Was Einstein lucky when not considering twin paradox as paradox?

In summary: Einstein did not even consider the twin paradox as problematic at all, he argued that it is a simple consequence of his special relativity?obviously he never gave a explanation of why the two twins don't age the same he instead left it to others to do so.was Einstein just having a hunch witch turned out to be just a lucky guess?There is no need to clarify the paradox, as it is self-evident. Einstein was simply stating a scientific fact.
  • #1
adoion
55
0
hi,

Einstein did not even consider the twin paradox as problematic at all, he argued that it is a simple consequence of his special relativity?

obviously he never gave a explanation of why the two twins don't age the same he instead left it to others to do so.

was Einstein just having a hunch witch turned out to be just a lucky guess?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
adoion said:
Einstein did not even consider the twin paradox as problematic at all, he argued that it is a simple consequence of his special relativity?

obviously he never gave a explanation of why the two twins don't age the same he instead left it to others to do so.

was Einstein just having a hunch witch turned out to be just a lucky guess?

The twin paradox was properly understood by Einstein and other physicists from the beginning; no one who understands relativity has ever thought that it is problematic. It only started being called a "paradox" later, when we realized that it could be used as a teaching tool like the other "paradoxes" of relativity, such as the classic pole-barn and bug-rivet problems (google will find both of these online).

There is an interesting and important problem associated with the twin paradox (and these other "paradoxes") but it's not a problem of understanding. It's how to explain them to someone who is still learning special relativity, and teachers have been working on that one for a century now.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Nugatory said:
The twin paradox was properly understood by Einstein and other physicists from the beginning; no one who understands relativity has ever thought that it is problematic. It only started being called a "paradox" later, when we realized that it could be used as a teaching tool like the other "paradoxes" of relativity, such as the class pole-barn and bug-rivet problems (google will find both of these online).

There is an interesting and important problem associated with the twin paradox (and these other "paradoxes") but it's not a problem of understanding. It's how to explain them to someone who is still learning special relativity, and teachers have been working on that one for a century now.
All right so how did Einstein understand the twin paradox, did he consider the acceleration of the traveling twin witch goes out of the scope of special relativity or did he argue that the traveling twin uses 2 inertial frames of reference?
 
  • #4
adoion said:
hi,

Einstein did not even consider the twin paradox as problematic at all, he argued that it is a simple consequence of his special relativity?

obviously he never gave a explanation of why the two twins don't age the same he instead left it to others to do so.

was Einstein just having a hunch witch turned out to be just a lucky guess?
Of course not. He described in his 1905 paper the result and calculated the difference in "aging" between two clocks starting out together but one remaining inertial while the other one takes a trip and circles back to the inertial clock. You can read about it here at the end of section 4:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
 
  • #5
adoion said:
All right so how did Einstein understand the twin paradox, did he consider the acceleration of the traveling twin witch goes out of the scope of special relativity or did he argue that the traveling twin uses 2 inertial frames of reference?

There's a widespread misconception that you need general relativity in situations involving acceleration, but it's just not true; special relativity handles acceleration just fine. You can google for "Rindler coordinates" for one example, and you'll find another example (a clock experiencing uniform circular motion due to the Earth's rotation) in Einstein's original 1905 paper to which ghwellsjr gave you a link above.

This misconception propagates because very few first-year courses and textbooks cover this material. The math is appreciably more complex and introduces no new physical insights, so the examples and problems in these courses and books generally don't include acceleration.
 
  • #6
ghwellsjr said:
Of course not. He described in his 1905 paper the result and calculated the difference in "aging" between two clocks starting out together but one remaining inertial while the other one takes a trip and circles back to the inertial clock. You can read about it here at the end of section 4:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
as far as I can tell there is no explanation of the twin paradox just a similar statement in his paper, a statement without deeper inside in why this has to be or a consideration of what would happened if we assume the Earth is moving and the rocket twin is still. as I said just a statement confusingly written for modern standards I guess.
and if he was so precise about this statement then why was there a need anyway to clarify this "PARADOX". if it was just stated for educational purposes and a couple of different explanations where given??
 
