Geodesic applied to twins paradox

[Loren Booda]

Regarding the twins paradox: do all closed trajectories require nonzero acceleration at some point, or can a closed geodesic fulfill overall the special relativistic requirement of constant velocity?

 

[mendocino]

Regarding the twins paradox: do all closed trajectories require nonzero acceleration at some point, or can a closed geodesic fulfill overall the special relativistic requirement of constant velocity?

I don't understand what's "closed geodesic"?
Does "closed geodesic" mean you can travel backward in time?

 

[Chris Hillman]

Huh?

Regarding the twins paradox: do all closed trajectories require nonzero acceleration at some point, or can a closed geodesic fulfill overall the special relativistic requirement of constant velocity?

Are you by any chance referring to accelerating observers who move in circular orbits in flat spacetime, and whose world lines can be visualized as helices on a "cylinder"?

I don't understand what's "closed geodesic"?
Does "closed geodesic" mean you can travel backward in time?

My guess is that he meant "closed trajectory", as in, the projection of a helical world line to a spatial hyperslice giving a circular trajectory.

 

[pervect]

I take it you want to find the path of maximum aging between two events in space-time?

It is necessary that such a path be a geodesic, but it is not sufficient. It may help to consider the example of finding the shortest distance between two points on a curved surface, which is mathematically rather similar to finding the path of longest time in relativity.

Such a "shortest distance" path will also be a geodesic, but it's possible to find examples in which a given geodesic between two points is not the shortest path connecting them. For instance, consider two towns with a mountain between them. There is a geodesic path that connects the two towns that goes over the mountain top, but it is not the shortest distance between the two towns. In this example, there is a shorter path that goes around the mountain. The absolute shortest path will be a geodesic path that goes around the mountain, but a non-geodesic path going around the mountain can still be shorter than the geodesic path that goes over the top of the mountain.

 

[Loren Booda]

Thank you for your examples, pervect. Actually, I am asking whether any twins paradox can be considered using special relativity alone. All closed Euclidean paths, including a trip to "planet X" and back, somewhere require relative acceleration of twin A's trajectory to that of twin B. Unless, perhaps, where the twins remain on a common spacetime geodesic, which represents free fall (zero relative acceleration?) and can satisfy the parameters given by the problem. But in this latter, general relativistic case, would there remain any paradox?

 

[pervect]

If your space-time is essentially flat, then with proper care you can use SR to find the answer to any twin paradox problems.

However, if your space-time is not flat (for instance, if you have gravitational fields), then in general you can't use SR but must use GR to deal with the twin paradox.

The fact that space-time is not in general flat is what motivated my example of distances on a curved surfaces. Flat space-time is equivalent to SR, and non-flat space-time must be treated by GR.

 

[Loren Booda]

Can you think of a closed path in flat spacetime on which a traveler would not undergo acceleration - or can all accelerations in flat spacetime be treated by SR?

 

[pervect]

Can you think of a closed path in flat spacetime on which a traveler would not undergo acceleration - or can all accelerations in flat spacetime be treated by SR?

If you have the right (or wrong) sort of global topology, it is possible to have a closed geodesic path even in a flat space-time (one with a zero curvature tensor).

I believe there are some past threads written about the twin paradox in this sort of topology, but I don't recall at the moment where they are. Garth has posted on the topic before, IIRC, that might help find the previous threads (or perhaps he'll read this and give us the info).

 

[Dale]

Can you think of a closed path in flat spacetime on which a traveler would not undergo acceleration - or can all accelerations in flat spacetime be treated by SR?

Accelerations in flat spacetime can easily be handled by SR. In the case of the twin paradox, however, you don't even have to explicitly handle the acceleration. All you need to do is to calculate the spacetime interval along the path. For timelike spacetime intervals the interval is equal to the proper time of a clock traveling along the interval.

 

[KingOrdo]

Perhaps this is relevant to the conversation: Some time ago I posted the following question:

X and Y reside in the 3-sphere.

Y is accelerated to near the speed of light; say, 0.9c. He does not ever change direction. In a little while, he meets X, who happens to be residing on the great circle upon which Y is traveling. When they meet, they give each other high-fives. At that moment, the two are identical twins (Y was suitably younger prior to his acceleration).

Y continues along his great circle, unaccelerated, and therefore in an inertial frame. X is similarly in an inertial frame. In a little while, they meet again. When they high-five for a second time, which is younger?

