Twin paradox not including accelerations, it is wrong where?

In summary, the explanation of the twin paradox does not necessarily require acceleration, but rather a change in inertial frames. This can be achieved through acceleration or through other means such as the use of photographs. It is a common misconception that acceleration is the key factor in explaining the twin paradox.
  • #1
Luis Babboni
Hi people!
(Sorry for my poor english).

I found everywhere that twin paradox need aceleration to explain it.

Let me change the twin paradox a little:

Suppouse that in Earth and before the traveller twin start his trip, you take two photos with old Polaroid camera, one to each twin. As we remember, those kinds of photos become older, degrading its colours, a little fast.

Some day the traveller twin left his own photo pasted in one window of his house looking outward and takes the Polaroid camera and start a trip in his capable of reach near light speed spaceship. And he goes to the left respect to Earth. Goes to left far enough to be able to stop and start to travel to right in the direction to Earth in a way he could pass Earth going right at near speed of light without any aceleration.
When pass Earth he points his Polaroid to his house and take a Polaroid photo of his Polaroid photo still on Earth and pasting it looking outwards in one of his capable of reach near speed of light spaceship window.

Time later he pass another spaceship coming at the same absolute speed (in a frame at rest respect the non traveller twin) but with opposite direction, to left, and with no aceleration, and the captain of this spaceship take a Polaroid photo of his Polaroid photo and paste it looking outwards in one of his spaceship window.

Time later this second spaceship pass Earth without change its speed, so no aceleration here neither, and the non traveller twin take a Polaroid photo of the Polaroid photo of the Polaroid photo of the Polaroid photo taked time ago in Earth.

Then he compared his old Polaroid photo of him whith this new Polaroid Photo of his twin.

Having both Polaroids photos images of them in younger ages, is this new Polaroid photo less degraded colours than the old Polaroid photo no matter none Polaroids photos suffered any aceleration never?

If all motions are relative, why not the opposite?

I hope I could explain my idea even with my poor english.

Where I´m wrong if I say that yes, the new Polaroid have less degraded colours than the old one?

Thanks!

Luis.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yes, the photo taken from the passing spaceship is less degraded than the one that stayed on Earth, even though it has undergone no acceleration.

In the Twin Thought Experiment, acceleration is not the key explanation of why the traveling twin ages less than the non-travelling twin. Rather, it is the fact that the inertial frame of the traveling twin has changed. The inertial frame while going out is very different from the one while coming back. That reason applies whether we are considering the original thought experiment (in which there is acceleration) or the one you describe (in which there is no acceleration).

In both cases the time measurement that is delivered back to the home twin (in your case the measurement is by the amount of fading of the photo) is based on two very different inertial frames, and hence is less than the measurement based on the home twin, which relates to only one inertial frame.

In summary, it is the number of different inertial frames that contribute to each time measurement, rather than the acceleration, that allows to see why the traveled and the non-travelled time measurements differ.
 
  • Like
Likes Luis Babboni and QuantumQuest
  • #3
Thanks for your fast answer Andre!

So... why most answers (in fact yours is the first I saw that not) use aceleration to explain it? :-O

Regards,

Luis.
 
  • #4
Luis Babboni said:
So... why most answers (in fact yours is the first I saw that not) use aceleration to explain it? :-O
They do not. At least not any serious ones.

Acceleration explains why there is an asymmetry between the twins and why you cannot blindly apply the time dilation formula to the accelerating twin. A more accurate explanation would involve relativity of simultaneity rather than acceleration.
 
  • Like
Likes Luis Babboni and QuantumQuest
  • #5
Thanks! :-)
 
  • #6
The twin that takes the shorter path through spacetime experiences the smaller amount of aging.

To accomplish that a switch in inertial frames, which requires either acceleration or the clever way you've done it with photographs, is required.

The usual way is with acceleration, though, so that's why you may have seen it mentioned that the twin who accelerates is the one who ages less. It's a very common misunderstanding. Another is that general relativity is required to explain things. Both mistakes can be found in many textbook presentations.
 
  • Like
Likes Luis Babboni
  • #7
Luis Babboni said:
I found everywhere that twin paradox need aceleration to explain it.
How about this.
When rocket A of speed v to the Earth passes by the Earth, rocket A pilot adjusts his clock to the observed Earth clock E.
Then when rocket A and rocket B of speed -v to the Earth pass by, the rocket B pilot adjusts his clock to the observed A clock.
Then when rocket B passes by the Earth, the Earth and pilot B observe commonly that clock B time < clock E time.
No acceleration appear in it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Luis Babboni and andrewkirk
  • #8
sweet springs said:
How about this.
When rocket A of speed v to the Earth passes by the Earth, rocket A pilot adjusts his clock to the observed Earth clock E.
Then when rocket A and rocket B of speed -v to the Earth pass by, the rocket B pilot adjusts his clock to the observed A clock.
Then when rocket B passes by the Earth, the Earth and pilot B observe commonly that clock B time < clock E time.
No acceleration appear in it.
Is exactly the same than mine and far more simply... but without twins! :-D
 
  • #9
Luis Babboni said:
I found everywhere that twin paradox need aceleration to explain it.
In this context "acceleration" means that the world line along which you accumulate proper time is not inertial.
 
  • #10
A.T. said:
In this context "acceleration" means that the world line along which you accumulate proper time is not inertial.

Sorry, not sure if I understand you... but seems to me there is none no inertial frames in mine or, most simplier, sweet spring´s example.
 
  • #11
Twin E stays in one inertia system but rocket twin transfer the inertia frames A to B. This makes difference.
 
  • #12
Luis Babboni said:
Sorry, not sure if I understand you... but seems to me there is none no inertial frames in mine or, most simplier, sweet spring´s example.
There are no non-inertial physical objects, but the proper time is accumulated along an non-inertial world line.
 
  • #13
A.T. said:
There are no non-inertial physical objects, but the proper time is accumulated along an non-inertial world line.

Sorry, I do not know what is a non inertial world line...
Are not non straight world lines?
Here I think all world lines are straights.
 
  • #14
Of course, not all world lines are straight lines. E.g., an electron moves on a curved world line in a magnetic field.
 
  • #15
vanhees71 said:
Of course, not all world lines are straight lines. E.g., an electron moves on a curved world line in a magnetic field.
OK, but in our example* I think all world lines are straights. I´m wrong?

*:To be more precise, we could change the Earth by a Saint Exupery little prince´s asteroid.
 
  • #16
Luis Babboni said:
OK, but in our example I think all world lines are straights. I´m wrong?
This is like saying that the sides of a triangle are straight when arguing for the triangle inequality. While it is true that each individual side is straight, one of the lengths involved is the length along a curve that has a kink (the length that involve two sides of the triangle).
 
  • #18
Orodruin said:
This is like saying that the sides of a triangle are straight when arguing for the triangle inequality. While it is true that each individual side is straight, one of the lengths involved is the length along a curve that has a kink (the length that involve two sides of the triangle).

Han Solo´s line of world is not Mr. Spock´s line of world bended in a kick, is Han Solo´s straight line of world:

tp03.jpg
 

Attachments

  • tp03.jpg
    tp03.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 463
  • tp03.jpg
    tp03.jpg
    20.4 KB · Views: 444
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Luis Babboni said:
Han Solo´s line of world is not Mr. Spock´s line of world bended in a kick, is Han Solo´s straight line of world:
I am sorry, but this makes no sense. Please use the appropriate nomenclature. Neither the world line of Han Solo or that of Mr Spock is the world line along which your total proper time is accumulated.
 
  • #20
In the standard twin paradox Minkowski diagram there is a triangle formed of a vertical straight line (the stay-at-home worldline) and a > shape (the traveller worldline). In your variant you have a vertical line (the stay-at-home) a line slanted to the right (the outbound traveller) and a line slanted to the left (the inbound traveller). These three lines form the exact same triangle on the Minkowski diagram as is formed in the standard setup. So the outcome must be the same.
 
  • #21
What I think becomes more complicated to see in the Little Prince-Han Solo-Mr.Spock paradox is the paradox :-/
That is, which is the equivalent situation where is the Little Prince who is moving? :-/

But... in the classical twin paradox... which is the equivalent situation where the on Earth twin moves?
I tried to clarify it detailed and is not easy... :-/

Anyone could do it?
Thanks.
 
  • #22
Luis Babboni said:
What I think becomes more complicated to see in the Little Prince-Han Solo-Mr.Spock paradox is the paradox :-/
That is, which is the equivalent situation where is the Little Prince who is moving? :-/

But... in the classical twin paradox... which is the equivalent situation where the on Earth twin moves?
I tried to clarify it detailed and is not easy... :-/

Anyone could do it?
Thanks.

This is the more near I could imagine:
tp04.jpg
 
  • #23
Here with more detail.
As previously, A (twin paradox situation from on Earth twin view) is not symmetric to twin paradox situation (B)
The true symmetric situation to twin paradox (B) is C.
I dot not calculate yet the distance <2| <1| at the end of A and C cause simultaneus turnarounds of spaceships in system |2>|1> are not simultaneus turnarounds in system +x.
tp05.jpg
 
  • #24
Here a correction to the first part of my previous draw:
(As I said, and forgot in the first part of the previous draw, the turnarounds are not simultaneous in Earth system)

tp06.jpg
 
  • #25
Please, I need someone tell me if I´m doing a nonsense or not. :nb)

Thanks!
 
  • #26
Luis Babboni said:
Han Solo´s line of world is not Mr. Spock´s line of world bended in a kick, is Han Solo´s straight line of world:

If you draw a spacetime diagram of the scenario you proposed in your original post, and then traced your finger along the paths used to determine the age of each photograph, you would find that the paths you traced are not both straight. For a path to match the path of an inertial motion, it must be a straight line.

Thus the reason that the photographs have different ages is because they traced out different paths through spacetime and that the lengths of those paths are unequal, or equivalently that the proper time associated with each path is different.
 
  • #27
Mister T said:
If you draw a spacetime diagram of the scenario you proposed in your original post, and then traced your finger along the paths used to determine the age of each photograph, you would find that the paths you traced are not both straight. For a path to match the path of an inertial motion, it must be a straight line.

Thus the reason that the photographs have different ages is because they traced out different paths through spacetime and that the lengths of those paths are unequal, or equivalently that the proper time associated with each path is different.

Sorry, not understand.
This is, I think, an spacetime diagram of the scenario I proposed in my original post.
3-4 and 4-5 are straight in my point of view, I´m wrong?
tp08.jpg
 
  • #28
Luis Babboni said:
3-4 and 4-5 are straight in my point of view, I´m wrong?
3-4 is straight. 4-5 is straight. 3-4-5 is not straight. That's the point.

3-4-5 is a valid world-line but it's not a straight world-line.
 
  • #29
jbriggs444 said:
3-4 is straight. 4-5 is straight. 3-4-5 is not straight. That's the point.

3-4-5 is a valid world-line but it's not a straight world-line.

There is no thing that moves along 3-4-5
 
  • #30
Luis Babboni said:
There is no thing that moves along 3-4-5
The information you are passing around does.
 
  • #31
Ibix said:
The information you are passing around does.

Yeap... but at this point I miss what I discuss! o_O
 
  • #32
At this moment what most concerned me is how to describe properly the "symmetrical" situation in respect to twin paradox.

May be it deservs another thread.
 
  • #33
Luis Babboni said:
At this moment what most concerned me is how to describe properly the "symmetrical" situation in respect to twin paradox.

The situation is not symmetrical. Not in the original twin paradox, and not in your version. In your version, the twin who stays on Earth just has one Polaroid and keeps it for the entire time. But the traveling "twins" (there is more than one person playing this role in your version) have to keep taking new Polaroids and switching them around. That is an observable difference--a lack of symmetry--between the traveling and the stay-at-home "twins".
 
  • #34
Luis Babboni said:
At this moment what most concerned me is how to describe properly the "symmetrical" situation in respect to twin paradox.

May be it deservs another thread.
It isn't symmetrical. That's kind of the point.

All that really matters is the proper time, ##\sqrt {c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2}##, along the line 3-5 and along the lines 3-4 and 4-5. Whether those lines are interesting to you because one person followed the path 3-4-5 or because one person followed 3-4 and handed a measure of elapsed time to someone else who followed 4-5 doesn't make any difference. The proper time for 3-4 plus the proper time for 4-5 is the same either way.
 
  • #35
PeterDonis said:
The situation is not symmetrical... .

Ibix said:
It isn't symmetrical... .

I agree... so there is no paradox without need to use aceleration to explain it! Right?
 
<h2>1. What is the twin paradox?</h2><p>The twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity that involves two twins, one of whom travels at high speeds and returns to Earth, while the other stays on Earth. This results in a difference in their ages, which seems to contradict the idea that time passes at the same rate for all observers.</p><h2>2. Why is the twin paradox considered paradoxical?</h2><p>The twin paradox is considered paradoxical because it appears to violate the principle of relativity, which states that the laws of physics should be the same for all observers regardless of their relative motion. It also seems to contradict the idea of time dilation, which predicts that time will pass slower for a moving object.</p><h2>3. Is the twin paradox a real phenomenon?</h2><p>No, the twin paradox is a thought experiment and does not occur in real life. It is used to illustrate the concepts of special relativity and time dilation.</p><h2>4. Can the twin paradox be resolved?</h2><p>Yes, the twin paradox can be resolved by taking into account the effects of acceleration. In the original thought experiment, the twin who travels at high speeds experiences acceleration when changing direction, which causes their time to pass slower. When this is taken into account, the paradox is resolved.</p><h2>5. Why is the twin paradox important?</h2><p>The twin paradox is important because it challenges our understanding of time and space. It also highlights the counterintuitive nature of special relativity and the need to consider the effects of acceleration in thought experiments. It has also been used to develop and test theories of time travel and has practical applications in areas such as GPS technology.</p>

1. What is the twin paradox?

The twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity that involves two twins, one of whom travels at high speeds and returns to Earth, while the other stays on Earth. This results in a difference in their ages, which seems to contradict the idea that time passes at the same rate for all observers.

2. Why is the twin paradox considered paradoxical?

The twin paradox is considered paradoxical because it appears to violate the principle of relativity, which states that the laws of physics should be the same for all observers regardless of their relative motion. It also seems to contradict the idea of time dilation, which predicts that time will pass slower for a moving object.

3. Is the twin paradox a real phenomenon?

No, the twin paradox is a thought experiment and does not occur in real life. It is used to illustrate the concepts of special relativity and time dilation.

4. Can the twin paradox be resolved?

Yes, the twin paradox can be resolved by taking into account the effects of acceleration. In the original thought experiment, the twin who travels at high speeds experiences acceleration when changing direction, which causes their time to pass slower. When this is taken into account, the paradox is resolved.

5. Why is the twin paradox important?

The twin paradox is important because it challenges our understanding of time and space. It also highlights the counterintuitive nature of special relativity and the need to consider the effects of acceleration in thought experiments. It has also been used to develop and test theories of time travel and has practical applications in areas such as GPS technology.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
594
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
651
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
Back
Top