- #1

Jeff B L

- 3

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- B
- Thread starter Jeff B L
- Start date

In summary: The expert sees the underlying symmetry.In summary, the twin paradox is a problem that occurs when you compare the proper times of two twins who have different coordinate times. The problem is that if you blindly apply the time dilation formula without accounting for the relativity of simultaneity, you get the wrong result. However, it is possible to construct a scenario where the different paths have the same elapsed time.

- #1

Jeff B L

- 3

- 0

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

- 22,121

- 13,641

They will both experience the same time. It is a symmetric scenario.

- #3

Jeff B L

- 3

- 0

- #4

- 22,121

- 13,641

You cannot apply a formula without taking into account the implicit assumptions that go into deriving it.

- #5

Jeff B L

- 3

- 0

OK. Thanks for explaining.

- #6

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 12,394

- 14,414

The easiest way to understand is to note that the elapsed time for any object turns out to be the "length" of its path through spacetime. Two objects that start together move apart, and come back together again, are taking different routes through spacetime. They will, in general, experience different elapsed times. But it's always possible to construct a scenario where the different paths have the same length - i.e. the same elapsed time.

Last edited:

- #7

Dale

Mentor

- 35,706

- 14,085

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-twins-paradox-redux.893611/Jeff B L said:But what I’ve never seen addressed is the scenario in which both twins, starting at the same place, accelerate in opposite directions at a large fraction of light speed, then turn around and head back at the same high speed and meet where their respective journeys began.

- #8

- 24,488

- 15,026

$$\tau=\int_{t_0}^{t_1} \mathrm{d} t \sqrt{\eta_{\mu \nu} \dot{x}^{\mu} \dot{x}^{\nu}} = \int_{t_0}^{t_1} \mathrm{d} t \sqrt{1-\vec{\beta}^2}.$$

This gives ##\tau## in terms of the coordinate time of the inertial observer. That's it.

You can also compare the proper times of any two non-inertial twins, using the same formula. It tells you unambigously how much each of them aged during their respective journeys.

There's no paradox but just the fact that you can travel from place A to place B in spacetime on different paths, and the traveled path lengths are then usually different. That's very much as in spatial distances in everyday life. You can go from one place to another in many ways, and each choice of your way leads to another distance travelled!

- #9

Dale

Mentor

- 35,706

- 14,085

And it generalizes very easily to curved spacetime.vanhees71 said:You can also compare the proper times of any two non-inertial twins, using the same formula.

- #10

- 22,121

- 13,641

I do not think there is a puzzle for anyone who understands the argument you followed up with. The problem lies with the laymen who have a hard time getting rid of the concept of absolute simultaneity and therefore do not get the implicit assumptions in the derivation of ##t_0 = t/\gamma##.vanhees71 said:I never understood, why there is a puzzle.

- #11

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 12,394

- 14,414

Indeed. A naive reaction to the scenario is to (unthinkingly) adopt an absolute rest frame: the traveling twin comes back younger because he was moving fast. The next step up is to realize that the traveling twin sees the stay-at-home moving fast and (unthinkingly) apply the time dilation formula for both frames and not catch the simultaneity change, which leads to a paradox. The point of the Twin Paradox is to illustrate this particular pitfall, as you say. The final step is to understand relativity in terms of four-dimensional manifolds and then it's almost hard to see why anyone ever thought it paradoxical.Orodruin said:I do not think there is a puzzle for anyone who understands the argument you followed up with. The problem lies with the laymen who have a hard time getting rid of the concept of absolute simultaneity and therefore do not get the implicit assumptions in the derivation of ##t_0 = t/\gamma##.

It's quite Zen (or cod Zen, anyway). The novice sees no paradox. The journeyman sees the paradox. The master... sees no paradox.

- #12

- 10,330

- 1,508

Suppose you have two cars, with odometers. Both odometers are "synchronized" at the start of the trip, so they both read the same. Then one car takes a straight line path from it's starting location (say Springfield, Ill), to it's ending location (say, Washington DC). The other car doesn't go in a straight line, it goes from Springfield to Atlanta to Washington.

You don't even expect the cars to have the same odometer readings when they both arrive at Washington DC. But you expect that the car that drove in the straight line path has the lowest reading.

The principle behind the odometer reading being a minimum for one car is that "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line". A corollary is that non-straight line paths are longer.

The situation in relativity is somewhat similar, but it turns out that the straight-line path is the longest (proper) time, rather than the shortest. Why this is is interesting, but a little too technical for the point I'm trying to make.

The point I'm making is that the very idea that the two clocks, or cars, should have the same reading on their instruments, their times, or their odometers, is not a logical necessity. The idea that clocks "should" have the same reading comes from the notion of absolute time, usually. This would be the only thing I needed to say, if everyone who read this post knew what "absolute time" actually meant. But they most likely don't (or they would have figured this all out for themselves, ages ago), so I'm going to try the above example to explain.

It's possible to go into a whole lot more detail about the geometry, and at some point it even becomes a good idea. What I'm advocating is to start out with the idea that two clocks don't have to read the same time if they take different paths through space-time. And that there is something special about straight-line motion, which in the case of cars gives the shortest reading on their odometers when they re-unite, and in the case of clocks, gives the longest reading on the clock.

To try and explain to the people who "don't get" where the confusion is, I'll suggest the following model. The people who are confused believe in absolute time, and never thought about time in any other way. They then try to treat acceleration as a physical effect that modifies an underlying absolute time. And they note that this approach just doesn't work. But the idea of throwing out "absolute time" seems too radical to them, it's even hard to talk about it because they'd have to realize an alternative to absolute time even existed before they could think about it. And the idea that it might not apply hasn't occurred to them, and the words pointing out that it doesn't apply don't make any sense, because they don't have the conceptual background to appreciate them.