From the moment they high-fived for the first time, neither has undergone any accelerations; yet my understanding is that the reason the Twin Paradox can be resolved in the canonical case is that one of the twins underwent acceleration (when his spaceship turned around to come back to Earth, say), and that is why there is an asymmetry between the two twins. But in this case there seems to be no difference, and it really is as accurate to say that X's time dilates with respect to Y as it is to say that Y's time dilates with respect to X.

Now, I did manage to find this paper on the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503070, and it seems to address the problem by claiming that the topological characteristics of the universe will identify a preferred reference frame; i.e. either X or Y is "preferred", and so the symmetry will be broken. But isn't this a violation of the equivalence principle? Does this indicate a theoretical inconsistency in relativity, or am I missing something?

The thread was quickly filled with a lot of confused responses. And indeed, upon looking into the literature it became apparent that the issue remains unresolved. In fact, I e-mailed a few physicists (one a prominent relativist), and got totally different "answers". So it seems the Twin Paradox remains an open and confounding problem in (at least) the complex cases.

 

[Dale]

On a 2-sphere the path-length between two points is the same for any geodesic that contains those two points. I would assume that the same is true for a 3-sphere. That would imply that they would be the same age when they met up again.

More interesting would be a torus where different geodesics between the same point can have different path lengths. In any case, as long as you can calculate the spacetime interval traversed for each twin you can unambiguously determine which is older.

 

[jcsd]

On a 2-sphere the path-length between two points is the same for any geodesic that contains those two points. I would assume that the same is true for a 3-sphere. That would imply that they would be the same age when they met up again.

More interesting would be a torus where different geodesics between the same point can have different path lengths. In any case, as long as you can calculate the spacetime interval traversed for each twin you can unambiguously determine which is older.

For two non-antipodal points on a sphere (i.e. a 2-sphere) there is a unique great circle on which both points sit. The two points divide the great circle into two segments of differing lengths, both these segments represent different geodesic paths of different path lenghts between the two points.

Of course our we must consider a geodesic in 4 dimenisonal spacetime of which our 3-sphere is only a spatial slice, but the 2-sphere analogy hints correctly at the answer. The two twins who are both free-falling observers can experince different proper times between two events that lie on both their worldlines.

Though from a local point of view the twins seem to be symmetric (i.e. they are both free-falling obserevers), there is a global assymetry between them that produces the difference in the proper time they observe.

to KingOrdo: yes there is a degree of confusion about this among some, but that doesn't mean there is an unresolved paradox.At a guess, one way in which the global assymetry might manifest itself is that if the two twins would construct different spatial slices for themsleves with different spatial geometries even if they used the same technique to construct them. Another way is that twins may experince different anistropies in the distribution of mass-energy.

 

[Dale]

For two non-antipodal points on a sphere (i.e. a 2-sphere) there is a unique great circle on which both points sit. The two points divide the great circle into two segments of differing lengths, both these segments represent different geodesic paths of different path lenghts between the two points.

Doh! You are absolutely correct. I was only thinking of antipodal points, I was not thinking about going "the long way around" with non-antipodal points.

 

[pervect]

This general topic has been discussed before, for one example see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=51197

A quote which I think sums up the affair nicely is due to robphy:

As I alluded to before, the Principle of Relativity is a local statement.

"the relativity principle: local physics is governed by the theory of special relativity."
That is to say, "experiments done in an inertial `lab' can't distinguish themselves".

Since the "universe" in this scenario is not topologically R4, we are not dealing with Special Relativity any more. We should not expect everything from SR to carry over to here.

So the basis of SR is still the same - it's still a local statement, and in a local environment (which one can think of as a small lab for a short time) the principles of SR apply just as they have always done.

There may be other threads here on PF and elsewhere (which one can find by searchig for "cosmological twin paradox") but this one has a lot of links to the literature, which in my mind is a definite plus. This may take more work to read, of course.

 

[jcsd]

I think the cosmological twins pardox is quite easy to resolve as long as you recognize the follwing:

a) there can be geodesic paths of different lengths between two points as seen from the simple examples of the sphere and pervect's 'moutnain' example.

b) the conditions for there to be geodesic paths of different length between two points are actually very weak as again illusrated by the simple examples. These conditons are certainly too weak to be imposed on GR.

c) free falling observers have worldines which are geodesic paths in spacetime.

d) the path length of an obsevers worldline between two events is the proper time experinced by that observer.

As long as you recognise these four relatively simple statements then soemthing like the cosmological twin paradox is not a problem.

