Twin clocks-is it acceleration?

[phyti]

Acceleration is an equivalent answer to differential aging only in special cases such as the one restricting all acceleration to one twin.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/56070

 

[mathman]

Acceleration is an equivalent answer to differential aging only in special cases such as the one restricting all acceleration to one twin.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/56070

Doesn't sound right. If both are accelerating, but with different (vector) functions, the results will be different.

 

[Dale]

Acceleration is only invoked to break the symmetry between the twins. In this case, it still breaks the symmetry since their acceleration profiles are different.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Acceleration is only invoked to break the symmetry between the twins. In this case, it still breaks the symmetry since their acceleration profiles are different.

Not as I read it. The twins experience exactly the same accelerations, just at different times. Actually, the first twin has a long gap between his two accelerations while the second twin has no gap.

But I think it would have been easier to see this if extra time were inserted between both gaps. Then we would see the two twins starting out inertially and colocated (at rest with respect to each other), one of them accelerates (the document says decelerates, but it's the same thing) and then the two twins have a relative separation speed between them. After some time, the second twin accelerates in exactly the same way as the first one did, bringing them to rest with respect to each other but with a constant separation between them. Next the second twin accelerates again in the same direction, possibly with the same acceleration as before but this is not necessary. This causes the twins to have a relative closing speed between them that continually reduces their separation. Just before they make contact, the first twin accelerates in exactly the same way as the other twin's second acceleration, bringing them once more into mutual inertial rest and colocation but with different aging accumulated during their time of separation.

I think this is a brilliant variant of the Twin Paradox that shows that acceleration has nothing to do with the difference in aging and it also can't be used to determine which twin is younger, in other words, acceleration cannot be "invoked to break the symmetry between the twins". It also shows that it is not necessary for the twins to return to the same location that they started out in or even that they need to be at rest in the same frame they started out in. But it has the same "paradoxical" issue that while separated, in each twin's inertial rest frame(s), the other twin's time is dilated.

I just don't understand the U-frame/U-time explanation but like all SR scenarios, the standard explanations using inertial frames work just fine. Did you make the document, phyti? Do you understand the explanation?

 

[Dale]

The twins experience exactly the same accelerations, just at different times.

That is asymmetric. What is the symmetry operation which maps one twin's acceleration profile to the other?

According to SR the laws of physics are invariant under spatial rotations, spatial and temporal translations, and boosts. If you make an acceleration and time measurement profile that is symmetric under some combination of those symmetry operations then the twins will have the same elapsed age. Otherwise there is an asymmetry and they do not have the same age.

 

[A.T.]

I think this is a brilliant variant of the Twin Paradox that shows that acceleration has nothing to do with the difference in aging...

The age difference depends on acceleration and the spatial separation during that acceleration.

acceleration cannot be "invoked to break the symmetry between the twins".

Different acceleration profiles break the symmetry.

 

[ghwellsjr]

The twins experience exactly the same accelerations, just at different times.

That is asymmetric. What is the symmetry operation which maps one twin's acceleration profile to the other?

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were including both intervals of acceleration plus the interval of inertial travel between them for the first twin as one acceleration profile. I assumed that the first twin's two intervals of acceleration were separate acceleration profiles.

The document looked to me like it was showing the two acceleration intervals of the first twin concatenated together to form the acceleration profile of the second twin. I broke it apart into two acceleration profiles and inserted a time gap between them (and added the same time gap to the first twin) to make this more obvious in my explanation.

So both twins experience the same two acceleration profiles but with different times between them. It's not the acceleration profiles alone that explain the difference in aging but rather we have to include the time interval between them to get the full story. I just thought this was a brilliant way to counter the argument that "it's the twin that accelerates that ends up younger" and the erroneous conclusion that it is only the acceleration that creates the time difference between them.

 

[bobc2]

Acceleration is an equivalent answer to differential aging only in special cases such as the one restricting all acceleration to one twin.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/56070

phyti, too much focus is given to the acceleration. It's the path lengths through space-time that should be compared, regardless of whether one or both are accelerating and when the accelerations occur.

