The Twin Paradox and the Equivalence Principle

[haroldholt]

I'm having a little trouble understanding the equivalence principle explanation of the twin paradox.

I understand that the resolution to the paradox according to the equivalence principle is that the non-traveling twin has a higher gravitational potential energy in the pseudo-gravitational field created when treating the traveling twin's reference frame as an inertial one, but I'm not sure that I understand why this is so.

Doesn't gravitational potential energy at a particular point depend on the strength of the gravitational field at that point? If the twins have different gravitational potential energies, does this mean that the gravitational field is a different strength for each of them? And if this is the case, where is the pseudo-gravitational field at its strongest? For a massive body, the gravitational field is the strongest at the centre of the body. But being a flat pseudo-gravitational field in the case of the twin paradox, there obviously is no centre.

 

[Simon Bridge]

The resolution of the paradox is that one twin is not in an inertial frame - so there is an asymmetry between them that has the traveling twin end up younger.

An accelerating frame is indistinguishable from gravity.
If you treat the traveler's frame as inertial, then you get the appearance of a gravitational field much as you get a centrifugal force when you go around a corner. This is not a "real" gravitational field like you are used to thinking about. Its there to make the math come out in agreement with observation and the assumption of which frame is inertial.

Imagine you are in a closed room that is lit by a bulb hanging by a cord from the ceiling. You observe that the bulb is hanging at an angle so you conclude that there must be some sort of force deflecting the bulb right?

This is provided the reference frame of the room is inertial ... the room could be accelerating.

 

[haroldholt]

The resolution of the paradox is that one twin is not in an inertial frame - so there is an asymmetry between them that has the traveling twin end up younger.

An accelerating frame is indistinguishable from gravity.
If you treat the traveler's frame as inertial, then you get the appearance of a gravitational field much as you get a centrifugal force when you go around a corner. This is not a "real" gravitational field like you are used to thinking about. Its there to make the math come out in agreement with observation and the assumption of which frame is inertial.

Imagine you are in a closed room that is lit by a bulb hanging by a cord from the ceiling. You observe that the bulb is hanging at an angle so you conclude that there must be some sort of force deflecting the bulb right?

This is provided the reference frame of the room is inertial ... the room could be accelerating.

I could probably simplify my question by asking the following: if the traveling observer has a lower gravitational potential energy and is therefore further down the "gravitational well", then where is the bottom of the well?

Taking the gravitational field of the earth, for example, the bottom of the gravitational well is the point at the centre of the mass.

Or is my question irrelevant since the gravitational field being created in the case of the twin paradox isn't real?

 

[Mentz114]

I could probably simplify my question by asking the following: if the traveling observer has a lower gravitational potential energy and is therefore further down the "gravitational well", then where is the bottom of the well?

Taking the gravitational field of the earth, for example, the bottom of the gravitational well is the point at the centre of the mass.

Or is my question irrelevant since the gravitational field being created in the case of the twin paradox isn't real?

The twin scenario in flat spacetime can be resolved without gravity being introduced. Are you talking about twins in the Earth's field or in flat spacetime ?

 

[HallsofIvy]

The equivalence principle says that acceleration is locally the same as an inertial frame with gravity. Since that is local the questions "where is the center" or "where is the bottom of the gravity well" do not arise.

 

[haroldholt]

The equivalence principle says that acceleration is locally the same as an inertial frame with gravity. Since that is local the questions "where is the center" or "where is the bottom of the gravity well" do not arise.

If the equivalence principle only applies locally, how do we conclude that the non-traveling twin has a higher gravitational potential energy?

 

[harrylin]

I could probably simplify my question by asking the following: if the traveling observer has a lower gravitational potential energy and is therefore further down the "gravitational well", then where is the bottom of the well?

Taking the gravitational field of the earth, for example, the bottom of the gravitational well is the point at the centre of the mass.

Or is my question irrelevant since the gravitational field being created in the case of the twin paradox isn't real?

A lower gravitational potential just corresponds to a lower height; gravitational potential energy at a particular point does not depend on the strength of the gravitational field at that point. But the equivalence principle explanation (at least the strong one, pretending a "real" field) isn't widely accepted.

