Find the Proper Time Extrema: Twin Paradox Explained

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proper time experienced by two clocks, one thrown upwards and caught back, compared to a stationary clock on Earth. Participants explore the implications of General Relativity (GR) and Special Relativity (SR) in the context of the twin paradox, questioning the conditions under which proper time is maximized or minimized.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the proper time on the thrown clock should be maximized since it follows a geodesic, questioning why this seems contradictory to the twin paradox where the thrown clock shows less time than the stationary clock.
  • Another participant agrees that the thrown clock is on a geodesic and argues that it should indeed maximize proper time, drawing an analogy to the twin paradox.
  • A different viewpoint is presented, stating that the maximization of proper time on geodesics only holds locally in GR, and that two geodesics can meet with different proper time intervals.
  • One participant plans to provide an example from GR where an accelerated clock measures greater elapsed proper time than a non-accelerated clock, challenging the usual SR results.
  • Another participant clarifies the roles of the clocks in the twin paradox, asserting that the earthbound clock is analogous to the thrown clock and that the freely falling clock experiences zero acceleration, thus aging more.
  • This participant also notes that while SR guarantees maximum aging for inertial observers, GR does not guarantee this, as the aging could be maximum, minimum, or a saddle point depending on the scenario.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of GR and SR regarding proper time and the twin paradox. There is no consensus on the resolution of the apparent contradictions, and multiple competing interpretations remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of comparing proper time in different scenarios, particularly the influence of acceleration and the distinction between local and global geodesics in GR.

Ja4Coltrane
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
Quick question:
Suppose I hold two initially synchronized clocks on Earth and throw one up and catch it when it comes back down. Now my (small amount of) knowledge of GR tells me that the proper time on the thrown clock should be maximized since it was on a geodesic.

However, this seems like the twin paradox, and in the twin paradox, the thrown clock shows less time than the stationary clock.

What am I wrong about?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ja4Coltrane said:
Quick question:
Suppose I hold two initially synchronized clocks on Earth and throw one up and catch it when it comes back down. Now my (small amount of) knowledge of GR tells me that the proper time on the thrown clock should be maximized since it was on a geodesic.

However, this seems like the twin paradox, and in the twin paradox, the thrown clock shows less time than the stationary clock.

What am I wrong about?

Thanks in advance!
In the twin paradox, just as in your thought experiment, the clock on geodesic (the twin who stays at home) records a longer time interval than the clock on the distorted path (the twin who flies to a far away star and comes back).
 
Ja4Coltrane said:
Suppose I hold two initially synchronized clocks on Earth and throw one up and catch it when it comes back down. Now my (small amount of) knowledge of GR tells me that the proper time on the thrown clock should be maximized since it was on a geodesic.

However, this seems like the twin paradox, and in the twin paradox, the thrown clock shows less time than the stationary clock.
You are correct. The thrown clock is on a geodesic (provided we measure from just after it leaves the thrower's hand until just before it returns) so the proper time is maximized. This is exactly analogous to the twin paradox since the thrown clock is the one that goes in a "straight" line. It travels inertially and does not measure any proper acceleration.
 
Ja4Coltrane said:
Now my (small amount of) knowledge of GR tells me that the proper time on the thrown clock should be maximized since it was on a geodesic.
I think that only holds in SR. In GR geodesic world lines maximize proper-time only locally. You can also have two geodesics meeting twice with different proper-times intervals in between.

See this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=249722
 
Last edited:
Either tonight or tomorrow, I'll post (some of) the fairly simple details of a GR example for which the usual SR result doesn't hold, i.e., the elapsed proper time between meetings for an accelerated clock is greater than for a non-accelerated (geodesic) clock.

The example consists of two clocks that have same [itex]r[/itex], with one clock in geodesic circular orbit (freely falling with no acceleration) and one clock hovering (accelerated).
 
Ja4Coltrane said:
However, this seems like the twin paradox, and in the twin paradox, the thrown clock shows less time than the stationary clock.

You're misidentifying which clock in the Twin Paradox is the "thrown" clock. In that example, it is the twin that remains on Earth that is analogous to the clock you throw in your own example. In the twin paradox, we are ignoring effects of gravity (which are minimal in any case), so we're really talking about a freely-floating twin (in place of the Earth) and a twin that goes to Vega and accelerates when he gets there. The accelerated twin knows that it was he who accelerated because he feels the acceleration (the acceleration is recorded by an accelerometer, i.e. it causes a mass-on-a-spring to stretch).

In your example, it is the earthbound clock whose accelerometer stretches, while the freely falling clock experiences zero acceleration. Hence the freely falling clock will have the extreme aging.

Note, however, that while in SR you are guaranteed that the inertial observer will have aged by the maximum amount, in GR you are only guaranteed that inertial observers (with no acceleration on their accelerometers) age by extreme amounts. That amount could be maximum, minimum, or even a saddle point. In this example, however, it will indeed be maximum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
7K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
9K
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
11K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 330 ·
12
Replies
330
Views
33K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K