 

[A.T.]

So both twins experience the same two acceleration profiles but with different times between them.

An "acceleration profile" is the entire history of acceleration between the two meetings. Different timings means different profiles.

It's not the acceleration profiles alone that explain the difference in aging

If you know the acceleration profiles between the two meetings, you can compute the age difference.

 

[ghwellsjr]

An "acceleration profile" is the entire history of acceleration between the two meetings. Different timings means different profiles.

Well how am I supposed to know that except by making this mistake and getting corrected by someone else? Where is the official dictionary of approved relativity terms that I can reference to make sure I never make another mistake like this again?

If you know the acceleration profiles between the two meetings, you can compute the age difference.

True, given the official definition of "acceleration profile", did you get the impression that I didn't already know this?

 

[phyti]

Acceleration is only invoked to break the symmetry between the twins. In this case, it still breaks the symmetry since their acceleration profiles are different.

The deceleration profiles are purposely made equivalent, the two for A connected together equal the one for B, in duration and curvature and tangent (speed) vectors. If you employed integration methods for the two complete curved profiles, they are equal. In the traditional simple case, B changes course 3 times, departs, reverses, and returns. He has 3 speed changes to 0 for A, thus his accumulated time is shorter, so the argument goes. Are you going to invoke asymmetry in this case in favor of A because he has 2 changes to 1 for B?
By eliminating the acceleration/deceleration issues, the focus is on the inertial portions, and specificaly on time lost as it relates to speed. The example also emphasizes the time lost is permanent, since there is no speed by which a clock can gain time.

 

[phyti]

Not as I read it. The twins experience exactly the same accelerations, just at different times. Actually, the first twin has a long gap between his two accelerations while the second twin has no gap.

But I think it would have been easier to see this if extra time were inserted between both gaps. Then we would see the two twins starting out inertially and colocated (at rest with respect to each other), one of them accelerates (the document says decelerates, but it's the same thing) and then the two twins have a relative separation speed between them. After some time, the second twin accelerates in exactly the same way as the first one did, bringing them to rest with respect to each other but with a constant separation between them. Next the second twin accelerates again in the same direction, possibly with the same acceleration as before but this is not necessary. This causes the twins to have a relative closing speed between them that continually reduces their separation. Just before they make contact, the first twin accelerates in exactly the same way as the other twin's second acceleration, bringing them once more into mutual inertial rest and colocation but with different aging accumulated during their time of separation.

I think this is a brilliant variant of the Twin Paradox that shows that acceleration has nothing to do with the difference in aging and it also can't be used to determine which twin is younger, in other words, acceleration cannot be "invoked to break the symmetry between the twins". It also shows that it is not necessary for the twins to return to the same location that they started out in or even that they need to be at rest in the same frame they started out in. But it has the same "paradoxical" issue that while separated, in each twin's inertial rest frame(s), the other twin's time is dilated.

I just don't understand the U-frame/U-time explanation but like all SR scenarios, the standard explanations using inertial frames work just fine. Did you make the document, phyti? Do you understand the explanation?

This is my own work. After the continuous rehashing of the 'twin thing', I thought there should be a simpler way, possibly without math, to demonstrate physically why there is differential aging. The U-frame represents a universal time standard, and the red portions represent what's missing after subtracting the dilated time for A and B.
You have a good understanding of the post, thank you.

 

[stevendaryl]

I find the talk about acceleration "breaking the symmetry" in the twin paradox to be a little misleading. On the one hand, it is true that without invoking weird topologies, it is impossible for the twins to get back together without one or the other accelerating. It's also true, if they do get back together, that if one accelerated and the other didn't, then the one accelerated will be the youngest. But it's not correct, in my opinion, to conclude from this that acceleration somehow is responsible for the difference in ages, as if acceleration causes people to age slower. It doesn't. If you accelerate away from Earth, turn around and accelerate back, turn around and accelerate away, etc. you can arrange that you're always feeling acceleration. But if you never accelerate in one direction long enough to acquire relativistic velocity, then the acceleration isn't going to make you younger than the stay-at-home twin. The formula for elapsed time depends only on velocity, not acceleration.

