Lag of a clock coming back to its initial position (Twins Paradox)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of time dilation and the twins paradox in the context of special relativity, particularly focusing on the implications of using inertial reference frames for clocks in non-uniform motion. Participants explore the reasoning behind the treatment of proper time for clocks moving along different trajectories and the challenges faced by beginners in understanding these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the argument of using an inertial reference frame for a clock moving uniformly for short intervals cannot be applied when considering a clock that returns to its original position after a non-uniform trajectory.
  • Another participant asserts that the integration process for determining proper time must be applied, emphasizing that time dilation is a comparison between two separate clocks in different inertial frames.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the relativity of motion and the necessity of comparing multiple clocks to measure time accurately, highlighting the complexity of understanding different inertial systems.
  • Concerns are raised about the justification of applying the principle of invariance of interval in non-inertial contexts and whether it holds true for any moving reference system when considering infinitesimal time intervals.
  • One participant clarifies that the situation between two reference frames is not symmetrical due to the presence of multiple clocks in one frame compared to a single clock in another, affecting the comparison of proper times.
  • Another participant introduces an analogy with Euclidean geometry to help understand the relationship between time dilation and the twins paradox, although the relevance of this analogy to the discussion remains unclear.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of inertial reference frames to clocks in non-uniform motion, with some asserting that the principles of special relativity can be applied in a differential manner while others challenge this reasoning. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the interpretation of time dilation and the twins paradox.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the concepts involved, including the need for rigorous definitions and clarity in the discussion of inertial and non-inertial frames. The discussion highlights the challenges faced by beginners in grasping the nuances of special relativity.

  • #31
Aleberto69 said:
Is space time flat for a clock or for an observer at rest respect a NIRF

Spacetime being flat is not observer-dependent or frame-dependent. Spacetime being flat means the absence of tidal gravity.

Aleberto69 said:
Could you suggest a good text on SR that does examples of problem involving NISRs?

I can't remember if Taylor & Wheeler discuss this, it's been quite a while since I looked through that textbook. Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler discuss it, but that's a textbook on GR and only its first few chapters discuss SR.

Aleberto69 said:
The twin paradox can be explained rigorously using SR

Yes. In the standard formulation of the twin paradox, spacetime is flat, so SR works just fine.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Aleberto69
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
PeterDonis said:
Spacetime being flat is not observer-dependent or frame-dependent. Spacetime being flat means the absence of tidal gravity.
I can't remember if Taylor & Wheeler discuss this, it's been quite a while since I looked through that textbook. Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler discuss it, but that's a textbook on GR and only its first few chapters discuss SR.
Yes. In the standard formulation of the twin paradox, spacetime is flat, so SR works just fine.
TY very much ,
Now I know that SR works also on NIRF if the space time is flat ( i.e. no tidal gravity), however I do not know how to use SR in that case .
For example if a RF is accelerated respect to a IRF:
1) What do Lorentz transformations become?
2)Do Lorentz transformation still have the same expression but with ##v=v(t)##, ##v(t)## being the instantaneous velocity of the origin of the NIRF measured from the observer on the IRF ?
3)Is velocity of light constant (and the same constant) once measured in that NIRF?
3)Are intervals (distance in the ST between events) invariant against considered RF (assuming one IRF and one NIRF) ?

TY in advance for answers
 
  • #33
Aleberto69 said:
What do Lorentz transformations become?

Lorentz transformations only work between inertial frames. For non-inertial frames you have to use more general coordinate transformations, and the exact transformation equations will depend on the specific non-inertial coordinates you are using.

Aleberto69 said:
Is velocity of light constant (and the same constant) once measured in that NIRF?

The coordinate velocity of light might not be ##c## in a non-inertial frame. However, it is still true that nothing can go faster than light--the coordinate velocity of any object other than light will be less than the coordinate velocity of light at the same point.

Aleberto69 said:
Are intervals (distance in the ST between events) invariant

Yes, but it might be much harder to calculate them in a non-inertial frame since the metric tensor will look different.
 
