicist".
 
Thanks for the explanation, which confirms what I thought.
The guy from the other book probably had 2 degrees ;)
Clearly I meant to say physicist
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
122
Views
8K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
254
Views
19K
Back
Top