Here's an analogy that I think is pretty good.

Suppose you hop in a car, and set your trip meter to 0, and travel from New York City to Chicago. What does your odometer read when you get to Chicago? The least it can read is 1270 km. But depending on the path you took, the reading can be different from 1270.

Suppose you hop in a rocket, and set your clock to 0, and travel from New York City in 2013 to Chicago in 2023. The most your clock can read is 10 years. But depending on the path you took, the reading can be different from 10.

The big difference between the two cases is that in the Euclidean geometry governing odometer readings, the straight-line path has the least length, while in the Minkowsky geometry governing clocks, the straight-line path has the greatest elapsed time. These facts follow from the definitions of length:

For Euclidean paths: L = \int \sqrt{1+s^2} dx where s is the slope of the path (s = dy/dx).

For Minkowsky paths: \tau = \int \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} dt where v is the velocity of the path (v = dx/dt).

 

[Dale]

The deceleration profiles are purposely made equivalent, the two for A connected together equal the one for B, in duration and curvature and tangent (speed) vectors. If you employed integration methods for the two complete curved profiles, they are equal.

It doesn't matter if you call it acceleration or deceleration. They are not symmetric.

In physics, "symmetry" means that something is unchanged under some mathematical operation. In the case of SR, the symmetry operations are spatial and temporal translations, rotations, and boosts. There is no way to turn a(t) for one twin into a(t) for the other twin through any combination of translations, rotations, and boosts. They are not symmetric.

 

[ghwellsjr]

It doesn't matter if you call it acceleration or deceleration. They are not symmetric.

I think we agree that the terms "acceleration" and "deceleration" are equivalent, at least I pointed that out in post #4 which phyti quoted and agreed with.

In physics, "symmetry" means that something is unchanged under some mathematical operation. In the case of SR, the symmetry operations are spatial and temporal translations, rotations, and boosts. There is no way to turn a(t) for one twin into a(t) for the other twin through any combination of translations, rotations, and boosts. They are not symmetric.

So are you saying that if we start with two colocated twins at rest with each other and they both identically accelerate in opposite directions, coast for the same length of time and then accelerate identically but in opposite directions so that they approach each other and then finally accelerate in opposite directions to come to mutual colocated rest, then we cannot say that symmetry applies here and we cannot conclude that they are the same age? The mathematical operation in this case is multiplying the acceleration profile of one twin by -1 to get the acceleration profile of the other twin.

 

[A.T.]

The formula for elapsed time depends only on velocity, not acceleration.

Velocity is frame dependent. The age difference after reunion and proper acceleration aren't.

Here's an analogy that I think is pretty good.

You are missing the point of the twin paradox.

The question is not: "How can I explain the age difference geometrically in one inertial frame?"

The question is : "Why can't I use the same explanation in both twin's rest frames to get the opposite result?"

The answer to the question is : "Difference in proper acceleration profiles"

 

[Dale]

So are you saying that if we start with two colocated twins at rest with each other and they both identically accelerate in opposite directions, coast for the same length of time and then accelerate identically but in opposite directions so that they approach each other and then finally accelerate in opposite directions to come to mutual colocated rest, then we cannot say that symmetry applies here and we cannot conclude that they are the same age?

That is a rotation by 180º, which is a symmetry of SR. We can conclude that they are the same age.

 

[stevendaryl]

Velocity is frame dependent. The age difference after reunion and proper acceleration aren't.

The integral \tau = \int \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} dt is frame-independent. v and t are both frame-dependent, but the combination
\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} dt is frame-independent.

It's exactly analogous to the Euclidean formula for the length of a curve:

L = \int \sqrt{1-s^2} dx

where s = \dfrac{dy}{dx} is the slope of the curve at point x. Of course, slope is relative to a coordinate system, but that integral is the same for any (cartesian) coordinate system.