  • #34
Aleberto69 said:
TY very much ,
Now I know that SR works also on NIRF if the space time is flat ( i.e. no tidal gravity), however I do not know how to use SR in that case .
For example if a RF is accelerated respect to a IRF:
1) What do Lorentz transformations become?
2)Do Lorentz transformation still have the same expression but with ##v=v(t)##, ##v(t)## being the instantaneous velocity of the origin of the NIRF measured from the observer on the IRF ?
3)Is velocity of light constant (and the same constant) once measured in that NIRF?
3)Are intervals (distance in the ST between events) invariant against considered RF (assuming one IRF and one NIRF) ?

TY in advance for answers
Objects with constant acceleration can be described by the Rindler coordinates. Objects in a circular motion which experience centripetal acceleration are described by the Born coordinates. Both of these are coordinate charts on Minkowski spacetime.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK, Aleberto69 and PeterDonis
  • #35
Aleberto69 said:
Could you explain how to treat NIRFs using SR or in other words what are the relevant result of SR applied to NIRFs?

In any coordinate system, you can compute elapsed time by using the expression:

\tau = \int \sqrt{\sum_{\mu \nu} g_{\mu \nu} \frac{dx^\mu}{ds} \frac{dx^\nu}{ds}} ds

where \mu and \nu range over the indices for the different coordinates, and where g_{\mu \nu} are the components of the metric tensor in whatever coordinate system you are using.

An example of a noninertial coordinate system where it is possible to do the calculation is the "Rindler coordinates" X and T, which are related to the usual x and t through:

x = X cosh(gT/c)
t = \frac{X}{c} sinh(gT/c)

or the inverse:

X = \sqrt{x^2 - c^2 t^2}
T = \frac{c}{g} tanh^{-1}(\frac{ct}{x})

The significance of this coordinate system is that it is the natural coordinate system to use for someone traveling in a rocket that is accelerating so as to give an apparent gravity of g at all times (in the rear of the rocket). Objects at "rest" aboard the rocket will have a constant value of X. The coordinate T is the time as measured by a clock in the rear of the rocket.

For these coordinates, g_{TT} = \frac{g^2 X^2}{c^4}, g_{XX} = -\frac{1}{c^2}. So the proper time for a path is given by:

\tau = \int \sqrt{\frac{g^2 X^2}{c^4} (\frac{dT}{ds})^2 - \frac{1}{c^2} (\frac{dX}{ds})^2} ds

For the particularly simple case of X = constant (a clock that is at "rest" on board the accelerating rocket), this simplifies enormously to:

\tau =\frac{g X}{c^2} T

which shows that the proper time for a clock is proportional to its location X (higher clocks run faster).

The odd thing about the Rindler coordinate system is that the point X=0 isn't actually the rear of the rocket. Instead, the rear of the rocket is at X = \frac{c^2}{g}, which means that for a clock in the rear, \tau = T, as I said.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Aleberto69 and PeterDonis
  • #36
Thank you very much.

I can't imagine how to set up the equations for calculating:
1) the new transformation coordinates
2) velocity of light in the NIRF
3) ##ds## in the NIRF

the NRFI I was immagining :
##v(t)= k~~~~~~~ when~~~~~~t<t_0##
##v(t)= k-(t-t_0)~~~~~~~when~~~~~~t_0<t<t_0+2k##
##v(t)= -k ~~~~~~~when~~~~~~t>t_0+2k##

and let assume k=0.8c
 
  • #37
Mentz114 said:
Objects with constant acceleration can be described by the Rindler coordinates. Objects in a circular motion which experience centripetal acceleration are described by the Born coordinates. Both of these are coordinate charts on Minkowski spacetime.
TY very much,
could you suggest a textbook that address those kind of topics? SR applied to NIRF, flat space time, Born coordinates...
 
  • #38
stevendaryl said:
In any coordinate system, you can compute elapsed time by using the expression:

\tau = \int \sqrt{\sum_{\mu \nu} g_{\mu \nu} \frac{dx^\mu}{ds} \frac{dx^\nu}{ds}} ds

where \mu and \nu range over the indices for the different coordinates, and where g_{\mu \nu} are the components of the metric tensor in whatever coordinate system you are using.

