Special Relativity Controversy: Solving the Paradox

In summary, when observing a train moving close to the speed of light from a stationary platform, the clocks on the train appear to be ticking slower than the clocks on the platform. However, from the frame of reference on the train, the platform's clocks would appear to be ticking slower. This creates a contradiction when considering the aging of individuals on the two frames of reference. This paradox can be resolved by understanding the relativity of simultaneity and the need for acceleration to bring the two frames of reference together.
  • #1
LukasMont
6
3
Hey guys,

My question is a bit confusing:

When we observe a train moving close to the speed of light, passing by the platform, according to the frame of reference in the platform, the clocks in the train are ticking slower than the clocks in the platform itself. According to the frame of reference in the train, however, the platform is moving in opposite direction, close to the speed of light, so the clocks in the platform would tick slower than the clocks in the train.

The contradiction to me is:

If, to the platform, 10min ellapsed in its clocks, but only 6min ellapsed in the clocks on the train (for example), to the train , 10min would have ellapsed in its own clocks and only 6min in the plataform's clocks. To someone in the platform, his twin in the train got younger; to the twin in the train, his brother in the platform was the one to get younger. I'm supposing a situation in which there's no accelerations, curves or turning points of any sort. Isn't it a contradiction? What sense could we make of all this?

How do we solve this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
LukasMont said:
Hey guys,

My question is a bit confusing:

When we observe a train moving close to the speed of light, passing by the platform, according to the frame of reference in the platform, the clocks in the train are ticking slower than the clocks in the platform itself. According to the frame of reference in the train, however, the platform is moving in opposite direction, close to the speed of light, so the clocks in the platform would tick slower than the clocks in the train.

The contradiction to me is:

If, to the platform, 10min ellapsed in its clocks, but only 6min ellapsed in the clocks on the train (for example), to the train , 10min would have ellapsed in its own clocks and only 6min in the plataform's clocks. To someone in the platform, his twin in the train got younger; to the twin in the train, his brother in the platform was the one to get younger. I'm supposing a situation in which there's no accelerations, curves or turning points of any sort. Isn't it a contradiction? What sense could we make of all this?

How do we solve this?
"younger / older" are relative terms and in the kind of space-time you are talking about are only meaningful if/when the two are back standing side by side after having started out side by side. To get THAT, you do have to have acceleration somewhere, otherwise you have to say "younger / older" according to WHICH frame of reference, which leads to the confusion you have.

If you get clear on the relativity of simultaneity you'll understand it.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
LukasMont said:
If, to the platform, 10min ellapsed in its clocks, but only 6min ellapsed in the clocks on the train (for example), to the train , 10min would have ellapsed in its own clocks and only 6min in the plataform's clocks. To someone in the platform, his twin in the train got younger; to the twin in the train, his brother in the platform was the one to get younger. I'm supposing a situation in which there's no accelerations, curves or turning points of any sort. Isn't it a contradiction? What sense could we make of all this?
This apparently paradoxical result comes from failing to include the relativity of simultaneity in the analysis.

Look at https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/special-relativity-time-issues.846242/post-5307390 and https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/weird-time-dilation-question.883303/post-5552719 for an explanation.
(And I’ve posted this often enough in the past weeks that I really ought to write it up as a FAQ... soon)

Once you’ve thought the relativity of simultaneity through for this problem, you’ll realize that the question “which one has aged more?” Is poorly defined. To turn it into well-defined question with an unambiguous answer we have to bring the two twins back together again, standing side-by-side at the same place so relativity of simultaneity isn’t a problem. This is the classic twin paradox, explained in many many threads here and also at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
 
  • #4
LukasMont said:
Hey guys,

My question is a bit confusing:

When we observe a train moving close to the speed of light, passing by the platform, according to the frame of reference in the platform, the clocks in the train are ticking slower than the clocks in the platform itself. According to the frame of reference in the train, however, the platform is moving in opposite direction, close to the speed of light, so the clocks in the platform would tick slower than the clocks in the train.

The contradiction to me is:

If, to the platform, 10min ellapsed in its clocks, but only 6min ellapsed in the clocks on the train (for example), to the train , 10min would have ellapsed in its own clocks and only 6min in the plataform's clocks. To someone in the platform, his twin in the train got younger; to the twin in the train, his brother in the platform was the one to get younger. I'm supposing a situation in which there's no accelerations, curves or turning points of any sort. Isn't it a contradiction? What sense could we make of all this?

