Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Twin Paradox and symmetry

Tags:
  1. May 28, 2015 #1
    Dear PF Forum,
    Sorry if I ask (again) about twin paradox, after so many question about this topic here.
    Picutre01.jpg
    Supposed T is a star 100 ly from earth.
    If B travels to T from earth
    A. Is the symmetry broken?
    B. If B watches A's clock at Earth and A watches B's clock at T, do they see the other clock late by 100 years, no matter how fast B travels?
    Picture02.jpg
    Now B travels back to A, and now B brings a companion C, to travel with him, sitting beside B
    C. Is the symmetry broken for A and B?
    D. If the symmetry is broken for A and B, what about for B and C?
    1. Does B sees C age faster along the journey?
    2. Does B sees C gesture/act in fast motion?
    3. Does C sees B gesture/act in slow motion?

    Thanks for the answer, and pardon me for this twins paradox again.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 28, 2015 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Which symmetry?
    You can use the equations to calculate it. Or have a look at one of the many examples in other threads and other websites.
    Again, which symmetry?
    B and C do not move relative to each other, what do you expect? Do you see your neighbor age faster or slower than you?
     
  4. May 28, 2015 #3

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    When you say "see" do you mean literally what visual signal they would actually see, or do you mean what would they calculate in their reference frame.
     
  5. May 28, 2015 #4
    Thanks Mfb for the answer.
    What I meant about the symmetry, is the Twin Paradox Symmetry.
    If B travels and A stays, but B doesn't come back. The clock symmetry is maintained, right?
    But if B changing his inertial frame of reference, the symmetry is broken. Is that so?
     
  6. May 28, 2015 #5
    They ACTUALLY see. Using a very magnificent telescope.
    A can see B's clock 100 ly away. And B uses telescope can see A's clock 100 ly away.
     
  7. May 28, 2015 #6

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    There is no symmetry at all, that is the point of the twin "paradox".

    Then you have to take light travel times into account which makes the analysis a bit more complicated. Did you draw a Minkowski diagram?
     
  8. May 28, 2015 #7

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  9. May 28, 2015 #8
    Sorry, I address you as "Drakith" MFB, I was reading a Drakkith answer somewhere, and the alert comes out.
    No, I wasn't drawing Minkowski Diagram. I haven't studied it, yet. It's just that they say that Twin Paradox symmetry is not broken when one of the participant travels. But the symmetry is broken is the other participant, changes its inertial frame of reference. That's why I want to get a full grasp of it first, before I ask about Universe Prefered Frame of Reference (again).
     
  10. May 28, 2015 #9
    Symmetry is based on that A and B don't play the same role. One keeps changing frames while other does not.

    Considering the case of original twin paradox,Here B is changing frames.

    Overall, first A and B are in the same frame.But as B travels,B changes frame.

    Now for the return trip,B changes the frame again(different from that of the frame which B occupies when B leaves A).

    So here B keeps changing frames while A doesn't
     
  11. May 28, 2015 #10

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Rather than answer this question as you ask it (since it's vague), let me just describe what A and B would see as they watch each other's clocks. We assume that, when B departs from Earth, A's and B's clocks are synchronized and both read zero. When B arrives at T, he emits a light signal containing his current clock reading and the current clock reading on T. Let's suppose, for definiteness, that B travels at 87% of the speed of light relative to Earth and T, so the time dilation factor is 2. Then, when B arrives at T, his clock will read about 57.75 years, and clocks on T when he arrives will read about 115.5 years. When B's light signal, emitted when he arrives at T, reaches A on Earth, A's clock will read about 215.5 years. From then on, since B is at rest at T, the signals A receives will show clock readings for T 100 years behind A's clock reading when the signals are received, and clock readings for B about 157.75 years behind A's.

    Now let's look at what B sees. When he arrives at T, he sees a light signal that was emitted at A at just the right time to arrive at T at the same instant he does. When B receives this signal, his clock reads 57.75 years, and the clock reading on A's clock that is contained in the signal is about 15.5 years. And clocks on T at this instant (assuming they were previously synchronized with Earth's using the Einstein clock synchronization convention) read about 115.5 years. From then on, since B is at rest at T, the signals B receives from A will show clock readings 100 years behind T's clock readings when the signals are received, and about 42.25 years behind B's clock readings when the signals are received.

    How is C's clock set to start out? Is it synchronized with clocks on T, or with B's clock? I'll assume C's clock is synchronized with T's clocks to start out. And I'll assume that B and C leave T for Earth when T's clocks read 1000 years, and they travel at 87% of the speed of light, just as B did when traveling from Earth to T.

    Then, when B and C start out, they emit a light signal to Earth showing both of their clock readings. Those will be 1000 years (for C) and 942.25 years (for B). When A receives this signal, his clock will read 1100 years.