 

[PAllen]

The integral \tau = \int \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} dt is frame-independent. v and t are both frame-dependent, but the combination
\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} dt is frame-independent.

It's exactly analogous to the Euclidean formula for the length of a curve:

L = \int \sqrt{1-s^2} dx

where s = \dfrac{dy}{dx} is the slope of the curve at point x. Of course, slope is relative to a coordinate system, but that integral is the same for any (cartesian) coordinate system.

Well, if you are allowing non-inertial coordinates you need the metric contracted with coordinate velocities inside the square root. Obviously your main point is correct.

 

[stevendaryl]

I think that the answer "different acceleration profiles" for why one twin ages more than the other is misleading. It certainly is true that in flat Minkowsky spacetime, there is no way for two twins to depart and reunite unless one of them accelerates. But using acceleration as the cause of the difference doesn't generalize to other kinds of topologies of spacetime, and doesn't generalize to General Relativity.

In a cylindrical spacetime, you can have twins start off together, depart and reunite later without either twin accelerating. I guess you could say that such an example goes beyond SR, but it doesn't involve any gravity, so it's not very GR-ish, either. It's just geometry.

 

[PAllen]

I think that the answer "different acceleration profiles" for why one twin ages more than the other is misleading. It certainly is true that in flat Minkowsky spacetime, there is no way for two twins to depart and reunite unless one of them accelerates. But using acceleration as the cause of the difference doesn't generalize to other kinds of topologies of spacetime, and doesn't generalize to General Relativity.

In a cylindrical spacetime, you can have twins start off together, depart and reunite later without either twin accelerating. I guess you could say that such an example goes beyond SR, but it doesn't involve any gravity, so it's not very GR-ish, either. It's just geometry.

Unfortunately, with GR and non-standard topology for SR, the 'straight line' analogy to Euclidean geometry breaks as well. You have multiple geodesics, and typically only one of them is longest in proper time. The truth ends up being hard to accept for neophytes: there exists one or more paths of longest time; every other path encompasses less time; this fact is independent of conventions like coordinates; there is no way to say 'where' faster aging is. For some reason, people who can accept that for lines on a paper, "one line is longer" is all that you can say, cannot accept the same for world lines. Oh well.

 

[harrylin]

Acceleration is an equivalent answer to differential aging only in special cases such as the one restricting all acceleration to one twin. [example of different velocity histories with equal accelerations]

Acceleration is only invoked to break the symmetry between the twins. In this case, it still breaks the symmetry since their acceleration profiles are different.

Acceleration is indeed necessary to break the symmetry in SR (thus ignoring gravitational time dilation); it was the purpose of the "twin" example to clarify that fact. It should be stressed that what matters for the SR calculation is the velocity profiles. Of course, those can be obtained from the accelerations as function of time.

[..] You are missing the point of the twin paradox. [..] The answer to the question is : "Difference in proper acceleration profiles"

The point of the twin paradox was that different from uniform translational motion, acceleration - a change of velocity - has "absolute" effects: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time (from p.47)

 

[A.T.]

The point of the twin paradox was that different from uniform translational motion, acceleration - a change of velocity - has "absolute" effects

Change of velocity, as observed from an inertial frame, has frame invariant effects. This is also known as proper acceleration.

 

[A.T.]

I think that the answer "different acceleration profiles" for why one twin ages more than the other is misleading. It certainly is true that in flat Minkowsky spacetime,

It is the answer for the flat spacetime version.

In a cylindrical spacetime,

The paradox in flat spacetime is based on (a misinterpretation of) the lack of a preferred inertial frame. In a cylindrical spacetime, you have a preferred inertial frame, so there is no paradox that needs to be resolved.

 

[A.T.]

but that integral is the same for any (cartesian) coordinate system.

But you cannot build such a simple system for the rest frames of both twins, which is the presumed assumption and basis of the paradox. The reason for this, and thus the resolution of the paradox, is different proper acceleration. The point is not how to compute the age difference in an inertial frame, but to explain why you can't do the same simple calculation in the accelerating twin's rest frame.

It's just geometry.

