Is asymmetric time dilation in twin paradox possible in SR?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the twin paradox in special relativity (SR), specifically whether asymmetric time dilation can be explained within the framework of SR. Participants explore the implications of acceleration and relative motion on the aging of twins, one of whom travels at high velocity and returns, while the other remains stationary. The conversation examines theoretical aspects and interpretations of time dilation as observed in practical scenarios, such as GPS satellites.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the traveling twin's acceleration breaks the symmetry of the situation, arguing that both twins experience their respective journeys symmetrically from each other's frame of reference.
  • Others assert that the traveling twin experiences a change in the tick rate of the stationary twin's clock immediately upon acceleration, while the stationary twin perceives this change later due to the Doppler effect, suggesting an asymmetry in their experiences.
  • There are claims that the effects of time dilation should cancel out, leading to both twins agreeing on the amount of time elapsed when they reunite, despite differing clock readings during the journey.
  • Some participants emphasize that SR does not provide a preferred frame of reference, and thus the analysis can be conducted from any inertial reference frame without loss of generality.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of time dilation effects and whether they can be viewed symmetrically or if they inherently favor one twin over the other.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on the implications of acceleration and the resulting time dilation. While some argue for a symmetrical interpretation of the twin's experiences, others highlight the asymmetrical effects of acceleration and the Doppler effect, leading to an unresolved debate on the nature of time dilation in this scenario.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion is heavily dependent on the definitions of inertial frames and the interpretation of acceleration within SR. There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of spatial distance and the timing of clock readings during the twins' journeys.

  • #31
arindamsinha said:
It seems an area where relativity theory seems to still have a gap - it may be consistent and predictive, but does not explain the physical principle behind one of the basic concepts it uses - the 'inertia' behind the inertial frame.
What you are asking for is impossible. Inertia is part of the postulates of relativity. It is not possible for any theory to explain it's own postulates. All it can do is use its postulates to explain other phenomena. All we can ask of any theory is for it to be "consistent and predictive".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
DaleSpam said:
What you are asking for is impossible. Inertia is part of the postulates of relativity. It is not possible for any theory to explain it's own postulates. All it can do is use its postulates to explain other phenomena. All we can ask of any theory is for it to be "consistent and predictive".

All I asked was whether there was some other credible theory that does explain inertia. I don't think that is asking for the impossible.

Is it so wrong to even be inquisitive about the reason behind a 'postulate' of a great theory?
 
  • #33
arindamsinha said:
All I asked was whether there was some other credible theory that does explain inertia. I don't think that is asking for the impossible.
I wasn't objecting to that part of your post. It is perfectly fine to look for more fundamental theories in which the postulates of less fundamental theories can be explained. However, the more fundamental theory will also have postulates that are not explained, even if it is a complete theory of everything. So having unexplained postulates does not constitute a gap in a theory and the only standard to judge theories is their being consistent and predictive. That is why I was objecting to the quoted part of your post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
7K