I think I first heard about the cosmological twin paradox in the very thread that Pervect has linked to above, but the explanations were clear enough for me to see immediately that it isjust another one of those apparent but false paradoxes that occur in relativity.

 

[jcsd]

The title of this thread is "Geodesic applied to twins paradox"
The "twins paradox" is supposed to be in flat spacetime
So the question is, can there be geodesic paths of different lengths between two points in flat spacetime?

My last post was about the cosmological twin paradox which is a general relativistic varaition on the twin paradox.

In special relativity there is only one geodesic path between any two events, so what I've said simply does not apply. The resolution of the vanilla (that is the original special relativistic version) twin paradox comes from recognising the worldine of one of the twins is not a geodesic path in spacetime.

The difference then between the vanilla and cosmological twin paradox is that in the vanilla twin paradox it is the curvature of one of the twins paths that breaks the symmetry between them, in the cosmological twin paradox it is the curvature of spacetime that breaks the symmetry between the twins.

 

[KingOrdo]

There is a thread, about a year old, that discusses the twin paradox in weird geometries. There are a lot of links to the arXiv there, and in fact the papers cited have some excellent precis of the problem.

Some people may tell you to take it on faith that the paradox can be resolved without difficulty in these geometries. But I'm not one for faith-based arguments. I did some digging into the literature and e-mailed several physicists (one a prominent relativist who got his Ph.D. under Wheeler). They each gave me a different "answer" to the problem (though one admittedly flatly he had no idea how to resolve it). Objectively, it appears the paradox persists and is an outstanding and important question.

 

[Dale]

As long as you can compute the spacetime interval along the various geodesics connecting the two events I don't see what could possibly be paradoxical. The one with the larger spacetime interval will have experienced the greatest proper time.

I'm not one for faith-based assertions that there is a paradox either.

EDIT: IMO the easiest way to resolve the twin paradox in SR is not by virtue of the acceleration but by virtue of the spacetime interval. Although the acceleration breaks the symmetry, acceleration by itself doesn't cause time dilation, so it gets confusing to students.

 

[Garth]

The paradox is that according to the principle of 'non-preferred frames of reference' it is impossible to decide between the two geodesic paths from one event to another which one it is that has the longer elapsed proper time without referring to the 'outside' distribution of matter that determines the space-time in which the geodesics lie.

The paradox is real in GR IMHO and can only be resolved by recognition of the Machian concept.

Garth

 

[Dale]

it is impossible to decide between the two geodesic paths from one event to another which one it is that has the longer elapsed proper time without referring to the 'outside' distribution of matter that determines the space-time in which the geodesics lie.

Really? On a 2-sphere it is unambiguous which great-circle (geodesic) between any two non-antipodal points is the longest. No reference to anything external is required, it is inherent in the geometry on the 2-sphere. Why is it different in GR?

 

[Garth]

You, A, are in a freely falling closed lab which is small enough for the equivalence principle to apply, i.e. undetectable tidal forces. Another freely falling observer, B, travels through at high speed and you both set your clocks at that first encounter.

Of course B thinks that you have passed through her lab at high speed.

The topology of space-time and the mutual paths are such that at some time later you both pass through a second close encounter.

All the time both observers are in free fall.

Each observer, without knowledge of the outside distribution of matter and therefore the curvature of space-time think that they are the inertial observer who experiences the greater lapse of proper time between encounters.

Yet which one actually does experience the greatest lapse of proper time, A or B?

The case of the 2-sphere is an ideal illustration of the paradox, for without knowledge of the outside topology and the distribution of matter that causes that curvature the two observers on the two great circle geodesics will not be able to tell which is which.

Of course once the global topology is known the paradox is resolved, but I maintain that that is a demonstration of a facet of Mach's Principle, i.e. that it is possible to choose a 'preferred inertial frame' (defined by greatest proper time elapse) by reference to the distribution of mass in motion in the rest of the universe.

Garth

 

[Dale]

Of course once the global topology is known the paradox is resolved

OK, so no paradox. To insist that ignorance causes a real paradox seems patently ridiculous to me.

 

[jcsd]

There is a thread, about a year old, that discusses the twin paradox in weird geometries. There are a lot of links to the arXiv there, and in fact the papers cited have some excellent precis of the problem.

Some people may tell you to take it on faith that the paradox can be resolved without difficulty in these geometries. But I'm not one for faith-based arguments. I did some digging into the literature and e-mailed several physicists (one a prominent relativist who got his Ph.D. under Wheeler). They each gave me a different "answer" to the problem (though one admittedly flatly he had no idea how to resolve it). Objectively, it appears the paradox persists and is an outstanding and important question.