The explanation (of the flat space time version) based on proper acceleration also becomes "just geometry", if you introduce the appropriate space time geometry into the non-inertial frame.

 

[stevendaryl]

Unfortunately, with GR and non-standard topology for SR, the 'straight line' analogy to Euclidean geometry breaks as well. You have multiple geodesics, and typically only one of them is longest in proper time.

Yes. That's the reason I think that looking for something that one twin or the other did that "breaks the symmetry" is a little misleading. They don't have to do anything different, it's just that different spacetime paths have different lengths.

The truth ends up being hard to accept for neophytes: there exists one or more paths of longest time; every other path encompasses less time; this fact is independent of conventions like coordinates; there is no way to say 'where' faster aging is. For some reason, people who can accept that for lines on a paper, "one line is longer" is all that you can say, cannot accept the same for world lines. Oh well.

Right.

 

[stevendaryl]

But you cannot build such a simple system for the rest frames of both twins, which is the presumed assumption and basis of the paradox. The reason for this, and thus the resolution of the paradox, is different proper acceleration.

But the paradox can arise (in SR with a nontrivial topology for spacetime) with no acceleration at all. So it doesn't make sense to me to say that acceleration made the difference. Even without acceleration, different paths have different associated proper times.

 

[stevendaryl]

The paradox in flat spacetime is based on (a misinterpretation of) the lack of a preferred inertial frame. In a cylindrical spacetime, you have a preferred inertial frame, so there is no paradox that needs to be resolved.

There is no paradox in either case. If you're making the empirical claim that people are more confused by the usual twin paradox than they are by the one in cylindrical spacetime, I don't think that's true. And it's exactly because they've heard "acceleration breaks the symmetry" that causes people to get the wrong answer in the case of a cylindrical spacetime. It's also true in General Relativity that two geodesics that start together, depart, and come back together can have different proper times. So talking about acceleration isn't really getting to anything fundamental about why twins can have different ages when they reunite, since it only applies to one case.

 

[stevendaryl]

The explanation (of the flat space time version) based on proper acceleration also becomes "just geometry", if you introduce the appropriate space time geometry into the non-inertial frame.

I don't like that way of putting things. The geometry of spacetime is independent of observer. There isn't a different geometry for inertial observers and noninertial observers.

I assume what you mean is that you can describe the geometry of spacetime using noninertial coordinates, and that's certainly true.

 

[A.T.]

There is no paradox in either case.

"Apparent" is implied, although some say that the word "paradox" already means "apparent contradiction". Semantics.

And it's exactly because they've heard "acceleration breaks the symmetry" that causes people to get the wrong answer in the case of a cylindrical spacetime.

It is a different scenario, with a different reason for the asymmetry.

 

[A.T.]

I assume what you mean is that you can describe the geometry of spacetime using noninertial coordinates, and that's certainly true.

Yes. I'm not against geometrical explanations. But if you do it only in the inertial frame, you are not really addressing the issue.

 

[ghwellsjr]

You are missing the point of the twin paradox.

The question is not: "How can I explain the age difference geometrically in one inertial frame?"

The question is : "Why can't I use the same explanation in both twin's rest frames to get the opposite result?"

The answer to the question is : "Difference in proper acceleration profiles"

Is your point for the scenario in this thread that it doesn't apply to the Twin Paradox because neither twin is inertial?

So the only kind of answer that you will accept is one that shows an inertial explanation for the inertial twin and simply asserts that no such explanation applies to the non-inertial twin (simply because he is non-inertial)?

So when the questioner correctly points out that in the inertial twin's rest frame, there is a constant Time Dilation for the non-inertial twin (assuming instant turn-around), but the rest frame for the non-inertial twin is non-inertial and so it is an incorrect comparison and we simply stop right there. We just call foul?

 

[phyti]

phyti, too much focus is given to the acceleration. It's the path lengths through space-time that should be compared, regardless of whether one or both are accelerating and when the accelerations occur.