An example of a noninertial coordinate system where it is possible to do the calculation is the "Rindler coordinates" X and T, which are related to the usual x and t through:

x = X cosh(gT/c)
t = \frac{X}{c} sinh(gT/c)

or the inverse:

X = \sqrt{x^2 - c^2 t^2}
T = \frac{c}{g} tanh^{-1}(\frac{ct}{x})

The significance of this coordinate system is that it is the natural coordinate system to use for someone traveling in a rocket that is accelerating so as to give an apparent gravity of g at all times (in the rear of the rocket). Objects at "rest" aboard the rocket will have a constant value of X. The coordinate T is the time as measured by a clock in the rear of the rocket.

For these coordinates, g_{TT} = \frac{g^2 X^2}{c^4}, g_{XX} = -\frac{1}{c^2}. So the proper time for a path is given by:

\tau = \int \sqrt{\frac{g^2 X^2}{c^4} (\frac{dT}{ds})^2 - \frac{1}{c^2} (\frac{dX}{ds})^2} ds

For the particularly simple case of X = constant (a clock that is at "rest" on board the accelerating rocket), this simplifies enormously to:

\tau =\frac{g X}{c^2} T

which shows that the proper time for a clock is proportional to its location X (higher clocks run faster).

The odd thing about the Rindler coordinate system is that the point X=0 isn't actually the rear of the rocket. Instead, the rear of the rocket is at X = \frac{c^2}{g}, which means that for a clock in the rear, \tau = T, as I said.
TY very much,

could you suggest a good textbook which address those calculation and deduce the formula you have used?
TY very much in advance
 
  • #39
Aleberto69 said:
TY very much,
could you suggest a textbook that address those kind of topics? SR applied to NIRF, flat space time, Born coordinates...
Have a look at this http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
I have not come across a SR textbook which includes Born coordinates but I have only ever read two.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Aleberto69
  • #40
Aleberto69 said:
could you suggest a good textbook which address those calculation and deduce the formula you have used?
TY very much in advance
Any general relativity textbook will cover these mathematical techniques in detail, because that's how we work with the complicated and hard-to-visualize coordinate systems needed for curved four-dimensional spacetime. Often they start by showing how the formulas we know from special relativity can be derived using this machinery. For example, the appalling integral at the top of stevendaryl's post 35 above actually works just fine with ordinary Minkowski coordinates; in these coordinates all the ##g_{ij}## and ##\frac{dx^i}{ds}## are constants so you can move them out of from under the integral sign, and the integral evaluates to the familiar ##\Delta{s}^2=-\Delta{t}^2+\Delta{x}^2+\Delta{y}^2+\Delta{z}^2##

Sean Carroll's online lecture notes on GR will get you started.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Aleberto69
  • #42
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mentz114
  • #43
PAllen said:
The classic work for special relativity without relying on inertial frames and the Lorentz transform is:

https://books.google.com/books/abou...BAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

The Lorentz transform is not even mentioned until chapter 6, after all major SR pehenomena (Doppler, time dilation, aberration) have already been treated in generality, without any reference to inertial observers.
Reading through the contents I get the impression that everything relevant is covered. There's a whole chapter on rotation !
Tempting ...
 
  • #44
Aleberto69 said:
TY very much,

could you suggest a good textbook which address those calculation and deduce the formula you have used?
TY very much in advance

Here's a long-winded derivation.