All I can say there is a solution, it's diffciult to say anymore if you don't make concrete objections to it. I can't agree or disagree with you when you've said you've e-mailed so-and-so and they've said such-and-such. I don't know.

 

[pervect]

There is a thread, about a year old, that discusses the twin paradox in weird geometries. There are a lot of links to the arXiv there, and in fact the papers cited have some excellent precis of the problem.

Some people may tell you to take it on faith that the paradox can be resolved without difficulty in these geometries. But I'm not one for faith-based arguments. I did some digging into the literature and e-mailed several physicists (one a prominent relativist who got his Ph.D. under Wheeler). They each gave me a different "answer" to the problem (though one admittedly flatly he had no idea how to resolve it). Objectively, it appears the paradox persists and is an outstanding and important question.

The fact that two people give you different explanations of the same physics problem does not indicate that there is a paradox. It only indicates that there are multiple ways to work a particular problem. In the case of popularizations, it also means that people use different analogies to describe the same problem, because many/most popularizations are based on analogies rather than on a detailed mathematical analysis.

A true paradox would arise only if one got different results to an identical problem A pseudo-paradox arises when people make different assumptions about an ambiguously stated problem and get different results. Other pseudo-paradoxes arise when one gets a result that is initally seen as "surprising" or non-intuitive. The cosmological twin paradox is in this category of pseudo-paradoxes.

King Ordo has not even given a prima-facia case about there being any sort of true paradox with the so-called cosmological twin paradox. His complaint seems to be that the literature is confusing (arguably true). It appears that he may be suggesting that relativity is self-inconsistent because the literature is confusing. If this is in fact what he's saying, his argument does not appear to be based on logic.

 

[jcsd]

You, A, are in a freely falling closed lab which is small enough for the equivalence principle to apply, i.e. undetectable tidal forces. Another freely falling observer, B, travels through at high speed and you both set your clocks at that first encounter.

Of course B thinks that you have passed through her lab at high speed.

The topology of space-time and the mutual paths are such that at some time later you both pass through a second close encounter.

All the time both observers are in free fall.

Each observer, without knowledge of the outside distribution of matter and therefore the curvature of space-time think that they are the inertial observer who experiences the greater lapse of proper time between encounters.

Yet which one actually does experience the greatest lapse of proper time, A or B?

The case of the 2-sphere is an ideal illustration of the paradox, for without knowledge of the outside topology and the distribution of matter that causes that curvature the two observers on the two great circle geodesics will not be able to tell which is which.

Of course once the global topology is known the paradox is resolved, but I maintain that that is a demonstration of a facet of Mach's Principle, i.e. that it is possible to choose a 'preferred inertial frame' (defined by greatest proper time elapse) by reference to the distribution of mass in motion in the rest of the universe.

Garth

What you've said is interesting, but I'd say imagine our 2-sphere again. All the observers really know is that there exists a closed geodesic path. Why? Because the total journey of the two of them has traversed it.

Assuming they know they know they're living on a Riemannian manifold all they now know is that they live on a Riemannian manifold with that contians a geodesic path that is closed. Such closed geodesic paths occur on Riemannian manifolds with an infinite variety of topologies.

As I've said on another thread just today the existace of preferred frame in big bang cosmology is because we've postualted one, by postulating the cosmological principle. Varieties of the cosmological twin paradox can occur in spaectimes which do not have globally preferred frames, so it's existence should not be used for support of Mach's principle.

 

[Dale]

Other pseudo-paradoxes arise when one gets a result that is initally seen as "surprising" or non-intuitive. The cosmological twin paradox is in this category of pseudo-paradoxes.

IMO, this barely even rises to the level of a pseudo-paradox. A geodesic is only a local extremum of the interval, so this is no more surprising to me than is the concept of local v. global extrema in any field.

 

[KingOrdo]

All I can say there is a solution, it's diffciult to say anymore if you don't make concrete objections to it. I can't agree or disagree with you when you've said you've e-mailed so-and-so and they've said such-and-such. I don't know.

A fair point. Here is a link to the previous thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=159409 Citations to the literature are contained within (most papers are on the arXiv).

The fact that two people give you different explanations of the same physics problem does not indicate that there is a paradox. It only indicates that there are multiple ways to work a particular problem. In the case of popularizations, it also means that people use different analogies to describe the same problem, because many/most popularizations are based on analogies rather than on a detailed mathematical analysis.