I agree with you, that's why the post. The accumulated time on a clock depends on the path. Obviously there must be a change in speed to assume a new direction. Ignoring the separation and reunion, we could easily have the A clock do a reversal, then both paths woud be 'bent'. Which acceleration/deceleration (there is a difference) counts?

Examining the expression for time dilation, the only factor is v/c. The space-time drawing with ct and x axes represents what?...speed, i.e. object motion vt vs. light motion ct, or v/c. The velocity change can be approximated with a series of inertial segments, without any significant loss of accuracy.

 

[Dale]

Yes. I'm not against geometrical explanations. But if you do it only in the inertial frame, you are not really addressing the issue.

I don't understand this comment. Geometrical explanations are frame independent, they are not done in any frame. If an explanation uses any frame then it isn't a geometrical explanation.

However, I agree with what I think is your main point that the answer must be in terms of some asymmetry.

 

[Dale]

Acceleration is indeed necessary to break the symmetry in SR (thus ignoring gravitational time dilation); it was the purpose of the "twin" example to clarify that fact. It should be stressed that what matters for the SR calculation is the velocity profiles.

I agree. Geometrically the acceleration is the "bend" in the worldline. That bend breaks the symmetry but by itself it doesn't add or subtract any length to the worldline.

 

[A.T.]

Is your point for the scenario in this thread that it doesn't apply to the Twin Paradox because neither twin is inertial?

I think that it is an interesting variation, which demonstrates that not only the total amount of proper acceleration matters, but its timing. It leads to a more general explanation of the asymmetry, which also applies to the classic version.

So the only kind of answer that you will accept is one that shows an inertial explanation for the inertial twin and simply asserts that no such explanation applies to the non-inertial twin (simply because he is non-inertial)?

It is okay to assert that an "inertial explanation" doesn't apply to the rest frame of the non-inertial twin, if that is what you mean. But ideally you would also provide a non-inertial explanation for the non-inertial twin's rest frame, which leads to the same result as the rest-frame of the other twin.

So when the questioner correctly points out that in the inertial twin's rest frame, there is a constant Time Dilation for the non-inertial twin (assuming instant turn-around), but the rest frame for the non-inertial twin is non-inertial and so it is an incorrect comparison and we simply stop right there. We just call foul?

This is what most "explainers" do. And I think it is not satisfying to most questioners. I would like to see it explained from both frames.

 

[Dale]

I think that the answer "different acceleration profiles" for why one twin ages more than the other is misleading. It certainly is true that in flat Minkowsky spacetime, there is no way for two twins to depart and reunite unless one of them accelerates. But using acceleration as the cause of the difference doesn't generalize to other kinds of topologies of spacetime, and doesn't generalize to General Relativity.

In a cylindrical spacetime, you can have twins start off together, depart and reunite later without either twin accelerating. I guess you could say that such an example goes beyond SR, but it doesn't involve any gravity, so it's not very GR-ish, either. It's just geometry.

I don't think that it is misleading at all.

The explanation must be in terms of some asymmetry between the twins. If there is no asymmetry then their ages must be identical. The reason students are confused by the twin scenario is that they have just been introduced to this idea of symmetry under boosts so they believe that the twins are symmetrical.

Saying that "it's just geometry" is not a good answer, after all, you can have symmetrical geometric figures. Even geometrically, you must identify the asymmetry. In the standard twin paradox, the geometrical asymmetry is the bend in the worldline, i.e. the acceleration. So that is an accurate and not misleading answer. In other scenarios there are other asymmetries, the topology or the curvature or whatever.

 

[A.T.]

Geometrical explanations are frame independent, they are not done in any frame.

When you draw a space time diagram or integrate the path element, you are assuming a frame. My point is that to convince people that the result is indeed frame independent, you have to do it for both frames.

 

[PAllen]

When you draw a space time diagram or integrate the path element, you are assuming a frame. My point is that to convince people that the result is indeed frame independent, you have to do it for both frames.

I don't think so. Analogy with plane geometry:

Drawing curves, comparing angles, sliding figures, measuring lengths with a string, etc. [In SR, measuring time with a clock is equivalent to measuring length with a string in plane geometry].

do not involve coordinates. You can then draw on the plane many different cartesian coordinates, or polar coordinates, then do calculations in terms of those.

In SR you have a particular type of flat geometry. You can draw on it without coordinates. It has, objectively, straight lines. If you draw curvilinear coordinates on it, your curves are still curves - you haven't made them straight in a geometric sense.

As for frames, I think a key thing that is hard to convince people is that there is actually no such thing as a global non-inertial frame in SR (just as there is no such thing as a global frame at all in GR - inertial or otherwise). There are many possible accelerated coordinates (equivalent to curvilineary coordinates on a plane), each of which will represent the intrinsic flat geometry superficially differently.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Is your point for the scenario in this thread that it doesn't apply to the Twin Paradox because neither twin is inertial?

I think that it is an interesting variation, which demonstrates that not only the total amount of proper acceleration matters, but its timing. It leads to a more general explanation of the asymmetry, which also applies to the classic version.

Ok, good.

So the only kind of answer that you will accept is one that shows an inertial explanation for the inertial twin and simply asserts that no such explanation applies to the non-inertial twin (simply because he is non-inertial)?

It is okay to assert that an "inertial explanation" doesn't apply to the rest frame of the non-inertial twin, if that is what you mean. But ideally you would also provide a non-inertial explanation for the non-inertial twin's rest frame, which leads to the same result as the rest-frame of the other twin.

Isn't that what I did in these threads:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=670653&page=10 post #135
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=644948&page=6 posts #92 and #93
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=671398&page=3 posts #35 and #36

In each of these three cases I provided an inertial spacetime diagram for the stay-at-home twin's inertial rest frame and a non-inertial spacetime diagram for the traveling twin's non-inertial rest frame and yet none of the OP's for which I provided these diagrams responded with any statement to the effect that they understood the diagrams. I just don't know if they are effective.

So when the questioner correctly points out that in the inertial twin's rest frame, there is a constant Time Dilation for the non-inertial twin (assuming instant turn-around), but the rest frame for the non-inertial twin is non-inertial and so it is an incorrect comparison and we simply stop right there. We just call foul?

This is what most "explainers" do. And I think it is not satisfying to most questioners. I would like to see it explained from both frames.

Didn't I explain it from both frames and didn't I show that both rest frames lead to the same results?

 

[Nugatory]

My point is that to convince people that the result is indeed frame independent, you have to do it for both frames.

I don't think so. Analogy with plane geometry...
In SR you have a particular type of flat geometry. You can draw on it without coordinates. It has, objectively, straight lines. If you draw curvilinear coordinates on it, your curves are still curves - you haven't made them straight in a geometric sense.

It depends on who you're trying to convince. You ought to be right, but my experience is that for most audiences A.T. is. It may just be that you get to deal with a better class of audience.

 

[PAllen]

It depends on who you're trying to convince. You ought to be right, but my experience is that for most audiences A.T. is. It may just be that you get to deal with a better class of audience.

Actually my phrase "I don't think so" was referring to specifically A.T.'s statement:

"When you draw a space time diagram or integrate the path element, you are assuming a frame"

for which I agree computing an integral requires coordinates, but drawing a spacetime diagram does not.

I was not making any statement about pedagogy. On that score, I find different arguments work for different people.

 

[A.T.]

for which I agree computing an integral requires coordinates, but drawing a spacetime diagram does not.

When you draw a diagram with twin A at a constant space coordinate, you have assumed twin's A rest frame.

 

[PAllen]

When you draw a diagram with twin A at a constant space coordinate, you have assumed twin's A rest frame.

I disagree, any more than saying drawing a straight line on a blank paper assumes a coodinate system. Maybe I'll fill in the coordinates at a angle to the line if I choose to add them.

 

[A.T.]

I disagree, any more than saying drawing a straight line on a blank paper assumes a coodinate system. Maybe I'll fill in the coordinates at a angle to the line if I choose to add them.

Sorry, no idea what you mean.

