Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How is twin paradox resolved in case of no/zero acceleration?

  1. Jul 10, 2011 #1
    how is twin paradox resolved in case of no/zero acceleration/deceleration?

    two twins one on earth and other on a ship moving at constant velocity (say 80% speed of light).

    the other twin does not turn around ..thus no acceleration/deceleration.

    how we resolve the paradox now?

    twin A will say twin B is moving..thus he/she should age slower
    twin B will say twin A is moving.....thus he/she should age slower

    the paradox is traditionally resolved by the fact that one of them is accelerating/decelerating...because one of the twins has to turn around...etc

    but in the case above (and we can build more scenarios) where there is only constant velocity...no acceleration...no turning around...

    no meeting of the twins.....
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 10, 2011 #2

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hi San K! :smile:
    no meeting of the twins, no paradox …

    they have to start and finish together (or at least at the same velocity) to be able to compare ages at the same time :wink:

    (if they have different velocities, two events at the same time for one will not be at the same time for the other)
     
  4. Jul 10, 2011 #3

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    For a numerical example of how this works, see the post linked below, and the post that it in turn links to:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3394389&postcount=8
     
  5. Jul 11, 2011 #4

    Filip Larsen

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You could make a special non-accelerated version of the paradox by using 3 clocks (A, B, C) instead of 2 twins. Clock A stays behind representing the stationary twin. The two other clocks are are moving with a constant speed in opposite direction of each other such that clock B first passes A and then C, and clock C such that it first passes clock B and then A. We then have three separate space-time events, lets call them AB, BC, and CA, where the clocks meet each other in pairs. In event AB we synchronize both A and B so they start with time zero, at BC we set clock C to same time as clock B, and at CA we just write down the value of clock A and C so we can compare them. Note, that we can compare the clock values of two clocks even though they move relative to each other because we allow them to "pass through" each other.

    Calculating the relativistic distance between each successive pair of event you will end up with the expected result, namely that the proper time for clock A from event AB to CA will be larger than the proper time for clock B from AB to BC plus proper time for clock C from BC to CA.
     
  6. Jul 11, 2011 #5

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, you still have a non-inertial path through spacetime being compared to an inertial path, both paths beginning and ending on the same pair of events. In SR, that is the fundamental requirement.
     
  7. Jul 11, 2011 #6

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why people fall for the triplet paradox always boggled me.

    I can understand why people find "I see your clock going slower than mine, but you see my clock going slower than yours" paradoxical -- they haven't really grasped that the two facts aren't really comparable in the same way as if our clocks are sitting side by side. They haven't internalized that "I see" and "you see" are important.

    I can understand why people find the twin paradox paradoxical. The amount of aging is now comparable, but they haven't internalized that "inertial travel" is a prerequisite for the qualitative fact that you see all* moving clocks running slower than yours.

    But people that insist on the triplet paradox being paradoxical baffle me. As far as I can tell, they're so focused on defeating the usual resolution of the twin paradox that they simply don't notice they've also invalidated the (faulty) argument that leads to paradox.



    *: Well, I mean properly calibrated clocks
     
  8. Jul 11, 2011 #7

    Filip Larsen

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not sure what you mean?

    I like this formulation of the paradox because it captures the essence of the twin paradox while still allowing only algebraic calculations using relativistic intervals from special relativity. Sure, you can also make an accelerated version but that requires integrals and is likely to have a more limited "audience" when you want to explain what is going in layman's terms.
     
  9. Jul 11, 2011 #8

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I mean the essence of the twin paradox is gone! Vanished! No longer there!

    You keep the closed loop, but I can't see anything that remains that someone might find paradoxical.
     
  10. Jul 11, 2011 #9

    Filip Larsen

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The only thing this version does is to "remove" the accelerating phase. You can imagine that the two clocks B and C representing the traveling twin with the accelerating turn-around phase left out, like if the twin brought a clock with him which he pauses just before he starts to accelerate back towards his brother back home and unpauses just when he stops accelerating; then clock B corresponds to the twin's clock on the outbound coast and clock C corresponds to his clock in the inbound coast.

    You could also look at the non-acceleration scenario as a limit when acceleration of the twin goes to infinity. Assuming he can turn around using arbitrarily high acceleration, he can bring the time he spend doing the turn around arbitrarily close to zero. In the limit the twin will use zero proper time and distance to turn around and his clock will read like in the non-accelerated scenario.

    To me, the non-accelerated version sound just as paradoxical as the accelerated version, especially since I think the paradox (the apparent contradiction that people feel must be present when they hear about time dilation) stems from the symmetry in stating that you will observe anyone moving relative to you as having time dilation. That two people can observe each others time as running slower do sound paradoxical until you start describing the full scenario that allow you to properly compare clocks.
     
  11. Jul 11, 2011 #10

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It does remove something else significant -- the space-bound observer.

    Notice that your post continues by considering the ordinary two-clock twin paradox, rather than discussing a three-clock scenario.

    You didn't leave out the turn-around phase, you just paused the traveling twin's clock. There is still acceleration.
     
  12. Jul 11, 2011 #11

    Filip Larsen

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, it replaces one observer (the traveling twin) with two observers (clock B and C). And, as I try to argue, you can even think of the two clocks as being "world line segments" of the same clock.

    When looking at the time it takes to make the trip back and fourth the only part that is removed in the non-accelerated version is, well, the acceleration.