A true paradox would arise only if one got different results to an identical problem A pseudo-paradox arises when people make different assumptions about an ambiguously stated problem and get different results. Other pseudo-paradoxes arise when one gets a result that is initally seen as "surprising" or non-intuitive. The cosmological twin paradox is in this category of pseudo-paradoxes.

Well, sort of. I only use the term 'paradox' because that's how this problem is commonly described: The Twin Paradox. Whether it's a true paradox, an antinomy, or just a point of uncertainty I'm not sure. I'm not prepared to make that distinction.

However, the literature makes clear that this is an outstanding problem in physics. Professional physicsts claim that a new, interesting problem is raised when you generalize the twin paradox to weird geometries. There are different proposed resolutions to the problem. These proposed resolutions are incommensurable. That is plainly something that we must concern ourselves with.

King Ordo has not even given a prima-facia case about there being any sort of true paradox with the so-called cosmological twin paradox. His complaint seems to be that the literature is confusing (arguably true). It appears that he may be suggesting that relativity is self-inconsistent because the literature is confusing. If this is in fact what he's saying, his argument does not appear to be based on logic.

Quite the opposite. The literature is illuminating and perspicuous. And why would relativity be "self-inconsistent" (whatever that means).

The prima facie case is given, and discussed at length, in the original thread (link given above).

 

[Dale]

Here is a link to the previous thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=159409

The paradox was resolved by post #5 of that thread.

 

[KingOrdo]

The paradox was resolved by post #5 of that thread.

You are entitled to your opinion. Some professional physicists disagree (cf., e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0006039 and http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606559).

 

[Dale]

Disagreement in the literature does not imply paradox, nor does it imply that the matter is an outstanding, important, or unresolved problem.

 

[KingOrdo]

Disagreement in the literature does not imply paradox, nor does it imply that the matter is an outstanding, important, or unresolved problem.

Yes, it does. If you do not understand why I cannot help you further.

 

[Dale]

Do you realize that the only unresolved argument you have of this being a paradox is your repeated appeals to authority? If you do not understand why appeal to authority is a logical fallacy then I cannot help you either.

 

[Garth]

Barrow & Levin's paper The twin paradox in compact spaces discusses the paradox.

Twins traveling at constant relative velocity will each see the other's time dilate leading to the apparent paradox that each twin believes the other ages more slowly. In a finite space, the twins can both be on inertial, periodic orbits so that they have the opportunity to compare their ages when their paths cross. As we show, they will agree on their respective ages and avoid the paradox. The resolution relies on the selection of a preferred frame singled out by the topology of the space.

(emphasis mine)

As I have said above, the resolution of the paradox requires an knowledge of the external topology of the space.

The topology of the space is normally determined in GR by the distribution of matter and energy within it.

There is a question of whether exotic topologies, which can be imposed on top of the curvature so determined, can exist in the real universe, or only in the mathematician's mind.

In the latter case the resolution of the paradox would depend on knowledge of the distribution of matter and energy in the rest of the universe.

A resolution that I would argue is Machian in nature.

Garth

 

[jcsd]

Barrow & Levin's paper The twin paradox in compact spaces discusses the paradox.(emphasis mine)

As I have said above, the resolution of the paradox requires an external knowledge of the topology of the space.

The topology of the space is normally determined in GR by the distribution of matter and energy within it.

There is a question of whether exotic topologies, which can be imposed on top of the curvature so determined, can exist in the real universe, or only in the mathematician's mind.

In the latter case the resolution of the paradox would depend on knowledge of the distribution of matter and energy in the rest of the universe.

A resolution that I would argue is Machian in nature.

Garth

I was thinking of non-compact spaces. Something along the lines of a wormhole in a non-comapct space.

More later.

 

[KingOrdo]

Do you realize that the only unresolved argument you have of this being a paradox is your repeated appeals to authority? If you do not understand why appeal to authority is a logical fallacy then I cannot help you either.

No. Again, check the arXiv (the links I provided, or the excellent precis cited by Garth) or the extensive discussion in the other thread.

 

[Garth]

Let me give a realistic gedanken example, which is realistic in the sense that it can be constructed in standard GR cosmology without any exotic topologies, worm holes etc.

Consider a model with greater than closure density, \Omega_{Total}> 1, in the slowly contracting phase of its history. (You may have to introduce enough DE so the universe is small enough to circumnavigate yet only slowly contracting.)

Consider deep intergalactic space far away from local gravitational fields where the typical density is that of the cosmological average so only cosmological curvature is significant.

