# News Story: Twin Paradox Solved

Homework Helper

This makes me even sadder than the 0/0 story a few months ago:
http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html

Cyrus
Comment on website said:
Uhhhh... what? In relation to distant stars? Sounds like the sort of ad hoc b.s. an engineer would come up with.

:rofl: mumble mumble curse words...

Homework Helper

Schrodinger's Dog
Well at least the comments sum it up, it's not a paradox you monkeys:tongue2:

Sloppy journalism probably. Or an engineer who hasn't got his head round the idea of SR.

Only the fast moving twin experiences time slowdown. That is why there is no paradox.

The fast moving twin would always see the stay at home twins clock going fast. You cannot have both clock"s going slower than the other.

Relativistic effects are not reciprocal. The application of the reciprocity of relativistic effects is the problem.
On 14-Feb-2007 by chaunce
Uhhhh... what? In relation to distant stars? Sounds like the sort of ad hoc b.s. an engineer would come up with. I obviously haven't read his paper, but it sounds ignorant to me, mostly for the reason that there is no paradox, in that the assymetry created by the fact that only one twin undergoes an acceleration resolves this "paradox."
On 14-Feb-2007 by tcamps
As Chaunce said, the resolution of the "paradox" lies in the fact that you can't compare the amount of time that's passed for each of them unless you bring them both to rest in the same inertial reference frame. So one or both of them needs to be accelerated, violating the "special" part of special relativity.
Someone's b.s.-ing it--either the professor, or the reporter.
On 14-Feb-2007 by Indurance
The way I understood it was that since no state of motion is unique or can be considered "real" you could say that the earthbound twin was accelerating away from the traveling one. The non constant bit which resolves the problem is when the space traveling twin turns around to return - different frame of reference. As as been said there is no "paradox" here it is explained by the theory. I'm no expert, but I thought I'd grasped that much at least.
On 14-Feb-2007 by Nick
The paradox only exists if you insist on ascribing motion to things that have not actually accelerated. Only the twin moving fast through space will experience the transverse Doppler effect or the time slowdown.

You simply cannot have both clocks going slower than one another. The fast moving twin will always have the slower clock and the stay at home the faster (clock.)

Last edited:
Moridin
Yeah, the twin paradox has been resolved for years, that is, decided not to be a paradox. This story was even retracted on some websites (it has been appearing on a lot of strange websites).

Science needs to strike back against idiots like that with (a) force. Not as in inviting them to equal-based scientific discussion, but to, for a lack of better words, go Richard Dawkins on them.

Homework Helper
Yeah, the twin paradox has been resolved for years, that is, decided not to be a paradox.

More like resolved for almost a century.

user299792458
I don't get it, why make a fool of yourself? What does electrical engineering have to do with relativity anyway?!

Staff Emeritus
I don't get it, why make a fool of yourself? What does electrical engineering have to do with relativity anyway?!

Because for crackpots, any publicity is good publicity. This is because they have no other means of getting "recognized", so even bad publicity is good publicity. Besides, considering how bad the general public's literacy on science is, and how many suckers are born every minute, there's bound to be hordes of people who would buy into it.

It is why they are so annoyed with PF, because we are cutting off one of their means of publicity.

Zz.

Homework Helper
The funniest was a reply I read somewhere in those forums :

"So a journalist and a student get drunk in a bar..." :rofl:

The least funny replies where those people actually taking this crap seriously and debating the merits (or lack thereof) of the article. Total craziness.

Jimmy Snyder
He got something on this topic published in the "International Journal of Theoretical Physics". Temple University Library no longer subscribes to it, and I won't pay the \$32 to read it online so I can't say what's in it. However, this sounds worse than the Sokol hoax.