    When B and C arrive on Earth and meet A, B's clock will read 1000 years, C's clock will read 1057.75 years, and A's clock will read 1115.5 years.
     
  12. May 28, 2015 #11
    But "see" here, means that B has stopped at some point. At this example B stops at T. And A and B watches each other clock at the same frame of reference using a very powerful telescope. I think no Doppler effect there.
     
  13. May 28, 2015 #12
    Thanks Ash64449 for the answer. I mean A and B watch each other clock BEFORE B returns.

    So B has stopped and (I think) they are at the same frame of reference.
    1. Are they seeing the other clock late by 100 years?
    2. Is there a doppler effect after B stops?

    Thanks
     
  14. May 28, 2015 #13

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    They are at rest relative to each other. They are both "in" any frame of reference you choose; they are just not at rest relative to other frames besides the Earth-T frame.

    No; the clock offsets they actually observe are different than that. See my post #10.

    No.
     
  15. May 28, 2015 #14

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You can still apply the Doppler analysis. It may even be the best/simplest way of analyzing these "what do you see throiugh a telescope" thought experiments because you're tracking the light from the event that is being seen to the telescope and eyes of the person who is doing the seeing when the light reaches them.

    While they're moving apart, A sees fewer flashes of light from B and vice versa (if you you don't want to count flashes of light, you can count the number of times that the sweep second hand of the clock passes a tick mark on the face of the clock, or you can count the number of times that the rightmost digit on a digital clock display changes - they'll all yield the same result as you have to wait for the light to travel from the "tick" event to your telescope before you can see it).

    When B reaches T and stops, the Doppler effect will go away as you say, so A sees B's clock going back to its old undilated tick rate and vice versa after they've both come to rest relative to one another. It's a good exercise to draw a spacetime diagram showing both the light flashes that A sees as he looks a clock that is at rest relative to him at T (ticks at the same rate as his own, but he sees it consistently 100 years later because of the light travel time) and the clock that B is carrying along his trip.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2015
  16. May 28, 2015 #15
    Thanks PeterDonis for your invaluable help.

    Yes, yes. I supposed I forgot to mention some parameters. I tought it goes without saying about twin paradox. Clock synchronization at the begining and travel near the speed of light.

    But, why A's clock runs faster than C's clock. From C point of view, it's A who travels, right?
    Is it the rocket acceleration? But, they say acceleration has small effect on time dilation. Only changing inertial frame of refence does.

    "Arrive on Earth" suggests that B is changing it's frame of reference, right?
    "Meet A" suggests that either (B and C) or (A) are moving, but then again motion is relative, right?
     
  17. May 28, 2015 #16
    Thanks Nugatory, I'll do it.
     
  18. May 28, 2015 #17
    Thanks Ash64449 for the answer.
    About this "changing frame".
    If B travels from Earth to T, why B is changing frame? Motion is relatvie, right?
    In B point of view, isn't A who changing frame?
     
  19. May 28, 2015 #18

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Whether or not that's true depends on which frame you use, the frame in which A, Earth, and T are always at rest, or the frame in which B and C are at rest while they are moving (but not before they start or after they arrive). Changing frames means changing simultaneity conventions; in the frame in which A, Earth, and T are at rest, B and C start out from T "at the same time" as A's clock reads 1000 years. But in the frame in which B and C are at rest while they are moving, B and C start out from T "at the same time" as A's clock reads 1086.6 years, so in this frame, A's clock only advances by 28.87 years during the journey, half of the 57.75 years that B's and C's clocks advance. This is just standard relativity of simultaneity.

    No, it says that B changes his state of motion. Changing state of motion is not the same as "changing frame of reference". Any frame of reference can be used to describe B's entire motion, before and after he arrives on Earth.

    No, it says that A's, B's, and C's worldlines all coincide. There is no assumption about who is "moving" and who is not.
     
  20. May 28, 2015 #19

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    No, B changes his state of motion relative to A, Earth, and T.

    No, B again changes his state of motion relative to A, Earth, and T.

    Neither one is "changing frame". They are moving relative to each other. There is no absolute sense in which either one is "moving" or "at rest".

    As a general point: thinking of changing relative motion as "changing frames" is just going to cause confusion. It's important to keep inertial frames conceptually distinct from the states of relative motion of various objects. You can describe the entire scenario using just one frame; there is no need to "change frames" when someone changes their state of motion relative to someone else.
     
  21. May 28, 2015 #20
    Yes. Both are in same reference now.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Twin Paradox and symmetry
  1. Twin paradox? (Replies: 7)

  2. Twin paradox (Replies: 21)

  3. Twin paradox (Replies: 3)

  4. Twin Paradox (Replies: 15)

  5. The twin paradox (Replies: 1)

Loading...