- Original (and "strong") equivalence principle explanation:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_Objections_against_the_Theory_of_Relativity

- Physics FAQ commentary:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gr.html

Harald

 

[haroldholt]

A lower gravitational potential just corresponds to a lower height; gravitational potential energy at a particular point does not depend on the strength of the gravitational field at that point. But the equivalence principle explanation (at least the strong one, pretending a "real" field) isn't widely accepted.

- Original (and "strong") equivalence principle explanation:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_Objections_against_the_Theory_of_Relativity

- Physics FAQ commentary:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gr.html

Harald

Which explanation, from the point of view of the traveling twin, is the most widely accepted?

 

[Simon Bridge]

Just a side note:

if the traveling observer has a lower gravitational potential energy and is therefore further down the "gravitational well", then where is the bottom of the well?

You are aware that the choice of a zero potential is arbitrary?
If you put zero at infinity - then all potentials are negative and some more than others. OPs question then becomes - where is the smallest potential to be found?

One would expect to find this at the center of mass for the Universe right?
But the Universe does not have a center...

But this sort of question does not depend on the equivalence principle.

The starting point to understanding this would be that the infinite distance = zero potential is a convention only - not actually real. The question is actually about the structure of space-time.

Assuming that's where he was headed.

 

[Mentz114]

Which explanation, from the point of view of the traveling twin, is the most widely accepted?

The Einstein argument is rather dated and the problem is best analysed ( as the Baez page suggests) using the proper length argument

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html

 

[harrylin]

Which explanation, from the point of view of the traveling twin, is the most widely accepted?

I think that the special relativistic explanation is the most widely accepted - thus perhaps not really "from the point of view of the traveling twin".

 

[PeterDonis]

I understand that the resolution to the paradox according to the equivalence principle is that the non-traveling twin has a higher gravitational potential energy in the pseudo-gravitational field created when treating the traveling twin's reference frame as an inertial one, but I'm not sure that I understand why this is so.

Check out the Usenet Physics FAQ entry on the Twin Paradox:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

In particular, the "Equivalence Principle Analysis" page:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gr.html

 

[PeterDonis]

But being a flat pseudo-gravitational field in the case of the twin paradox, there obviously is no centre.

There is no center, but there is still a definite "up-down" direction, defined by the direction of the "force" you have to exert to stay stationary in the field. (Which is ultimately derived from the direction the traveling twin's rockets push him when he turns around.) The traveling twin is "below" the stay-at-home twin when he turns around because the direction from the traveling twin to the stay-at-home twin is "up".

 

[haroldholt]

The Einstein argument is rather dated and the problem is best analysed ( as the Baez page suggests) using the proper length argument

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html

When you say that the Einstein argument is rather dated, do you mean that the idea of treating the traveling twin's frame of reference as an inertial one is dated in general?

 

[stevendaryl]

The Einstein argument is rather dated and the problem is best analysed ( as the Baez page suggests) using the proper length argument

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html

I've always been slightly annoyed by the "gravitational time dilation" explanation for the twin paradox for two reasons.

First, it's kind of circular. You say that the accelerating twin is equivalent to a stationary twin in a gravitational field, and then you apply the formula for gravitational time dilation. But how do you know that clocks in a gravitational field experience gravitational time dilation? By transforming the problem to an equivalent case involving acceleration in flat spacetime, and using SR. You can skip the "gravitation" step and just use SR, plus calculus to transform to a noninertial coordinate system, if that's more convenient.

Second, it has bizarre consequences. Let me describe a variant of the twin paradox: There are two planets many light-years apart. Two twins were separated at birth and one went to live on one planet, and the other went to live on the other planet. The two planets are at rest relative to each other, and the twins are the same age, according to the reference frame of the planets. When one twin reaches age 20, he accelerates to nearly the speed of light. and travels to the other twin. When he arrives, he has only 21 years old, but the other twin is 40 years old. The traveling twin explains this using gravitational time dilation: during the time of acceleration, the distant twin aged rapidly, gaining at least 20 years during the brief time of acceleration.

What's wrong with that explanation? Well, imagine that traveling twin, after accelerating, changes his mind; he decelerates and returns to his own planet. If the whole process of accelerating and decelerating was quick (much less than one year) then the twins will still be approximately the same age. But what that means is that the distant twin gained 20 years during acceleration, and then lost 20 years during deceleration. Gravitational time dilation can work to youthen a distant twin as well as age him prematurely.