Now, I can't guarantee that my general model of "why people don't get it" works, but I think it's a good working hypothesis in 90+ percent of the cases.

- #13

- 24,488

- 15,026

Of course, this is usually the greatest obstacle to get used to the relativistic spacetime structure when it comes to discussuion of the (usually much overpronounced) kinematical "paradoxes". Math (formulae not so much spacetime/Minkowski diagrams in my case) usually resolves such troubles quite easily. Thus, one should keep Pauli's advice in mind: Don't make so many words. On the other hand, there's this investigation on the citations of physics papers containing many formulae ;-)) (I'm pretty sure one cannot take it too seriously, at least not in the theoretical-physics community):Orodruin said:I do not think there is a puzzle for anyone who understands the argument you followed up with. The problem lies with the laymen who have a hard time getting rid of the concept of absolute simultaneity and therefore do not get the implicit assumptions in the derivation of ##t_0 = t/\gamma##.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...s-avoid-reading-papers-with-lots-of-equations

- #14

stoomart

- 392

- 132

Total science layman here...is the simultaneity change you and Ibix are talking about related to the concept that a person at the top of the Empire State Building for a day ages slower than someone in the lobby during the same time?Orodruin said:I do not think there is a puzzle for anyone who understands the argument you followed up with. The problem lies with the laymen who have a hard time getting rid of the concept of absolute simultaneity and therefore do not get the implicit assumptions in the derivation of ##t_0 = t/\gamma##.

- #15

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 12,394

- 14,414

- #16

stoomart

- 392

- 132

I was having a hard time understanding your example until I read this part a few times and saw the following visual on Wikipedia, thanks for the explanation.pervect said:The situation in relativity is somewhat similar, but it turns out that the straight-line path is the longest (proper) time, rather than the shortest. Why this is is interesting, but a little too technical for the point I'm trying to make.

The point I'm making is that the very idea that the two clocks, or cars, should have the same reading on their instruments, their times, or their odometers, is not a logical necessity. The idea that clocks "should" have the same reading comes from the notion of absolute time, usually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Twin_Paradox_Minkowski_Diagram.svg

- #17

stoomart

- 392

- 132

- #18

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 12,394

- 14,414

Age isn't defined for things moving at the speed of light. But if you replace your light pulse with a ball bounced off a wall, then yes.stoomart said:

- #19

Battlemage!

- 294

- 45

I'm still not sure I completely understand on an intuitive level the relativity of simultaneity (other than working out the train "paradox"), but I do know that if you actually work out the time measured by each twin up and back, taking into account length contraction and the time for a light signal to bounce in between them, it seems pretty clear that the traveling twinIbix said:Indeed. A naive reaction to the scenario is to (unthinkingly) adopt an absolute rest frame: the traveling twin comes back younger because he was moving fast. The next step up is to realize that the traveling twin sees the stay-at-home moving fast and (unthinkingly) apply the time dilation formula for both frames and not catch the simultaneity change, which leads to a paradox. The point of the Twin Paradox is to illustrate this particular pitfall, as you say. The final step is to understand relativity in terms of four-dimensional manifolds and then it's almost hard to see why anyone ever thought it paradoxical.

It's quite Zen (or cod Zen, anyway). The novice sees no paradox. The journeyman sees the paradox. The master... sees no paradox.

I guess space time diagrams are easier, but it works out really well for a novice like myself just to calculate the times for each portion of the trip for each twin, in my humble opinion.

As far as the symmetrical example the OP describes, for me that one is much easier to understand intuitively than the standard twin paradox example. No asymmetries to worry about. I think the phrase "moving clocks run slowly" might confuse people some, however.

- #20

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 12,394

- 14,414

The Minkowski diagrams are what let me build intuition here. Draw the lines of simultaneity (t'=constant) for the twin on the outbound and inbound legs (see the diagram linked in #16) and you can see instantly that there's a chunk of time on the Earth twin's clock that you failed to account for (the line segment between the last blue line and the first red one). And that's the Twin paradox resolved - the lines have different elapsed times and you can't just turn the argument around because you've accidentally dropped that middle chunk if you do.Battlemage! said:I guess space time diagrams are easier, but it works out really well for a novice like myself just to calculate the times for each portion of the trip for each twin, in my humble opinion.

The twin paradox refers to a thought experiment in special relativity where one twin travels in a high-speed spaceship while the other stays on Earth. Due to the effects of time dilation, the traveling twin will experience time passing slower and therefore will age less than the twin who stayed on Earth.

Time dilation is a phenomenon predicted by special relativity where time appears to pass slower for an object moving at high speeds. In the twin paradox, the traveling twin is moving at a high speed relative to the stationary twin, causing time to dilate for them. This results in the traveling twin aging less than the stationary twin.

The twin paradox is a thought experiment used to illustrate the principles of special relativity. While it is not a real-life scenario, the phenomenon of time dilation has been observed and confirmed through experiments with high-speed particles and atomic clocks.

There are a few different proposed resolutions to the twin paradox, including the idea that the traveling twin experiences acceleration during their journey, which would affect the time dilation. Another explanation is that when the traveling twin returns to Earth, they must undergo a reversal in their direction of travel, which affects the time dilation as well.

While the twin paradox is a thought experiment, there are real-life examples that demonstrate the principles of time dilation in special relativity. For example, astronauts who spend extended periods of time in space experience time dilation compared to those on Earth. Additionally, GPS satellites must correct for time dilation effects in order to accurately function.

- Replies
- 20

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 35

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 31

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 37

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 32

- Views
- 2K

Share: