The Twin Paradox: Mike & Angela's Frame of Reference

delve
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
I am confused about the twin paradox. Let's imagine Mike and Angela are twins. Mike stays on Earth, and Angela rockets off, away from Earth at close to the speed of light, with the intention of making a round trip back to Earth at the end of her voyage. My question is this: why wouldn't Angela see Mike's frame of reference as accelerating and decelerating, just as Mike sees Angela's frame of reference as accelerating and deceleration? Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
delve said:
I am confused about the twin paradox. Let's imagine Mike and Angela are twins. Mike stays on Earth, and Angela rockets off, away from Earth at close to the speed of light, with the intention of making a round trip back to Earth at the end of her voyage. My question is this: why wouldn't Angela see Mike's frame of reference as accelerating and decelerating, just as Mike sees Angela's frame of reference as accelerating and deceleration? Thank you.

Angela feels the force of acceleration twice on her journey. She knows she is not in an inertial frame of reference. That is what breaks the symmetry of the scenario.
 
it is angela who is accelrating and hence is affected by it...angela's frame is not an inertial frame but an accelerated one...on the other hand...no force is acting on mike...so his frame is an inertial frame...so angela won't see mike's frame as accelerating or decelerating...becoz the force is acting on angela and not on mike...
 
delve said:
I am confused about the twin paradox. Let's imagine Mike and Angela are twins. Mike stays on Earth, and Angela rockets off, away from Earth at close to the speed of light, with the intention of making a round trip back to Earth at the end of her voyage. My question is this: why wouldn't Angela see Mike's frame of reference as accelerating and decelerating, just as Mike sees Angela's frame of reference as accelerating and deceleration? Thank you.

That is what they see if they use accelerated reference systems; and nature doesn't care. A change of velocity (as defined with respect to inertial reference systems) breaks the symmetry. That was already elaborated in the first paper on this topic, here (p.47, and on from p.50):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
137
Views
10K
Back
Top