  • #7
adoion said:
and if he was so precise about this statement then why was there a need anyway to clarify this "PARADOX". if it was just stated for educational purposes and a couple of different explanations where given??

One of meanings of the English word "paradox" is "something that appears at first glance to be contradictory, but with deeper understanding is not". We're using this definition when we speak of the "paradoxes" of special relativity, and we use a student's ability to properly explain them as a measure of the student's understanding of SR.
 
  • #8
adoion said:
as far as I can tell there is no explanation of the twin paradox just a similar statement in his paper, a statement without deeper inside (sic) in why this has to be or a consideration of what would happened (sic) if we assume the Earth is moving and the rocket twin is still.
Einstein certainly understood, as would a physics 101 student, that relative to the Earth, the stay at home twin was not accelerating whereas the traveling twin was and thus they are not symmetrical. He probably didn't feel that that needed to be pointed out.
 
  • #9
adoion said:
as far as I can tell there is no explanation of the twin paradox just a similar statement in his paper, a statement without deeper inside in why this has to be or a consideration of what would happened if we assume the Earth is moving and the rocket twin is still. as I said just a statement confusingly written for modern standards I guess.
and if he was so precise about this statement then why was there a need anyway to clarify this "PARADOX". if it was just stated for educational purposes and a couple of different explanations where given??

Einstein starts off, in his derivation of the Lorentz transforms, with:

Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good...​

This line is not explained in any more detail, but the way I interpret it is that it means an inertial system of coordinates. In a noninertial coordinate system, the laws of Newtonian mechanics don't hold good--that is, objects can accelerate relative to a noninertial coordinate system without any physical force being applied.

So from the very beginning, Einstein was talking about a special set of coordinate systems. In the case of a rocket taking off from the Earth, turning around, and returning, there is no inertial coordinate system in which the rocket is at rest at all times.
 
  • #10
adoion said:
as far as I can tell there is no explanation of the twin paradox just a similar statement in his paper, a statement without deeper inside in why this has to be or a consideration of what would happened if we assume the Earth is moving and the rocket twin is still. as I said just a statement confusingly written for modern standards I guess.
and if he was so precise about this statement then why was there a need anyway to clarify this "PARADOX". if it was just stated for educational purposes and a couple of different explanations where given??

Special Relativity is not, solely, the Twin Paradox! The point of the 1905 paper was not to explain this one aspect of SR, but (with beautiful insight and simplicity) to prove that (given the postulates which are clearly stated) time and distance are not universal for all observers, and to provide quantitative predictions for the experimentalists to verify.

If you are saying: "Einstein didn't explain the twin paradox very well". Well, maybe so, but that was not what he was trying to do.

By limiting your interest to this one "paradox", you are missing the whole essence of SR. Why not read the paper and try to understand what it is saying?
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #11
adoion said:
All right so how did Einstein understand the twin paradox, did he consider the acceleration of the traveling twin witch goes out of the scope of special relativity or did he argue that the traveling twin uses 2 inertial frames of reference?

adoion said:
ghwellsjr said:
Of course not. He described in his 1905 paper the result and calculated the difference in "aging" between two clocks starting out together but one remaining inertial while the other one takes a trip and circles back to the inertial clock. You can read about it here at the end of section 4:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
as far as I can tell there is no explanation of the twin paradox just a similar statement in his paper, a statement without deeper inside in why this has to be or a consideration of what would happened if we assume the Earth is moving and the rocket twin is still. as I said just a statement confusingly written for modern standards I guess.
and if he was so precise about this statement then why was there a need anyway to clarify this "PARADOX". if it was just stated for educational purposes and a couple of different explanations where given??
It's not an issue of one clock moving and the other clock not moving, it's that one clock is inertial and the other clock is not inertial.

In his 1905 paper, Einstein only considered Inertial Reference Frames (IRF's) and he described the "twin paradox" using the IRF in which the inertial clock was stationary. You only ever need one IRF to define a scenario. It doesn't matter whether the clocks are stationary, moving inertially at a constant velocity in any direction, or changing speeds and/or directions (accelerating), one IRF is all you need. But if you want, you can transform the coordinates of all the significant events according to the defining IRF to another IRF that is moving with respect to the defining IRF and this will make the stationary clock move at some constant speed but it is still inertial and it will make the other clock move at different speeds, even being stationary during some part of the scenario, but it is still non-inertial.

So when you define a scenario according to one IRF where the first twin remains inertial on the Earth and the other twin travels away from the Earth at a constant speed and direction and then turns around and travels back at that same constant speed but in the opposite direction, there are two more different IRF's in which the traveling twin is at rest during each half of the trip and the Earth twin is moving inertially but you must consider the entire scenario from each of these two IRF's. The Time Dilations of the twins will be different in each of these three IRF's but they will all explain the difference in aging between the twins identically.

Perhaps a concrete example will help. Let's consider a typical Twin Paradox. I'm going to depict the Earth twin in blue and the traveling twin in red. The traveling twin departs Earth at a speed of 0.6c and after 8 years according to his clock, he turns around and spends another 8 years coming back at the same speed. When he reunites with the Earth twin, they find that the Earth twin has aged 25 years while the traveling twin has aged 16 years. The dots on this diagram mark off one-year increments of time for both twins:

TwinParadox1.PNG

Please note that in this IRF, it is only the traveling twin whose clock is Time Dilated by a factor of 1.25 during the entire scenario. This is because his speed is 0.6c during the entire scenario according to this IRF. Also note that the Earth twin is inertial during the entire scenario while the traveling twin is not inertial during the entire trip.

For the next two IRF's and their diagrams, I'm going to refer to the Earth twin as the inertial blue twin and the traveling twin as the non-inertial red twin.

First we're going to transform to the IRF in which the non-inertial red twin is at rest during the first part of the scenario. The diagram looks like this:

TwinParadox2.PNG

Note how the inertial blue twin is moving at -0.6c during the entire scenario and so his clock is Time Dilated by 1.25 the entire time. During the first part of the scenario, the non-inertial red twin's clock is not Time Dilated because he is not moving. But at his time of 8 years, he starts moving at -0.882c where his Time Dilation is now 2.125 and after 8 more years he catches up to the inertial blue twin who has aged 25 years by the time they reunite.Finally we're going to transform to the IRF in which the non-inertial red twin is at rest during the last part of the scenario:

TwinParadox3.PNG

This is similar to the previous IRF so we can use the same numbers but in different orders but the net result is that the twins age by the same amounts.

I hope this is clear and removes all your confusion. If not, ask.
 
  • #12
PeroK said:
Special Relativity is not, solely, the Twin Paradox! The point of the 1905 paper was not to explain this one aspect of SR, but (with beautiful insight and simplicity) to prove that (given the postulates which are clearly stated) time and distance are not universal for all observers, and to provide quantitative predictions for the experimentalists to verify.

If you are saying: "Einstein didn't explain the twin paradox very well". Well, maybe so, but that was not what he was trying to do.

By limiting your interest to this one "paradox", you are missing the whole essence of SR. Why not read the paper and try to understand what it is saying?

It seems to me that the OP read and understood Einstein's paper very well. What he is asking is, whether there is any information why Einstein did not check the consistency of his time dilation calculation by changing the rest frame to the other observer/clock. Was it deliberate or an oversight?
 
  • #13
Fantasist said:
It seems to me that the OP read and understood Einstein's paper very well. What he is asking is, whether there is any information why Einstein did not check the consistency of his time dilation calculation by changing the rest frame to the other observer/clock. Was it deliberate or an oversight?

Checking your work isn't usually part of the final paper.
 
  • #14
ghwellsjr said:
It's not an issue of one clock moving and the other clock not moving, it's that one clock is inertial and the other clock is not inertial.

In his 1905 paper, Einstein only considered Inertial Reference Frames (IRF's) and he described the "twin paradox" using the IRF in which the inertial clock was stationary. You only ever need one IRF to define a scenario. It doesn't matter whether the clocks are stationary, moving inertially at a constant velocity in any direction, or changing speeds and/or directions (accelerating), one IRF is all you need. But if you want, you can transform the coordinates of all the significant events according to the defining IRF to another IRF that is moving with respect to the defining IRF and this will make the stationary clock move at some constant speed but it is still inertial and it will make the other clock move at different speeds, even being stationary during some part of the scenario, but it is still non-inertial.

So when you define a scenario according to one IRF where the first twin remains inertial on the Earth and the other twin travels away from the Earth at a constant speed and direction and then turns around and travels back at that same constant speed but in the opposite direction, there are two more different IRF's in which the traveling twin is at rest during each half of the trip and the Earth twin is moving inertially but you must consider the entire scenario from each of these two IRF's. The Time Dilations of the twins will be different in each of these three IRF's but they will all explain the difference in aging between the twins identically.

Perhaps a concrete example will help. Let's consider a typical Twin Paradox. I'm going to depict the Earth twin in blue and the traveling twin in red. The traveling twin departs Earth at a speed of 0.6c and after 8 years according to his clock, he turns around and spends another 8 years coming back at the same speed. When he reunites with the Earth twin, they find that the Earth twin has aged 25 years while the traveling twin has aged 16 years. The dots on this diagram mark off one-year increments of time for both twins:


Please note that in this IRF, it is only the traveling twin whose clock is Time Dilated by a factor of 1.25 during the entire scenario. This is because his speed is 0.6c during the entire scenario according to this IRF. Also note that the Earth twin is inertial during the entire scenario while the traveling twin is not inertial during the entire trip.

For the next two IRF's and their diagrams, I'm going to refer to the Earth twin as the inertial blue twin and the traveling twin as the non-inertial red twin.

First we're going to transform to the IRF in which the non-inertial red twin is at rest during the first part of the scenario. The diagram looks like this:


Note how the inertial blue twin is moving at -0.6c during the entire scenario and so his clock is Time Dilated by 1.25 the entire time. During the first part of the scenario, the non-inertial red twin's clock is not Time Dilated because he is not moving. But at his time of 8 years, he starts moving at -0.882c where his Time Dilation is now 2.125 and after 8 more years he catches up to the inertial blue twin who has aged 25 years by the time they reunite.Finally we're going to transform to the IRF in which the non-inertial red twin is at rest during the last part of the scenario:


This is similar to the previous IRF so we can use the same numbers but in different orders but the net result is that the twins age by the same amounts.

I hope this is clear and removes all your confusion. If not, ask.
the thing is that you can use all 3 of those diagrams interchangeably on both the Earth twin and the traveling twin.

1. inertial frame is fixed at the Earth twin and it is determined what time he calculates has passed .
in this case the traveling twins time goes slower as he goes away from the Earth twin, but also as he returns to the Earth , at the same amount.
the traveling twin uses 2 IRF, in this case.

2. IRF is fixed to the traveling twin. the Earth is moving away from the traveling twin who is at rest. the traveling twin will measure that the Earth twins time goes slower by the same factor as the Earth twin measured before for the traveling twin.
in this case the Earth twin uses 2 IRF, if he would believe that the Earth is moving, one on the trip away and one for the trip back.

3. the last possibility is that both agree to use a IRF in witch the Earth twin moves at a speed ##v_1## and the traveling twin with a speed ##v_2## and in this case just like in the first case the traveling twin changes speed and the traveling twin is the one who would use 2 IRF.

so the first 2 cases are absolutely symmetric and they would both measure that the other twin is younger at the end so both would have to be older and younger at the same time when they meet.
only with the presence of a third observer (case 3.) is the asymmetry obvious and that is only if the third observer doesn't travel at the same speed (direction and velocity) as the traveling twin.

even if we take acceleration into account, the acceleration can be attributed to the Earth as well as to the traveling twin, so symmetry again.

so again if somebody thinks he can correct me please do so id really like to know?
 
  • #15
adoion said:
2. IRF is fixed to the traveling twin. the Earth is moving away from the traveling twin who is at rest. the traveling twin will measure that the Earth twins time goes slower by the same factor as the Earth twin measured before for the traveling twin.
in this case the Earth twin uses 2 IRF, if he would believe that the Earth is moving, one on the trip away and one for the trip back.
This frame is not inertial. The I in IRF stands for Inertial, so this is not a valid IRF.

In any IRF (remember I stands for Inertial), if you do the calculation you will get that the "travelling" twin is younger on reunion. That is the point of ghwellsjr's exercise above.

adoion said:
so the first 2 cases are absolutely symmetric and they would both measure that the other twin is younger at the end so both would have to be older and younger at the same time when they meet.
No, only the first case is even self consistent. The second case is not self consistent since it uses the time dilation formula for an IRF for a reference frame which is not inertial. This is a self-contradiction which invalidates the second case, regardless of any other case.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
DaleSpam said:
This frame is not inertial. The I in IRF stands for Inertial, so this is not a valid IRF.

In any IRF (remember I stands for Inertial), if you do the calculation you will get that the "travelling" twin is younger on reunion. That is the point of ghwellsjr's exercise above.
if you have only 2 point particles an nothing else, how do you determent witch one is accelerating?
so what is your opinion, what would be the IRF ( I stands for inertial) in this case??
 
  • #17
Two point particles with nothing else is inconsistent with the twins paradox scenario.
 
  • #18
DaleSpam said:
Two point particles with nothing else is inconsistent with the twins paradox scenario.
hows that?
 
  • #19
adoion said:
if you have only 2 point particles an nothing else, how do you determent witch one is accelerating?
so what is your opinion, what would be the IRF ( I stands for inertial) in this case??

An object travels inertially if it is not acted on by any external force. We have a pretty good idea of what forces are relevant in space: Collision forces (which are ultimately electromagnetic in nature, for ordinary macroscopic objects), electromagnetic forces, gravity. That's basically it. If those forces are approximately zero, then the object is moving approximately inertially.
 
  • #20
adoion said:
hows that?
As stevendaryl mentioned if you have two point particles and nothing else then they will travel inertially only. If one were to turn around without anything else then the conservation of momentum would be violated.
 
  • #21
DaleSpam said:
As stevendaryl mentioned if you have two point particles and nothing else then they will travel inertially only. If one were to turn around without anything else then the conservation of momentum would be violated.
witch one would be turning around? if anyone of them would be acted upon by an external force witch one would be accelerating in this case? you can always say that the other one is accelerating.
 
  • #22
adoion said:
witch one would be turning around?
Neither. That is why two point particles with nothing else is inconsistent with a twins scenario. They would both travel inertially.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
DaleSpam said:
Neither. That is why two point particles with nothing else is inconsistent with a twins scenario. They would both travel inertially.
ok so what ingredient needs to be added??
 
  • #24
adoion said:
you can always say that the other one is accelerating.

This seems to be the source of your misunderstanding and is simply not true. Unlike velocity, (proper) acceleration is absolute and can be measured without ambiguity.
 
  • #25
Orodruin said:
This seems to be the source of your misunderstanding and is simply not true. Unlike velocity, (proper) acceleration is absolute and can be measured without ambiguity.
could you please explain how you would measure it in the above example I gave?
 
  • #26
If you put an accelerometer on the accelerating object, it will show a non-zero value.
 