If the rear of a rocket has acceleration g in a frame in which it is (momentarily) at rest, then it has acceleration g_v = \frac{g}{\gamma^3} in a frame in which it is traveling at v. You can figure this out by using the inverse Lorentz transforms:
  1. x&#039; = \gamma (x - v t)
  2. t&#039; = \gamma(t - \frac{vx}{c^2})
Now, in the primed frame, assume that position of the rocket is given by: x&#039; \approx \frac{1}{2} g (t&#039;)^2. (\approx means I'm ignoring terms of order (t&#039;)^3 or higher.) So in this frame, the rocket is accelerating from rest at rate g. In the unprimed frame, assume that x \approx vt + \frac{1}{2} a t^2. In this frame it's accelerating from speed v at rate a. We want to solve for a. Plugging things into our equations, we have:

  1. \frac{1}{2} g (t&#039;)^2 \approx \gamma \frac{1}{2} a t^2. This implies that a = g (\frac{t&#039;}{t})^2 \frac{1}{\gamma}.
  2. t&#039; \approx \gamma (t - \frac{v^2}{c^2} t) = \gamma(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}) t = \frac{t}{\gamma}. this implies that \frac{t&#039;}{t} \approx \frac{1}{\gamma}
Putting 1 and 2 together gives us: a = g \frac{1}{\gamma^3}

Since a = \frac{dv}{dt}, this means \frac{dv}{dt} = g \frac{1}{\gamma^3}. We can invert this to get: \frac{dt}{dv} = \frac{1}{g} \gamma^3

So we integrate to get: t = \int \frac{1}{g} \gamma^3 dv = \frac{1}{g} \int (1-\frac{v^2}{c^2})^{-\frac{3}{2}} dv

To do this integral, we do a variable substitution: v = c tanh(\frac{gT}{c}), so dv = g sech^2(\frac{gT}{c}) dT (tanh is hyperbolic tangent, sech is hyperbolic secant.) Then 1-\frac{v^2}{c^2} = 1 - tanh^2(\frac{gT}{c}) = sech^2(\frac{gT}{c}). So the integral becomes:

t = \int \frac{1}{sech(\frac{gT}{c})} dT = \int cosh(\frac{gT}{c}) dT = \frac{c}{g} sinh(\frac{gT}{c})

We can integrate v to get x, and we find:

x = \int v dt = \int c tanh(\frac{gT}{c}) cosh(\frac{gT}{c}) dT = c \int sinh(\frac{gT}{c}) dT = \frac{c^2}{g} cosh(\frac{gT}{c})

(To simplify the expression, I've chosen the origin of the x-axis so that the rocket is initially at x = \frac{c^2}{g} rather than x=0)

We can also compute:

\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = cosh(\frac{gT}{c}) = \frac{gx}{c^2}
\gamma v = cosh(\frac{gT}{c}) c tanh(\frac{gT}{c}) = c sinh(\frac{gT}{c}) = \frac{gt}{c}

And we show that x and t obey the equation: x^2 - c^2 t^2 = \frac{c^4}{g^2}

All right. Now, let's try to figure out a coordinate system that can be used on board the rocket. We already have a time coordinate, T, but what's its significance? Well, since the proper time for a clock at the rear of the rocket is given by: \tau = \int \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} dt, we can change variables from t to T using t = \frac{c}{g} sinh(\frac{gT}{c}). So dt = cosh(\frac{gT}{c}) dT. Using our formula for v: v = c tanh(\frac{gT}{c}) so \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} = \sqrt{1-tanh(\frac{gT}{c})^2} = sech(\frac{gT}{c}) = \frac{1}{cosh(\frac{gT}{c})}. So our integral for proper time becomes:

\tau = \int dT = T

So T is just the time on the rear clock.

For our spatial coordinate, we want it to be the case that the length of the rocket stays the same, as viewed by someone on board the rocket. Otherwise, the rocket would either be ripped apart or crushed. Let L be the length of the rocket as measured in the rocket's accelerated frame. We're going to assume that this is also the length of the rocket as measured in the inertial coordinate system in which the rocket is (momentarily) at rest. So let's suppose that the rocket has traveled for a while, and the rear of the rocket is at location x at time t. The rocket is traveling at speed v. Let e_1 be the event (moment in space and time) when the rear of the rocket is traveling at speed v. Let e_2 be the event at the front of the rocket that is simultaneous with e_1 in the instantaneous rest frame of the rocket.

