The Twin Paradox implies that the Universe as a whole is a special frame

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Twin Paradox and its implications regarding the concept of a "special frame" of reference in the universe, as mentioned in Martin Gardner's "Relativity Simply Explained." Participants explore the nature of frames of motion, the validity of Gardner's claims, and the relevance of general relativity (GR) versus special relativity (SR) in understanding the paradox.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the Twin Paradox does not imply the universe has a special frame of motion, suggesting that misunderstandings of Gardner's text may be at play.
  • Others propose that it is possible to construct a universe without a preferred frame of reference, emphasizing the role of inertial motion and proper time in special relativity.
  • A participant introduces the idea that general relativity must be considered if local inertial frames are not sufficient, presenting a more complex scenario involving gravitational effects on time.
  • There is a discussion about the Mossbauer effect and its implications for understanding time dilation in relation to gravity, with some questioning its relevance to the Twin Paradox.
  • Some participants highlight the distinction between different types of frames of motion, noting that inertial frames are considered more special than non-inertial ones.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the interpretation of the Twin Paradox and the implications of Gardner's claims. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of frames of reference and the relevance of gravitational effects in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of frames of reference and the applicability of special versus general relativity in the context of the Twin Paradox. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of Gardner's work.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
Where have you been seeing that?
uh, right here? For one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
thetrellan said:
uh, right here? For one.
Pervect isn't saying what you are saying, though - in fact he explicitly says "the one that undergoes inertial motion will have the longest elapsed time on their clock". Am I correct in my interpretation above, that you are reading his Euclidean length analogy as saying the traveller should be older? Because that's a difference between Euclidean and Minkowski geometry.
 
  • #33
thetrellan said:
uh, right here? For one.

@pervect says exactly the opposite:

pervect said:
if two twins take different routes and meet up again, the one that undergoes inertial motion will have the longest elapsed time on their clock

The one that undergoes inertial motion is the stay-at-home twin, not the traveling twin.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

Undergrad Twin Paradox Resolution
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad Twin Paradox Time Dilation in Positively Curved Universe
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding Spacetime simultaneity in twin paradox scenarios
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
High School My paraphrased explanation of the Twin Paradox
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
Undergrad Explaining the Twin Paradox: A Big Problem?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Undergrad Twin Paradox: Calculating Stan's Time Elapsed According to Moe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Undergrad How Does the Twin Paradox Apply to Light and Sound Waves?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
Undergrad Twin paradox, virtual clock on ship with Earth time, discontinuity
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
9K
Undergrad What happens when twins synchronize clocks and one teleports?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Why the stay-at-home twin is not considered to be accelerating?
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
7K