Twin inertial observers, Alice and Bob, pass close by each other at high mutual velocity, each thinking they are at rest and the other is traveling fast. They set their (identical) clocks at the first encounter.

Their paths cross again at a second close encounter after one of them has circumnavigated the universe, but which one; is it Alice or is it Bob?

The topological answer is the one that circumnavigates the universe is the one with the greater ‘winding number’, but both Alice and Bob think their winding number is zero and the other’s is one.

The only way to work out which one is actually circumnavigating the universe and will actually experience the greater lapse of proper time between encounters is by referring to the distribution of matter and its average momentum in the rest of the universe - a Machian-type resolution.
Garth

 

[robphy]

Let me give a realistic gedanken example, which is realistic in the sense that it can be constructed in standard GR cosmology without any exotic topologies, worm holes etc.

Consider a model with greater than closure density, \Omega_{Total}> 1, in the slowly contracting phase of its history. (You may have to introduce enough DE so the universe is small enough to circumnavigate yet only slowly contracting.)

Consider deep intergalactic space far away from local gravitational fields where the typical density is that of the cosmological average so only cosmological curvature is significant.

Twin inertial observers, Alice and Bob, pass close by each other at high mutual velocity, each thinking they are at rest and the other is traveling fast. They set their (identical) clocks at the first encounter.

Their paths cross again at a second close encounter after one of them has circumnavigated the universe, but which one; is it Alice or is it Bob?

The topological answer is the one that circumnavigates the universe is the one with the greater ‘winding number’, but both Alice and Bob think their winding number is zero and the other’s is one.

Why would "both Alice and Bob think their winding number is zero and the other’s is one"?
In an earlier thread (mention by pervect in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1535007#post1535007), they can exchange light signals and (after waiting sufficiently long , possibly before they meet) distinguish themselves based on the reception of light signals. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=367371#post367371

The only way to work out which one is actually circumnavigating the universe and will actually experience the greater lapse of proper time between encounters is by referring to the distribution of matter and its average momentum in the rest of the universe - a Machian-type resolution.

Garth

Well... the simplest and most direct measurement is that each can look at their wristwatches at the meeting events... i.e. the proper time elapsed on their respective worldlines. No matter sources needed.

 

[Garth]

Why would "both Alice and Bob think their winding number is zero and the other’s is one"?

Because without reference to the rest of the universe each thinks that they are stationary and the other moving.

In an earlier thread (mention by pervect in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1535007#post1535007), they can exchange light signals and (after waiting sufficiently long , possibly before they meet) distinguish themselves based on the reception of light signals. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=367371#post367371

Measuring the time taken for their light beam to circumnavigate the universe and return to them is one way of probing the mass and momentum distribution of the rest of the universe, because the topology that determines the outcome of the experiment is itself determined by that distribution.

Well... the simplest and most direct measurement is that each can look at their wristwatches at the meeting events... i.e. the proper time elapsed on their respective worldlines. No matter sources needed.

Of course only one observer will measure the greatest time elapse, but the only way to determine beforehand which one that will be is to look at the rest of the universe.

See Uzan et al. paper
Twin paradox and space topology

Thus in Friedmann–Lemaıtre universes, (i) the expansion of the universe and (ii) the existence of a non–trivial topology for the constant time hypersurfaces both break the Poincare invariance and single out the same “privileged” inertial observer who will age more quickly than any other twin: the one comoving with the cosmic fluid – although aging more quickly than all her traveling sisters may be not a real privilege!

(emphasis mine)

To distinguish the "privileged" observer requires knowing the 4-vector of the cosmic fluid.

Garth

 

[robphy]

Why would "both Alice and Bob think their winding number is zero and the other’s is one"?

Because without reference to the rest of the universe each thinks that they are stationary and the other moving.

I don't think either of them can say anything about their winding number...without global information about the spacetime.

Measuring the time taken for their light beam to circumnavigate the universe and return to them is one way of probing the mass and momentum distribution of the rest of the universe, because the topology that determines the outcome of the experiment is itself determined by that distribution.

Two vacuum (i.e. zero stress energy) spacetimes can have different topologies... e.g. Minkowski and the cylindrical-Minkowski. So, matter plays no role in determining the topologies of these spacetimes.

 

[Garth]

I don't think either of them can say anything about their winding number...without global information about the spacetime.

If each thinks they are stationary then each believes that they are not the one circumnavigating the universe.