 

[Dale]

imagine that traveling twin, after accelerating, changes his mind; he decelerates and returns to his own planet. If the whole process of accelerating and decelerating was quick (much less than one year) then the twins will still be approximately the same age. But what that means is that the distant twin gained 20 years during acceleration, and then lost 20 years during deceleration. Gravitational time dilation can work to youthen a distant twin as well as age him prematurely.

The problem mentioned here isn't a problem of the gravitational explanation, but one of poorly specified non inertial coordinate systems. There is no one unique meaning to "the reference frame" of a non inertial observer. The most naive frame that you describe simply doesn't cover regions of spacetime sufficiently "low" for time to run backwards. You cannot use a chart to make claims about a region of spacetime that it doesn't cover. In any valid coordinate chart which does cover the other twin, his age will never go backwards.

 

[lalbatros]

... The resolution of the paradox is that one twin is not in an inertial frame - so there is an asymmetry between them that has the traveling twin end up younger. ...

It is possible to script another scenario where the "second twin" doesn't return home and just sends "somebody else" back and in such a way that there is no acceleration anywhere in the scenario.

In this way, the geometry appears to contain the full effect.

 

[stevendaryl]

The problem mentioned here isn't a problem of the gravitational explanation, but one of poorly specified non inertial coordinate systems. There is no one unique meaning to "the reference frame" of a non inertial observer. The most naive frame that you describe simply doesn't cover regions of spacetime sufficiently "low" for time to run backwards. You cannot use a chart to make claims about a region of spacetime that it doesn't cover. In any valid coordinate chart which does cover the other twin, his age will never go backwards.

I would think that the point of the "gravitational time dilation explanation" is to explain the differential aging from the point of view of the traveling twin. So what you're saying now is that if the traveling twin has too complicated a path, then you can't explain it from the point of view of the traveling twin. For sufficiently complicated situations, there is no "coordinate system of the traveling twin" from which can "explain" the differential ages.

As you say, you can use several different coordinate charts for different parts of the trip. But then the explanation "The inertial twin is older because of gravitational time dilation" really doesn't make sense. Once you have multiple charts, you're abandoning the idea of looking at things "from the point of view of the traveling twin".

 

[stevendaryl]

The problem mentioned here isn't a problem of the gravitational explanation, but one of poorly specified non inertial coordinate systems.

My other point stands. The gravitational explanation isn't an explanation at all,
it's a calculation. If in inertial coordinates, the invariant interval is given by:

ds² = dt² - dx²/c²

and you change coordinates to X,T, then it follows that in terms of X and T

ds² =
(A² - C²/c²) dT²
+ 2(AB - CD/c²) dX dT
+ (B² - D²/c²) dX²

where A = ∂t/∂T,
B = ∂t/∂X
C = ∂x/∂T
D = ∂x/∂X

This is just calculus, there is no new insight about gravitation or the way it affects clocks required.

 

[A.T.]

I've always been slightly annoyed by the "gravitational time dilation" explanation for the twin paradox for two reasons.
First, it's kind of circular. You say that the accelerating twin is equivalent to a stationary twin in a gravitational field, and then you apply the formula for gravitational time dilation. But how do you know that clocks in a gravitational field experience gravitational time dilation? By transforming the problem to an equivalent case involving acceleration in flat spacetime, and using SR. You can skip the "gravitation" step and just use SR, plus calculus to transform to a noninertial coordinate system, if that's more convenient.

So, you don't like invoking the word "gravity" and the EP, but instead stick to the SR non-inertial frame as such, where clocks run at different rates too.

Second, it has bizarre consequences. Let me describe a variant of the twin paradox: There are two planets many light-years apart. Two twins were separated at birth and one went to live on one planet, and the other went to live on the other planet. The two planets are at rest relative to each other, and the twins are the same age, according to the reference frame of the planets. When one twin reaches age 20, he accelerates to nearly the speed of light. and travels to the other twin. When he arrives, he has only 21 years old, but the other twin is 40 years old. The traveling twin explains this using gravitational time dilation: during the time of acceleration, the distant twin aged rapidly, gaining at least 20 years during the brief time of acceleration.