  • Let (x,t) be the coordinates of e_1 in the Earth frame.
  • Let (x&#039;, t&#039;) be the coordinates in the instantaneous rest frame of the rocket.
  • Let (x_2, t_2) be the coordinates of e_2 in the Earth frame.
  • Let (x_2&#039;, t_2&#039;) be the coordinates in the rocket frame.
Since e_1 and e_2 are simultaneous in the rocket frame, that means: t_2&#039; = t&#039;.

Since the rocket has length L in its own rest frame, this means: x_2&#039; = x&#039; + L

Now, we can use the inverse Lorentz transformations to find x_2 and t_2:

x = \gamma (x&#039; + v t&#039;)
t = \gamma(t&#039; + \frac{vx&#039;}{c^2})
x_2 = \gamma (x_2&#039; + v t_2&#039;) = \gamma(x&#039; + L + v t&#039;) = x + \gamma L
t_2 = \gamma(t_2&#039; + \frac{v x_2&#039;}{c^2}) = \gamma(t&#039; + \frac{v}{c^2} (x&#039; + L)) = t + \frac{\gamma vL}{c^2}

But we know from above for our constant acceleration rocket, \gamma = \frac{gx}{c^2}. So

x_2 = x (1 + \frac{gL}{c^2})

We also know that \gamma v = \frac{gt}{c}. So

t_2 = t + \frac{gt}{c} \frac{L}{c^2} = t (1 + \frac{gL}{c^2})

Now, we see an amazing, or possibly not amazing relationship between x_2 and t_2:

(x_2)^2 - c^2 (t_2)^2 = x^2 (1+ \frac{gL}{c^2}) - c^2 t^2 (1+\frac{gL}{c^2})^2 = (x^2 - c^2 t^2) (1+\frac{gL}{c^2})^2

But x^2 - c^2 t^2 = \frac{c^4}{g^2}, so

(x_2)^2 - c^2 (t_2)^2 = \frac{c^4}{g^2} (1+\frac{gL}{c^2})^2 = (\frac{c^2}{g} + L)^2

Now, remember that I told you that the initial location of the rear of the rocket was at \frac{c^2}{g}? The initial location of the front of the rocket was \frac{c^2}{g} + L. Letting X_{rear} be the initial location of the rear of the rocket, and X_{front} be the initial location of the front of the rocket, then we find that
x^2 - c^2 t^2 = \frac{c^4}{g^2} = (X_{rear})^2
(x_2)^2 - c^2 (t_2)^2 = (X_{front})^2

What this means is that the front and rear are following the same sort of accelerated trajectory, but with different accelerations:

x = X_{rear} cosh(\frac{gT}{c})
x_2 = X_{front} cosh(\frac{gT}{c})

In general, if a section of the rocket starts off at location X, then its position later will be given by:

x = X cosh(\frac{gT}{c})

with the time given by:

t = \frac{1}{c} X sinh(\frac{gT}{c})

The interesting thing about this is that even though the acceleration experienced by the rear of the rocket is g_{rear} = \frac{c^2}{X_{rear}}, the acceleration experienced by the front of the rocket is smaller: g_{front} = \frac{c^2}{X_{front}}. The proper time computed earlier for a clock in the rear of the rocket is: \tau = T. But the proper time for the front of the rocket is \tau = \frac{g T X_{front}}{c^2}. So clocks in the front run faster than clocks in the rear. (proper time is only equal to T at the rear of the rocket).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Imager and Mentz114
  • #45
PeroK said:
One last point:

Clocks A, B together and clock C some distance away. All at rest initially and synchronised.

Clock B accelerates. Using only time dilation arguments, clocks A and C must read the same (in B's frame). It doesn't matter whether you integrate using ##dt## or sum using ##\Delta t##. After B accelerates, using only time dilation, clocks A and C must remain synchronised in B's frame.

But, clocks A & C are not synchronised in B's frame. So, if you change your IRF you cannot simply think about time dilation.
Perhaps I can diminish confusion slightly with something I didn't understand until recently. Add clock D also some distance away to this example. Allow it to be attached ti B and undergo acceleration along with B If there is acceleration along the axis BD these clocks will no longer be synchronized in their new inertial frame after acceleration ceases. This is a direct result of them being accelerated. . .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
5K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
7K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K