Two vacuum (i.e. zero stress energy) spacetimes can have different topologies... e.g. Minkowski and the cylindrical-Minkowski. So, matter plays no role in determining the topologies of these spacetimes.

It is the cylindrical-Minkowski that I would consider to be unphysical, i.e. not realisable in any "real" universe, because of this paradox.

Garth

 

[lightarrow]

Sorry if I "dare" expressing my opinion about such difficult subject; I want to remark it's just an opinion.

Maybe, the cosmological Twin Paradox could be resolved if it would be possible to modify SR, so that time dilation formula could become "anysotropic": time of an approaching ref. frame pass faster, time of a receding one passes slower. At the beginning, before reaching their maximum relative distance, both starships observe the other's time going slower, but when they start to approach in the second-half of the trip, they see the opposite, so when they meet again, they have the same age.

I have this idea from doppler effect.

 

[robphy]

Sorry if I "dare" expressing my opinion about such difficult subject; I want to remark it's just an opinion.

Maybe, the cosmological Twin Paradox could be resolved if it would be possible to modify SR, so that time dilation formula could become "anysotropic": time of an approaching ref. frame pass faster, time of a receding one passes slower. At the beginning, before reaching their maximum relative distance, both starships observe the other's time going slower, but when they start to approach in the second-half of the trip, they see the opposite, so when they meet again, they have the same age.

I have this idea from doppler effect.

If they meet again with the same age, that effectively reduces the situation to the non-relativistic Galilean case, where the elapsed time between two events is independent of the spacetime-path.

(There may also be a problem with the time-reversed scenario.)

 

[lightarrow]

If they meet again with the same age, that effectively reduces the situation to the non-relativistic Galilean case, where the elapsed time between two events is independent of the spacetime-path.

Can't understand why. In the "vanilla" twin paradox there would be however an asymmetry and so dependence on the spacetime-path.

In the cosmological TP instead, the two starship seems to me in a complete simmetrical situation.

 

[Garth]

In the cosmological TP instead, the two starship seems to me in a complete simmetrical situation.

Which is precisely the problem, 'blind' twins are in a symmetrical situation at each close encounter.

NB: 'Blind: refers to the fact that cannot see out of their own 'small enough' laboratories. The close encounters goes through both such laboratories and they both remain at all times in inertial frames of reference.

The resolution of the paradox is to break the symmetry by observing, one way or another, the distribution of matter in motion, and therefore topology, of the rest of the universe.

Garth

 

[robphy]

Can't understand why. In the "vanilla" twin paradox there would be however an asymmetry and so dependence on the spacetime-path.

In the cosmological TP instead, the two starship seems to me in a complete simmetrical situation.

Here's is the spacetime diagram I drew in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=367371#post367371

<br /> \]<br /> \begin{picture}(140.00,150.00)(0,0)<br /> \multiput(0.00,100.00)(0.12,-0.12){833}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,100.00)(0.12,0.12){417}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,140.00)(0.12,-0.12){1167}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,20.00)(0.12,-0.12){167}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,20.00)(0.12,0.12){1083}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,30.00)(0.12,0.18){667}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,60.00)(0.12,-0.12){500}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,60.00)(0.12,0.12){750}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(100.00,0.00)(0.12,0.12){333}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(100.00,0.00)(0.12,0.18){333}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(110.00,150.00)(0.12,-0.12){250}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(20.00,0.00)(0.12,0.12){1000}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(20.00,0.00)(0.12,0.18){833}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(30.00,150.00)(0.12,-0.12){917}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(60.00,0.00)(0.12,0.12){667}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(60.00,0.00)(0.12,0.18){667}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(70.00,150.00)(0.12,-0.12){583}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> <br /> \put(20.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> \put(60.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> \put(100.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> \put(140.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> <br /> \put(35.99,24.05){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(51.97,48.03){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(67.89,72.11){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(83.95,96.05){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(100.26,119.47){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \end{picture}<br /> \[<br />Although the two observers appear to be identical at the start,
after some time before they reunite, they will receive different patterns of light signals sent by the other.
So, they are not completely symmetrical.

