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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GRDixon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox Twin paradox
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the One Way Twin Paradox using Lorentz transformations. It establishes that when clock O' reads T'>0, the coincident K clock reads more than T' due to the effects of time dilation as described by the Lorentz transformation. The proof demonstrates that the K clock ticks forward more than O' due to its relative motion, confirming that the K clock reads GT' while O' reads T'. The conversation emphasizes the importance of the Lorentz transformation in understanding relativistic effects and clarifies misconceptions surrounding the paradox.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations
  • Familiarity with time dilation concepts in special relativity
  • Knowledge of gamma (G) factor calculations
  • Basic grasp of reference frames in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and applications of the Lorentz transformation
  • Explore time dilation effects in special relativity
  • Investigate the implications of the twin paradox in various reference frames
  • Read Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics" for further insights on relativistic effects
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of the twin paradox and relativistic time effects.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
9K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K