What's wrong with that explanation? Well, imagine that traveling twin, after accelerating, changes his mind; he decelerates and returns to his own planet. If the whole process of accelerating and decelerating was quick (much less than one year) then the twins will still be approximately the same age. But what that means is that the distant twin gained 20 years during acceleration, and then lost 20 years during deceleration. Gravitational time dilation can work to youthen a distant twin as well as age him prematurely.

Yes, but don't this bizarre consequences appear in the non-inertial frame of the traveling twin in any case, even if you skip that gravity part, as you suggest above?

 

[stevendaryl]

So, you don't like invoking the word "gravity" and the EP, but instead stick to the SR non-inertial frame as such, where clocks run at different rates too.

Yes, but don't this bizarre consequences appear in the non-inertial frame of the traveling twin in any case, even if you skip that gravity part, as you suggest above?

If you use noninertial coordinates, as Dale says, there is no such thing as the coordinate system of the accelerated observer. Instead, you have several "coordinate charts", and you have to piece together several of them to compute elapsed time for a clock. One of the criteria for being a legitimate coordinate chart is that the same spacetime point cannot have two different coordinates.

It's actually like trying to compute the length of a path on the surface of the Earth using maps. If you look at a flat map, distances are completely distorted near the North Pole and South Pole (the North Pole itself is stretched out into a line, instead of being just a point). It's not very good for computing distances. If you look at maps for smaller regions, say 100 km x 100 km, then a flat map gives a good approximation to distances. So a way to compute the length of a very long route over the Earth is to start with a 100x100 map of the starting point. Compute the length up until the route passes out of the region. Then get another map, and figure out which point on the second map corresponds to the exit point on the first map. Keep adding up the distances until the route passes outside of the region for the second map. Then get a third map, etc.

So you can compute the total distance as follows:
Let P₁ be the starting point. Find some map that covers P₁.
Let P₂ be the last point on the first map. Pick a second map that covers P₂. Let P₃ be the last point on the second map. Etc.

Let D_n be the distance between P_n and P_n+1, as measured using the nth map. Then D = sum over n of D_n.

The same sort of thing works to find elapsed time for a complicated path through spacetime.

 

[TSny]

A nice explanation of the twin paradox using the GR point of view is in the old book "Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology" by Tolman.

If you go to Google Books at books.google.com/?hl=EN and search "Tolman Cosmolgy" you will find the book. The explanation starts on page 194.

 

[Dale]

For sufficiently complicated situations, there is no "coordinate system of the traveling twin" from which can "explain" the differential ages.

No, I said there was no unique coordinate system. Meaning there are a variety of ways of constructing a non inertial coordinate system, and you have to specify which one you are using in a lot of detail.

Any valid coordinate chart you choose can "explain" it correctly, but the explanation will differ. In none of them will the other twin age backwards.

 

[TSny]

Here’s a link to a derivation of the rate of an arbitrarily accelerating clock as observed by an arbitrarily accelerating observer assuming that the clock and observer are always moving along the same line.

//sdrv.ms/JPxY5H

The derivation is tedious, but the final result (equation 18) is quite simple. The rate of ticking of the clock according to the observer is just a product of a time dilation factor due to relative speed (u) and a factor due to the acceleration felt by the observer (g). (How u and g are defined for the accelerating clock and observer is discussed in the derivation.)

The factor due to the acceleration is interesting, it has the appearance of “gravitational time dilation” due to a uniform gravitational field of strength g.

 

[Underwood]

If you use noninertial coordinates, as Dale says, there is no such thing as the coordinate system of the accelerated observer.

That doesn't sound right. Shouldn't anyone be able to figure out how old the home twin is?

 

[stevendaryl]

That doesn't sound right. Shouldn't anyone be able to figure out how old the home twin is?

There are two different, but related questions about the age of a distant twin: (1) How old is that twin right now? (2) How old is that twin when such and such event happens? (where the event might be specified by: the two twins reunite).

To be able to talk about how old a twin is "right now" requires a choice about a time coordinate that covers both twins. For an inertial frame, there is a unique "best" time coordinate, but for an accelerated twin, there is no unique choice of a time coordinate.

 

[stevendaryl]

No, I said there was no unique coordinate system. Meaning there are a variety of ways of constructing a non inertial coordinate system, and you have to specify which one you are using in a lot of detail.

