The Twin Paradox and the Equivalence Principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the twin paradox and its explanation through the equivalence principle, exploring the implications of gravitational potential energy and reference frames. Participants examine the nature of gravitational fields in the context of the paradox, questioning the validity of certain assumptions and interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how the equivalence principle resolves the twin paradox, particularly regarding gravitational potential energy and its dependence on gravitational field strength.
  • Others argue that the asymmetry between the twins arises because one twin is not in an inertial frame, leading to the conclusion that the traveling twin ages less.
  • A participant questions the relevance of the concept of a gravitational well in the context of the twin paradox, noting that the gravitational field created is not a "real" field.
  • Some contributions highlight that the equivalence principle applies locally and question how this leads to the conclusion that the non-traveling twin has higher gravitational potential energy.
  • There is mention of differing views on the acceptance of the strong equivalence principle explanation, with some suggesting that it is not widely accepted.
  • Participants discuss the arbitrary nature of defining gravitational potential and the implications of choosing a zero potential reference point.
  • Some participants reference external sources for further clarification on the twin paradox and its explanations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the interpretation of the equivalence principle in relation to the twin paradox. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of gravitational potential energy and the validity of different explanations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding the implications of the equivalence principle, particularly regarding local versus global effects and the nature of gravitational fields in the context of the twin paradox.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring concepts in relativity, gravitational physics, and the philosophical implications of reference frames in theoretical physics.

  • #61
DrGreg said:
Note that the CADO paper linked to above includes this paragraph:
"More than one reference frame for an accelerating observer have been defined, and there is no consensus about which one is most appropriate. This article describes one such reference frame: the CADO frame."
That is fantastic news. It looks like Mike actually did learn the point from all of those arguments about CADO! I am very pleasantly surprised.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
DrGreg said:
Note that the CADO paper linked to above includes this paragraph:
"More than one reference frame for an accelerating observer have been defined, and there is no consensus about which one is most appropriate. This article describes one such reference frame: the CADO frame."

Yeah, your right. Its further down the page. Sorry, I didn't see it.

The table of contents says they do compare the CADO frame to a couple of other frames in a section toward the bottom, but I haven't read that far yet.
 
  • #63
Underwood said:
I found this link on a physics news group that gave me the answer I've been looking for, how to figure out how much older my home sister gets while I'm turning around. I haven't looked at very much of that web sight yet, its long, but I did find a formula on there that gives me the answer. I was surprised that its easy to do.

https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame
What you really asked, apparently, is how to calculate the difference in perceived distant age between different inertial frames - good for you that you found a detailed calculation example. :smile:

And I see that -happily- that calculation is consistent with our explanations here:
"It is possible for the traveler, by using only elementary observations and elementary calculations, to determine how much she has aged while that image was in transit, and thus to determine what her actual current age was at the instant that he received that image. If he does that correctly, he will get exactly the same result that the Lorentz equations would have given him (and the same result that the CADO equation would have given him)."*

But I wonder if you realize that you touched on a truly problematic issue of the equivalence principle solution with your phrasing "how much older my home sister gets while I'm turning around", and which surely played a role in it being downgraded. Did you consider such things as cause and effect, as well as when exactly this supposed far-away aging due to your turnaround must have happened? :bugeye:*ADDENDUM: If/when you switch between inertial frames then that corresponds to using the Lorentz transformations, and at first sight the web page that you found gives a shortcut to that. Here is the same directly with the Lorentz transformation for time, which looks to me just as simple:

t'=γ(t-vx/c2)

Using that website's example, in the outbound frame we can define that she is moving fast to the right;
x=vt and γ=2 so that v=+sqr(0.75)c=+0.866c and:
t'=2(t-0.75t)

For his age t=20 year at turn-around:
t'=2(20-15)=10 year = her age at turn-around according to the outbound frame.

If we switch to the return frame at turn-around, it's all the same except that now he reckons that she's moving to the left with v=-0.866c:

t'=2(t+0.75t)=2(20+15)=70 = her age at turn-around according to the inbound frame.
The difference is 70-10= 60 years.

And it's just as simple with the direct method: time delay between sending and receiving t2-t1 = (x2-x1)/(c-v)
Thus for this case:

For v=-0.866c: t2-t1 = sqr(0.75)* 20/(1+sqr(0.75)) = 129.28 yr. (inbound or return rocket frame)
For v=+0.866c: t2-t1 = sqr(0.75)* 20/(1-sqr(0.75)) = .. 9.28 yr. (outbound rocket frame)
Difference is.......... 120 yr.

So he now reckons that the signal left Earth 120 yr. earlier on his clock than originally estimated, which corresponds to her now being 60 yrs. older according to him than in his earlier estimation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
9K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K