 

[lightarrow]

Here's is the spacetime diagram I drew in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=367371#post367371

<br /> \]<br /> \begin{picture}(140.00,150.00)(0,0)<br /> \multiput(0.00,100.00)(0.12,-0.12){833}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,100.00)(0.12,0.12){417}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,140.00)(0.12,-0.12){1167}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,20.00)(0.12,-0.12){167}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,20.00)(0.12,0.12){1083}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,30.00)(0.12,0.18){667}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,60.00)(0.12,-0.12){500}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,60.00)(0.12,0.12){750}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(100.00,0.00)(0.12,0.12){333}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(100.00,0.00)(0.12,0.18){333}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(110.00,150.00)(0.12,-0.12){250}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(20.00,0.00)(0.12,0.12){1000}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(20.00,0.00)(0.12,0.18){833}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(30.00,150.00)(0.12,-0.12){917}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(60.00,0.00)(0.12,0.12){667}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(60.00,0.00)(0.12,0.18){667}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(70.00,150.00)(0.12,-0.12){583}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> <br /> \put(20.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> \put(60.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> \put(100.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> \put(140.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> <br /> \put(35.99,24.05){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(51.97,48.03){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(67.89,72.11){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(83.95,96.05){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(100.26,119.47){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \end{picture}<br /> \[<br />


Although the two observers appear to be identical at the start,
after some time before they reunite, they will receive different patterns of light signals sent by the other.
So, they are not completely symmetrical.

Ok. Now forgive me if I keep saying strange ideas: in my very personal opinion, that fact, maybe, proves there is something to change in our descriptions with SR, because it would be more intuitive to me if there was complete symmetry between the two observers (and so no age difference every time they reunite). Even if there was a preferred ref frame in such a universe, as Garth propose, it seems to me we could always think of the two observers moving in opposite directions with respect to that frame so making the situation symmetric. But probably I'm saying just a lot of stupid things.

 

[Garth]

Here's is the spacetime diagram I drew in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=367371#post367371

<br /> \]<br /> \begin{picture}(140.00,150.00)(0,0)<br /> \multiput(0.00,100.00)(0.12,-0.12){833}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,100.00)(0.12,0.12){417}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,140.00)(0.12,-0.12){1167}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,20.00)(0.12,-0.12){167}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,20.00)(0.12,0.12){1083}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,30.00)(0.12,0.18){667}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,60.00)(0.12,-0.12){500}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(0.00,60.00)(0.12,0.12){750}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(100.00,0.00)(0.12,0.12){333}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(100.00,0.00)(0.12,0.18){333}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(110.00,150.00)(0.12,-0.12){250}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(20.00,0.00)(0.12,0.12){1000}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(20.00,0.00)(0.12,0.18){833}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(30.00,150.00)(0.12,-0.12){917}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(60.00,0.00)(0.12,0.12){667}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> \multiput(60.00,0.00)(0.12,0.18){667}{\line(0,1){0.18}}<br /> \multiput(70.00,150.00)(0.12,-0.12){583}{\line(1,0){0.12}}<br /> <br /> \put(20.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> \put(60.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> \put(100.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> \put(140.00,0.00){\line(0,1){150.00}}<br /> <br /> \put(35.99,24.05){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(51.97,48.03){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(67.89,72.11){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(83.95,96.05){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \put(100.26,119.47){\circle{2.00}}<br /> \end{picture}<br /> \[<br />Although the two observers appear to be identical at the start,
after some time before they reunite, they will receive different patterns of light signals sent by the other.
So, they are not completely symmetrical.

The two observers obviously are not symmetrical, but they don't know it without 'looking outside'.

As we have discussed in the thread you linked to, the paradox probes our understanding of the Equivalence Principle. i.e. How does the external field differentiate between local inertial frames of reference that are momentarily 'close enough' for the EEP to apply?

In your experiment the sending out of light signals probes the topology of the rest of the universe, and that topology I would argue is determined by the distribution of the matter and energy within it. (I know that in the hypothetical case you are considering a featureless compact cylindrical space, but I consider that not to be a realistic scenario. But then again that is just the Machian in me rising to the surface!)

Garth

 

[robphy]

Ok. Now forgive me if I keep saying strange ideas: in my very personal opinion, that fact, maybe, proves there is something to change in our descriptions with SR, because it would be more intuitive to me if there was complete symmetry between the two observers (and so no age difference every time they reunite). Even if there was a preferred ref frame in such a universe, as Garth propose, it seems to me we could always think of the two observers moving in opposite directions with respect to that frame so making the situation symmetric. But probably I'm saying just a lot of stupid things.

Let's not forget that, in addition to the "principle of relativity" (due to Galileo), there is the "constancy of the speed of light" (due to Einstein). In the diagram above, the slant of the worldlines of light-rays have to be maintained in any attempt to "twist" the cylinder to make the slanted worldline of the observer with winding number 1 into a worldline that is vertical (like the worldline of the observer with winding number 0)... ... but that can't happen.