But the fact that there are a variety of ways to construct a noninertial coordinate system means to me that none of them is really telling things "from the point of view of the accelerated twin". The Rindler coordinates come close, but they cannot be used for a twin who "turns around" and starts accelerating in the opposite direction. Once you start using coordinate charts, you're really abandoning the idea of understanding things from any observer's point of view. The charts aren't necessarily from anyone's "point of view".

 

[Underwood]

To be able to talk about how old a twin is "right now" requires a choice about a time coordinate that covers both twins. For an inertial frame, there is a unique "best" time coordinate, but for an accelerated twin, there is no unique choice of a time coordinate.

If I was on a rocket trip, I would know that my sister back home always had some age at any time on my trip. If the rocket driver told me that she didn't have some age right then, I wouldn't believe him. I wouldn't believe anybody who told me that.

 

[Nugatory]

If I were on a rocket trip, I would know that my sister back home always had some age at any time on my trip. If the rocket driver told me that she didn't have some age right then, I wouldn't believe him. I wouldn't believe anybody who told me that.

A wise undergraduate physics student once said that the way to resolve all paradoxes of special relativity is to look for the evil and treacherous phrase "at the same time"... Sometimes it's well-hidden, but if you keep looking... Here that evil and treacherous concept is hiding in the text that I've bolded above.

Yes, of course your sister always has some definite age, just as her wristwatch will always record some definite time since you and she parted. However, different observers on different rocket ships moving at different speeds will have different ideas about what that age is; and that's not especially remarkable because they all have different ideas of what's "right then". They're checking her watch and her age at different times so of course they get different answers.

None of this has anything to do with what your sister experiences. She's happily living her life back at home, celebrating a birthday once a year and keeping track of her age in her home reference frame, unconcerned that you and the other rocket observers are seeing time pass at different rates.

 

[cosmik debris]

It is possible to script another scenario where the "second twin" doesn't return home and just sends "somebody else" back and in such a way that there is no acceleration anywhere in the scenario.

In this way, the geometry appears to contain the full effect.

Yes, an incoming triplet can transfer the time on the outgoing triplet's clock to hir own and carry that back to the stay at home triplet. No acceleration is necessary for the effect.

 

[stevendaryl]

If I was on a rocket trip, I would know that my sister back home always had some age at any time on my trip. If the rocket driver told me that she didn't have some age right then, I wouldn't believe him. I wouldn't believe anybody who told me that.

Well, if it makes you happy to think that your sister always has a definite age, no matter how far away she is, just pick a coordinate system, any coordinate system, and always use that one. In relativity discussions, people always assume that the traveling twin picks a coordinate system in which he is at rest. He doesn't have to--he can continue to use the Earth's coordinate system, if he likes. The point of relativity is that the traveling twin can use any coordinate system he likes to do physics.

You might think that your sister's actual age is whatever age she has, according to the Earth's coordinate system. However, if you use a different coordinate system, you would compute a different age for your sister "right now" and you would never run into any contradiction.

Suppose you are billions of miles away from your sister. While you are away, your sister celebrates her 20th birthday--call that event e_sister--and you celebrate your 20th birthday--call that event e_you. Then the question is: is e_sister before, after, or at the same time as e_you?

You can say that e_sister is definitely before e_you if it is possible to send a signal from the first to the second. If you receive a video transmission of her birthday party, and it arrives before you celebrate your birthday, then you know for sure that her birthday happened earlier.

You can say that e_sister is definitely after e_you if it is possible to send a signal from the second to the first. If she receives a video transmission of your birthday party, and it arrives before she celebrates her birthday, then you know for sure that your birthday happened earlier.

But if it is not possible to send a signal in either direction in time--your video of birthday arrives after her birthday, and vice-verse--then the two events are called "spacelike separated". According to some coordinate systems, your sister's birthday was first. According to some other coordinate systems, your birthday was first. According to yet other coordinate systems, the two events happened at the same time. As far as the physics is concerned, there is no "right" answer; anyone of those coordinate systems are just as good as any other.

 

[Underwood]

Well, if it makes you happy to think that your sister always has a definite age, no matter how far away she is, just pick a coordinate system, any coordinate system, and always use that one.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. If I was on a rocket trip, every time I thought about my sister back home, I would know that she was somewhere right then, and I would know that she was doing something right then. I would want to know how to figure out how old she was right then, because I would want to imagine what she might be doing right then. If the captain told me that the navigator says she is 2 years old right then, and that the driver says she is 30 years old right then, and if the captain told me that they were both right, I would never believe that. She has some age right then, and it's not just some choice or pick that people on that rocket can make. I might not know how to figure out what her age is, but she has some particular age right then, and everyone on that rocket should figure the same age for her, I'm sure of that.