 

[Nugatory]

When you draw a diagram with twin A at a constant space coordinate, you have assumed twin's A rest frame.

You have, but that didn't happen when you drew the twins' worldlines, it happened when you added the axes to the diagram.

One interesting pedagogical trick: Draw up a spacetime diagram without the axes, then draw up a bunch of transparencies, each with their own set of t and x axes - and then drop the various transparencies onto the diagram to show how coordinates work. This has the nice property of making it clear that the proper intervals belong to the coordinate-free picture, and suggests why "frames" are called that.

(There still is one downside - some people fall into the trap of believing that one particular frame, namely the one in which the x and t axes are at a 90-degree angle, is somehow special and distinguished).

 

[A.T.]

In each of these three cases I provided an inertial spacetime diagram for the stay-at-home twin's inertial rest frame and a non-inertial spacetime diagram for the traveling twin's non-inertial rest frame and yet none of the OP's for which I provided these diagrams responded with any statement to the effect that they understood the diagrams. I just don't know if they are effective.

I don't understand them either.

I don't understand the phase where they have constant separation. In reality the blue signals send during that phase should arrive blueshifted, but there is no movement of the source in the diagram. If the signals are simply a picture seen through telescope, the angular size of blue twin, as seen by black twin would be increasing after turnaround. But in the diagram the viewing distance is constant for a few years.

I think it is very difficult to make a smooth and correct diagram for the sharp turnaround version. The simpler case might be the one with constant proper acceleration, then you have just one coordinates chart (Rindler) for the rest frame of the accelerating twin, not two that you have to merge somehow.

See Fig 7:
http://cds.cern.ch/record/497203/files/0104077.pdf

 

[PAllen]

I think it is very difficult to make a smooth and correct diagram for the sharp turnaround version. The simpler case might be the one with constant proper acceleration, then you have just one coordinates chart (Rindler) for the rest frame of the accelerating twin, not two that you have to merge somehow.

Note: Rindler coordinates are radar coordinates for the uniformly accelerating observer; Fermi-normal coordinates (ones modeling a rigid grid of rulers) have extra terms in the metric, and the coordinate axes are different. For an inertial frame in SR, these two coordinate building approaches produce the same result. The is really why (IMO) you can reasonably talk about (global) inertial frames in SR - different reasonable methods of building coordinates agree. It is also why I insist there is actually no such thing as an a (global) accelerated frame even in SR: even for the the simplest acceleration (uniform), the two simplest physical methods of building coordinates produce a different result.

 

[PAllen]

I don't understand the phase where they have constant separation. In reality the blue signals send during that phase should arrive blueshifted, but there is no movement of the source in the diagram. If the signals are simply a picture seen through telescope, the angular size of blue twin, as seen by black twin would be increasing after turnaround. But in the diagram the viewing distance is constant for a few years.

In this version of radar coordinates the horizontal does not represent proper distance along a simultaneity surface. Instead, it represents 1/2 round trip travel time for a signal (from traveler to home and back) as measured by sudden turnaround traveler, times c. For classic sudden turnaround, there is, indeed, a period of time when such signals have constant round trip time. Proper distance along the same simultaneity lines would produce a different diagram. And, of course, since the diagram is drawn from traveler perspective, the simultaneity lines are straight.

 

[A.T.]

Note: Rindler coordinates are radar coordinates for the uniformly accelerating observer; Fermi-normal coordinates (ones modeling a rigid grid of rulers) have extra terms in the metric, and the coordinate axes are different. For an inertial frame in SR, these two coordinate building approaches produce the same result. The is really why (IMO) you can reasonably talk about (global) inertial frames in SR - different reasonable methods of building coordinates agree. It is also why I insist there is actually no such thing as an a (global) accelerated frame even in SR: even for the the simplest acceleration (uniform), the two simplest physical methods of building coordinates produce a different result.

Thanks. Do you have some links on Fermi-normal coordinates in uniformly accelerated frames and Minkowski space-time? The wiki says it is just a generalization of Rindler for curved space-times, so I assumed that for accelerated frames in flat space time they yield the same results.