    In my reply to your earlier comment I outline how you can go from the ordinary twin paradox with an accelerated turn around to a simplified three-clock model with no acceleration that can be analyzed with relativistic intervals only and still get a "resolution" to the paradox. That is why I mention acceleration.

    I am not sure what you think I am claiming. I am not claiming that you can make a single twin turn around without acceleration, or that the two scenarios will be identical. I merely say you can make a simplified version without acceleration and end up with a scenario where it is very easy to calculate the resulting difference in proper time between the various clocks and that this scenario is interesting as it can be thought of as an approach the accelerated scenario in the limit where the time used to accelerate becomes insignificant compared to the time used coasting.

    You seem a little bend on marking the three-clock scenario as being "invalid" or "bad" in some sense. Does it accurately describe a twin rocketing around in a real rocket? No, it doesn't. Does it offer a resolution to the paradox of having symmetric time dilation? Yes, I believe it does.
     
  13. Jul 11, 2011 #12

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In the three observer version, there is no round trip. If there is no round trip, the argument of the twin paradox is inapplicable. Auggie, the out-bound observer cannot compare his clock with Terra the terrestrial observer at the start end end of his journey. Neither can Indy, the in-bound observer. Only Stella the space-bound observer who hitches a ride with Auggie then switches over to Indy's ship as it passes by is able to compare clocks with Terra.

    If there is a round trip, there is acceleration. (be it smooth and prolonged, or infinite and instantaneous.
     
  14. Jul 11, 2011 #13

    Filip Larsen

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    There is the "round trip" of proper time intervals, which (to me) is all that matters. You can make an accelerated scenario, cut out the acceleration to get a non-accelerated version and then still have an explanation through calculations as to why one twin will be older than the other. Makes perfect sense to me.

    But I guess you don't consider the resolution of the paradox using Minkowski diagrams [1] valid either then?


    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity
     
  15. Jul 11, 2011 #14
    I dont see any reason why twins have to start and finish together or why the twins should meet at all? The paradox still remains as both twins observe time dilation in other frame. Both twins are also in inertial frames and thus SR must then hold.

    I was going to post the same question in PF but I am glad that someone else thought like me. In the classic explanation of twin paradox, this argument is swept under the carpet by assuming that one twin must accelerate and decelerate. Since we dont know what an accelerating and decelerating observer will observe or God forbid some mind-numbing GR tensor equations are brought into consideration, a simpleton is browbeaten into believing that the twin in the rocket will observe the same as the twin on earth. I think this twin-paradox problem is very important as it raises the question of internal consistency of SR.
     
  16. Jul 11, 2011 #15

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think Hurkyl is inviting you to consider the "triangle paradox". The "triangle paradox", usually called the triangle inequality, basically says that if you sum two sides of a triangle, the result will be greater than the third side - and equal only in very special cases. It does with distances what the twin paradox does with times, with one important difference. In the "triangle paradox" aka the triangle inequality, the sum of the distances is greater than the straight-line path, in the "twin paradox", the sum of the times is lesser than the straight line path.

    The fact that the sum is lowest is a bit weird, compared to euclidean geometry, but the point is that if you believe that Euclidean geometry is self-consistent, it's not that hard to picture space-time as having a similar, consistent geometry. The only thing that really has to go is the notion of observer-independent simultaneity.
     
  17. Jul 11, 2011 #16
    i quote two that i think i agree with...so i question it further to understand it better....

    hi tiny (but mighty?) tim....:)

    you mean one cannot compare because they are not comparable frames of reference?

    that have to be at same velocity and place? can put it more precisely?

    why are they not comparable?

    even if they are not comparable, don't we still have to resolve the issue about.....

    one twin saying that the other is moving....so he is ageing faster, not me....
    and the other twin saying the same thing

    or are both the twins right?....till they meet......and it depends who ends up visiting whom at what speed/place/time etc....

    i mean..how do we resolve....who is moving? i guess the answer is....we cannot say....who is moving.....

    unless and until....we get them in the same frame of reference...



    is the below statement correct? if not......then modify it to make it correct

    you cannot compare any arbitrary frames of references.

    ..to compare any two events.....they have to be in same frame of reference...or "normalized/adjust/accounted-for" to be in the same frame of reference...


    is that ...why we say....space-time

    being at different space/speed...can mean different time?

    space and time....are...in a sense...interchangeable?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2011
  18. Jul 11, 2011 #17
    hi hurkyl, can you write a few more sentences that can help folks internalize "inertial travel"?
     
  19. Jul 11, 2011 #18

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    "Inertial travel" means that you are travelling in a manner such that an accelerometer attached to you reads 0 at all times. If you aren't travelling inertially then "your frame" is non-inertial and so the "usual" physics equations are not correct. Once you have realized that then it is clear that there is no twin paradox.
     
  20. Jul 11, 2011 #19
    case where: one twin moving at constant velocity and the other stationery

    the twin that is moving will have velocity and hence momentum....

    however you cannot tell between two twin who is moving....relative to the other twin....

    when we have only two frames of references....

    however if you have a third (or a forth or fifth) reference point, you could tell.....

    is the above correct?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2011
  21. Jul 11, 2011 #20
    hi dale

    in the example i initially gave...both the frames would be inertial frames....then

    is there no twin paradox because the stationary inertial frame (for twin A) is not comparable with the constant velocity inertial frame (for twin B)?......because they can never meet?

    note: acceleration in both cases is zero because one is stationary and other is moving at constant velocity
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2011
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: How is twin paradox resolved in case of no/zero acceleration?
Loading...