 

[Nugatory]

I don't think you understood what I was saying. If I was on a rocket trip, every time I thought about my sister back home, I would know that she was somewhere right then, and I would know that she was doing something right then. I would want to know how to figure out how old she was right then, because I would want to imagine what she might be doing right then. If the captain told me that the navigator says she is 2 years old right then, and that the driver says she is 30 years old right then, and if the captain told me that they were both right, I would never believe that. She has some age right then, and it's not just some choice or pick that people can make. I might not know how to figure out what her age is, but it's some real age, I'm sure of that.

You're still using that evil and treacherous phrase "right then" :)

If the captain, the driver, and you are all using the same reference frame, as you likely are because you're all on the same ship, then you will all be talking about the same thing when you say "right then", so you all will have the same answer for the "How old is she and what is she doing right now?" question (see, I slipped those evil and treacherous words in too; otherwise the question would be well and thoroughly unanswerable).

However, someone else in another spaceship could go zooming by at a high rate of speed relative to you, so is using a different reference frame. As he passes your ship, you call out "How old is my sister right now?", and he shouts his answer back to you. It could be different from the answer that you got from your ship's crew - and they'd both be right.

 

[DrGreg]

...I would never believe that. She has some age right then, and it's not just some choice or pick that people can make. I might not know how to figure out what her age is, but it's some real age, I'm sure of that.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. The Universe doesn't behave the way you'd like it to behave. This counter-intuitive behaviour is the most difficult part to understand when learning relativity, but when two people are separated by a distance and in relative motion, there is no universal agreement over what "right then" means.

 

[mimethic]

Of course "scio me nihil scire " is in power here. Universe doesn't behave the way we want... Maybe.. Maybe not. This is relativity isnt? There is many scenarios of "what would happened with twins if..." I would like to ask... What Would happened if we invert the problem. Make -v and -t. If we world is relative and indeed it could be. Because we don't know is it relative. Scientis who believe in relativite often search for universal formula. But about inverted twins paradox. If we can manipulate the time or... Dependance of time... We may invert ot that the time will back... . If something moves really fast with velocity c we have a distance 0km/s to 300000km/s. the c velocity is the biggest known velocity right? Relqtion between twins is like 1 to 7 (about years) . But c... Is not the biggest value in relative world. If the twins move to opposite directions what than? They are moving (in relation to each other) with velocity 2c... So 600 000 is value that we should consider.

Ah god I ve started other topis. What was i... Ah invertet paradox. I dare to think that everything is relative. We have electron and pozyton... Neutrino and antineutrino... So if we make one brothers living time longer in the relation to other.. We may invert this proces and make time stop and move back. Because everything is possible and we are still litle insects.


Ps. Sory if my english is not as well as should be.

 

[Simon Bridge]

No nononono; it is you who has not understood what you are being told.
You are on your rocket ship and so it the captain and the navigator ... so you all agree about what age she is "right now" just like you all agree on what the ship's time is. YOu just have to decide what you mean by "right now".

If you didn't know how to work out her age yourself, then you maybe ask them to do it for you right? Then they would be justified in asking which coordinate system you wanted the calculation done for: the ship's, her's, whatever? Each are equally "valid" certainly for the purposes of "imagining what she's doing right now".

Usually - to work what you are doing "right now" I just look at you ... if you are a long way-away I may want to factor in the time it takes light to travel to me. That the sort of thing you mean? So you imagine looking at her with a telescope and you see that she is 20yo but you are 3ly away so she must be 23? We can ask: how old are you when you made the observation?

 

[harrylin]

If the rocket driver told me that she didn't have some age right then, I wouldn't believe him. I wouldn't believe anybody who told me that. [..] If I was on a rocket trip, every time I thought about my sister back home, I would know that she was somewhere right then, and I would know that she was doing something right then. [..] She has some age right then, and it's not just some choice or pick that people on that rocket can make. I might not know how to figure out what her age is, but she has some particular age right then, and everyone on that rocket should figure the same age for her, I'm sure of that.