How do we solve this?
Remember that the observer on the platform and the observer on the train are comparing different sets of clocks. The observer on the platform witnesses the aging of the train person based on reports he gets from fellow platform people down the line as the train goes forward. On the other hand, the observer on the train witnesses the aging of the platform person based on reports he gets from fellow train people further and further back in the train as the train goes forward. So they can both think that the other observer is aging slower due to the fact that their information is coming from completely different directions.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Motore and PeroK
  • #5
The person on the platform has two clocks, and he synchronizes them. He takes note of the reading on one clock just as the train passes (call this Event A), and then later he takes note of the reading on his other clock, again, just as the train passes (call this Event B). When he compares the readings on his two clocks to the readings on the train clock at Events A and B he concludes that the clock on the train is running slow.

But the person on the train will cry foul, because he will claim that the two platform clocks were not synchronized properly, and this is what causes the guy on the platform to conclude that the clocks on the train are running slow.

There is of course no foul. It's just that the notion of what's simultaneous is different in different frames. A notion that is glossed over in many books, leaving the reader unable to grasp what appears to be a contradiction.
 
  • #6
LukasMont said:
Hey guys,

My question is a bit confusing:

When we observe a train moving close to the speed of light, passing by the platform, according to the frame of reference in the platform, the clocks in the train are ticking slower than the clocks in the platform itself. According to the frame of reference in the train, however, the platform is moving in opposite direction, close to the speed of light, so the clocks in the platform would tick slower than the clocks in the train.

The contradiction to me is:

If, to the platform, 10min ellapsed in its clocks, but only 6min ellapsed in the clocks on the train (for example), to the train , 10min would have ellapsed in its own clocks and only 6min in the plataform's clocks. To someone in the platform, his twin in the train got younger; to the twin in the train, his brother in the platform was the one to get younger. I'm supposing a situation in which there's no accelerations, curves or turning points of any sort. Isn't it a contradiction? What sense could we make of all this?

How do we solve this?
Let me recommend an old post by myself where exactly this problem is addressed:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...multaneity-easier-to-see-with-a-train.468826/

The point is that simutaneity is relative.
 

1. What is the Special Relativity Controversy?

The Special Relativity Controversy refers to the debate surrounding the theory of special relativity, which was proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905. This theory revolutionized our understanding of space and time and has been widely accepted by the scientific community. However, there have been some controversies and debates over certain aspects of the theory, particularly the twin paradox and the concept of time dilation.

2. What is the twin paradox in special relativity?

The twin paradox is a thought experiment that involves two identical twins, one of whom stays on Earth while the other travels at high speeds through space. According to special relativity, time moves slower for objects in motion, so the traveling twin would experience less time than the stationary twin. This would result in the traveling twin being younger when they return to Earth, leading to a paradox. However, this paradox can be resolved by considering the effects of acceleration and the fact that both twins are not in the same inertial frame of reference.

3. How does special relativity solve the paradox?

Special relativity solves the paradox by taking into account the effects of time dilation and length contraction. Time dilation refers to the slowing down of time for objects in motion, while length contraction refers to the shortening of objects in the direction of motion. These effects are a result of the constant speed of light and the fact that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers. Therefore, the twin paradox is not a true paradox and can be explained through the principles of special relativity.

4. What evidence supports the theory of special relativity?

There is a significant amount of evidence that supports the theory of special relativity. One of the most famous is the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer's motion. Other evidence includes the observations of time dilation in high-speed particles and the successful predictions of special relativity in various experiments and technologies, such as GPS systems.

5. Are there any criticisms of the theory of special relativity?

While the theory of special relativity is widely accepted, there have been some criticisms and alternative theories proposed. Some scientists argue that the theory is incomplete and does not fully explain the behavior of gravity or the nature of black holes. Others have proposed alternative theories, such as the Lorentz ether theory, which attempts to explain the same phenomena as special relativity but with a different framework. However, the overwhelming amount of evidence and successful predictions of special relativity make it the most widely accepted theory of space and time.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
613
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
257
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
992
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
676
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
808
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
71
Views
5K
Back
Top