Proving the One Way Twin Paradox: O' Reads T'>0, K Clock Reads More than T

GRDixon
Messages
249
Reaction score
0
In the following, "G" stands for "gamma". Clocks O and O' coincide when they mutually read zero. POV is that of K'.

Prove: When O' reads T'>0, the coincident K clock reads more than T'.

Proof: When O' reads T', O reads T'/G and O' coincides with K clock at x=GvT'. That clock reads xv/(cc) more than O:

T'/G + GvT'v/(cc) = GT' > T'.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your proof is correct--another way to see it is just to take the event of O' reading T' as having coordinates x'=0, t'=T' in the K' frame and then plug those into the reverse version of the Lorentz transformation, t=G*(t' + vx'/c^2) which gives t=GT' in the K frame. But why do you consider this a paradox? In the K' frame, this clock was still ticking slower than O' the whole time, it's just that it started out reading more than 0 at t'=0. In fact, at t'=0 it must have read GT' - T'/G, so that it did tick forward by T'/G between t'=0 and t'=T'. You can check this using the Lorentz transformation--if we plug in x'=vT' (the position of this clock at t'=0), t'=0 into the reverse version of the Lorentz transformation we get t=GT'*(v^2/c^2), and you can see that GT' - T'/G = GT'*(1 - 1/G^2) = GT'*(1 - (1 - v^2/c^2)) = GT'*(v^2/c^2).
 
Last edited:
JesseM said:
Your proof is correct--another way to see it is just to take the event of O' reading T' as having coordinates x'=0, t'=T' in the K' frame and then plug those into the reverse version of the Lorentz transformation, t=G*(t' + vx'/c^2) which gives t=GT' in the K frame. But why do you consider this a paradox? In the K' frame, this clock was still ticking slower than O' the whole time, it's just that it started out reading more than 0 at t'=0. In fact, at t'=0 it must have read GT' - T'/G, so that it did tick forward by T'/G between t'=0 and t'=T'. You can check this using the Lorentz transformation--if we plug in x'=vT' (the position of this clock at t'=0), t'=0 into the reverse version of the Lorentz transformation we get t=GT'*(v^2/c^2), and you can see that GT' - T'/G = GT'*(1 - 1/G^2) = GT'*(1 - (1 - v^2/c^2)) = GT'*(v^2/c^2).
A very nice analysis. And of course the Lorentz Xform is always the preferred way to go. It was just that I read about the K clock at x=vT reading more than the K origin clock (from the K' POV) in Griffiths "Intro to ElecDyn." And I wanted to "exercise the idea," so to speak. I would think that, so long as a K' observer remains at rest in K', then the idea of the twin "paradox" applies. If I were to take such a trip, however, I'd probably always switch back to K for my rest frame, at trip's conclusion, and realize that (a) the K origin clock really WAS synchronized with the adjacent K clock at x=vT, and (b) my twin back at the origin really WAS older than I. Bottom line: Same Old Same Old. If I had a dollar for every time this so-called paradox has been discussed in the literature ... Ya Hoo! Thanks for the alternate POV.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Back
Top