Yes of course, if everyone on that rocket uses the same assumptions and reference (=the same reference frame), then indeed everyone on that rocket should figure the same age for her. And if they use other assumptions, then they will figure a different age for her; they will not claim that she doesn't have some age right then.

Elaborating on what Simon said:
They decide (by convention) what her age is based on their assumption about how long it takes for light from her to reach them. For example they receive a message from her in which she says that now she's 30 years old. Assuming that the speed of light is 3E8 m/s relative to the rocket, they calculate that the radio signal took 1 year to reach them so that "now" she's 31 years old according to their reckoning. But according to her reckoning, if they are moving way from Earth it takes for example 2 years for her call to reach them so that according to her they receive her call when she's 32 years old.

 

[Dale]

But the fact that there are a variety of ways to construct a noninertial coordinate system means to me that none of them is really telling things "from the point of view of the accelerated twin".

The term "point of view" isn't rigorously defined either. Pretty much any coordinate system can be taken as the point of view of some object if you define it that way. It is simply a matter of definition.

 

[Underwood]

Usually - to work what you are doing "right now" I just look at you ... if you are a long way-away I may want to factor in the time it takes light to travel to me.

That makes a lot of sense to me. I think that's the answer I've been looking for. Any time on that rocket that I'm thinking about my sister, I just look at her on a TV screen, and I can see how old she was when that TV picture started toward me. And she can even be telling me on the TV exactly how old she was then. But that's not her age right now. But if I can figure out how much older she got while that TV picture was getting to me, I can just add that amount and then I'll know how old she is right now. That's the answer! Now, I just have to figure out how much older she got while the TV picture was getting to me. Anyone know how to do that?

... I may want to factor in the time it takes light to travel to me.

Why do you say "may want"? Seems to me that you'd always have to do that. Otherwise you could be very wrong about her age now. She does have some particular age, I'm sure of that. You just have to figure out what it is, and the above way gets it right. That's the answer.

 

[harrylin]

That makes a lot of sense to me. [..] if I can figure out how much older she got while that TV picture was getting to me, I can just add that amount and then I'll know how old she is right now. That's the answer! Now, I just have to figure out how much older she got while the TV picture was getting to me. Anyone know how to do that?

I already told you how to do that in my answer.

 

[stevendaryl]

The term "point of view" isn't rigorously defined either.

I know, it's an informal notion. But I think there is a sense in which, for an inertial observer, the description using an inertial coordinate system in which that observer is at rest can be thought of as describing things from his point of view. For an observer with constant proper acceleration, describing things using Rindler coordinates can be thought as describing things from the point of view of the accelerated observer. But for complicated motions of the observer, there really is no sensible notion of describing things from the point of view of that observer, except locally.

 

[Dale]

I know, it's an informal notion. But I think there is a sense in which, for an inertial observer, the description using an inertial coordinate system in which that observer is at rest can be thought of as describing things from his point of view. For an observer with constant proper acceleration, describing things using Rindler coordinates can be thought as describing things from the point of view of the accelerated observer. But for complicated motions of the observer, there really is no sensible notion of describing things from the point of view of that observer, except locally.

Personally, I think that, if Einstein's simultaneity convention is taken as the "point of view" of an inertial observer, then Dolby and Gull's convention should be taken as the "point of view" of a non-inertial observer. It works for arbitrarily complicated motions, and it is the logical extension of Einstein's convention. It reduces to Rindler coordinates for a constantly accelerating observer and to Minkowski coordinates for an inertial observer.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104077

 

[Simon Bridge]

That makes a lot of sense to me. I think that's the answer I've been looking for. Any time on that rocket that I'm thinking about my sister, I just look at her on a TV screen, and I can see how old she was when that TV picture started toward me. And she can even be telling me on the TV exactly how old she was then. But that's not her age right now. But if I can figure out how much older she got while that TV picture was getting to me, I can just add that amount and then I'll know how old she is right now. That's the answer! Now, I just have to figure out how much older she got while the TV picture was getting to me. Anyone know how to do that?

I see - you have already been told of course ... your problem is that you need to define your terms.

You can apply time dilation to work out how old she sees herself to be when you are viewing the image of her and then how old she measures you to be when you are viewing the image and so on back and forth and get very confused if you like.

You need to be careful with your terminology and reasoning in relativity - which is what everyone is trying to impress upon you.

Why do you say "may want"? Seems to me that you'd always have to do that. Otherwise you could be very wrong about her age now. She does have some particular age, I'm sure of that. You just have to figure out what it is, and the above way gets it right. That's the answer.

I mean that not everyone thinks that way... I mean you don't normally take account of the time it take light to get to you right? Some people would define "right now" to be whatever they just experienced.

 

[ghwellsjr]

That makes a lot of sense to me. I think that's the answer I've been looking for. Any time on that rocket that I'm thinking about my sister, I just look at her on a TV screen, and I can see how old she was when that TV picture started toward me. And she can even be telling me on the TV exactly how old she was then. But that's not her age right now. But if I can figure out how much older she got while that TV picture was getting to me, I can just add that amount and then I'll know how old she is right now. That's the answer! Now, I just have to figure out how much older she got while the TV picture was getting to me. Anyone know how to do that?

Let's say that your sister has several brothers and they all take a trip in the same direction in separate spaceships but they leave at different times and travel at different speeds. The first one to leave travels at the slowest speed and each one thereafter travels at a faster speed. There are several years between the first one leaving and the last one leaving.

Then your sister sends her video and it just so happens that all the brothers are at the same distant location when they receive the video. If they each use their own reference frame and the time on their own clock since they left your sister, they will each determine that she is a different age. They will all be different ages too.

The only way that they could agree on her age is if they use your sister's reference frame but if they do that, they don't need a video or any signal from your sister, they just have to assume that she stays put and doesn't do any space traveling herself.

 

[Underwood]

I mean that not everyone thinks that way... I mean you don't normally take account of the time it take light to get to you right? Some people would define "right now" to be whatever they just experienced.

We all know that the TV picture doesn't immediately get to the rocket. So it's an old TV picture, and it doesn't tell me what my sister's age really is when I'm looking at that TV picture. She had to get older while the TV picture was getting to me. I don't know yet how to figure out what that extra time was, but it was some particular time. It's not some extra time that I have a choice about. It is what it is.

 

[Underwood]

Let's say that your sister has several brothers and they all take a trip in the same direction in separate spaceships but they leave at different times and travel at different speeds.

I understand that. My brothers won't agree about her age. I'm just saying that everyone on my rocket has to get the same answer for her age, and they don't get to choose anything.

 

[Underwood]

I already told you how to do that in my answer.

I wasn't able to do it after I read what you wrote. Can you show me how to figure out how much older she gets while the TV pictures are getting to me, and then use that to tell me how much older she gets while I'm turning around? That's what I really want to be able to do, and I can't yet.

 

[harrylin]

I understand that. My brothers won't agree about her age. I'm just saying that everyone on my rocket has to get the same answer for her age, and they don't get to choose anything.

They can choose whatever reference system they like - see post #37 (again). Usually astronauts use the Earth's ECI-frame system.

 

[harrylin]

I wasn't able to do it after I read what you wrote. Can you show me how to figure out how much older she gets while the TV pictures are getting to me, and then use that to tell me how much older she gets while I'm turning around? That's what I really want to be able to do, and I can't yet.

From her Earth perspective/ ECI reference system: at the time that she sends the message, the rocket is at a distance dx flying with a certain speed v (let's assume constant speed exactly away from Earth). Then the radio wave will catch up with the rocket with a relative speed c-v (also called "closing speed"). Thus the time of transit according to her is dx/(c-v).
And according to the rocket's rest frame, the rocket is in rest and so the time of transit is dx'/c.

But I don't understand what you mean with "while I'm turning around"; in the simplest scenarios that turn-around is assumed to be relatively fast, so that it can be neglected. Perhaps you refer to Einstein's "induced gravitational field"? That's not much appreciated nowadays, as that field is just a fake field to make a correction which by definition equals the effect based on special relativity (see post #7 and on).

 

[Nugatory]

I understand that. My brothers won't agree about her age. I'm just saying that everyone on my rocket has to get the same answer for her age, and they don't get to choose anything.

If by "everyone on my rocket has to get the same answer" you mean "if everyone on my rocket will choose to use the same reference frame (presumably our rocket frame because it is right under our noses and is so natural/obvious that we sometimes forget it's not the only possibility) they have to get the same answer" then yes, you are correct.