  • #27
adoion said:
hi,

Einstein did not even consider the twin paradox as problematic at all, he argued that it is a simple consequence of his special relativity?

obviously he never gave a explanation of why the two twins don't age the same he instead left it to others to do so.

was Einstein just having a hunch witch turned out to be just a lucky guess?
Despite the presentation in textbooks of a "twin paradox" in special relativity (as a student exercise), there never was anything really paradoxical about the "twin paradox" in that context. SR only accepts inertial coordinate systems as reference for the Lorentz transformations as Einstein already illustrated in 1905, with his clock prediction. Langevin presented in 1911 the example with a space traveller -from both perspectives- to illustrate how a change of velocity is "absolute" in SR. You can read that example starting from p.50 here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time

The twin paradox only appeared with Einstein's development of general relativity. According to original, 1916 GR, acceleration is relative in the sense that 'coordinate systems in arbitrary states of motion are qualified' so that the traveller can rightly claim to be "in rest" all the time. You can read Einstein's 1918 answer to this problem as advanced by critics here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_theory_of_relativity
 
  • #28
Orodruin said:
If you put an accelerometer on the accelerating object, it will show a non-zero value.
if the external force is uniform like for example far away from an electric charge where the lines of force are almost parallel and same in magnitude.

in this case the accelerometer and the object would be accelerated the same and you would conclude that the other object is accelerating.

also how would you be sure that the accelerometer is not acted by a force instead of the objet who's force it is supposed to measure.
also the accelerometer introduces a third object or observer in the system if you have only the accelerometer and one object then once again you wouldn't know witch one is accelerating
 
  • #29
ghwellsjr said:
I When he reunites with the Earth twin, they find that the Earth twin has aged 25 years while the traveling twin has aged 16 years. The dots on this diagram mark off one-year increments of time for both twins:


This is not consistent with your diagram, which shows only 20 years on the blue scale, not 25.
ghwellsjr said:
I
For the next two IRF's and their diagrams, I'm going to refer to the Earth twin as the inertial blue twin and the traveling twin as the non-inertial red twin.

First we're going to transform to the IRF in which the non-inertial red twin is at rest during the first part of the scenario. The diagram looks like this:


Note how the inertial blue twin is moving at -0.6c during the entire scenario and so his clock is Time Dilated by 1.25 the entire time. During the first part of the scenario, the non-inertial red twin's clock is not Time Dilated because he is not moving. But at his time of 8 years, he starts moving at -0.882c where his Time Dilation is now 2.125 and after 8 more years he catches up to the inertial blue twin who has aged 25 years by the time they reunite.Finally we're going to transform to the IRF in which the non-inertial red twin is at rest during the last part of the scenario:


This is similar to the previous IRF so we can use the same numbers but in different orders but the net result is that the twins age by the same amounts.

I hope this is clear and removes all your confusion. If not, ask.

You evaluated further above the age difference from the viewpoint of the 'inertial blue twin'. How can you say that the subsequent consideration evaluates the age difference from the viewpoint of the 'non-inertial red twin', when the latter in fact never occupies the reference frames for which you claim time dilation here (you evaluate the time dilation in a third reference frame which moves opposite to the 'non-inertial red twin')?
 
  • #30
adoion, the only thing which is paradoxical in the twin paradox are the explanations. The proper time each twin measures on his own wrist watch is related to the "path length" of his/her trip through spacetime. for different paths we expect different "length". Consider two different paths with different lengths from New York to Boston. Why would you talk about a paradox at all?
 
  • #31
DaleSpam said:
As stevendaryl mentioned if you have two point particles and nothing else then they will travel inertially only..

Inertial motion is what Special Relativity is based on, and Einstein obtained the time dilation conclusion on this basis only (without considering any symmetry-breaking accelerations etc.) . That was the OP's point.
 
  • Like
Likes adoion
  • #32
adoion said:
if the external force is uniform like for example far away from an electric charge where the lines of force are almost parallel and same in magnitude.

in this case the accelerometer and the object would be accelerated the same and you would conclude that the other object is accelerating.

also how would you be sure that the accelerometer is not acted by a force instead of the objet who's force it is supposed to measure.
also the accelerometer introduces a third object or observer in the system if you have only the accelerometer and one object then once again you wouldn't know witch one is accelerating
While I don't entirely follow your arguments, an accelerometer is indeed insufficient. Note that identically the same problem occurs in classical mechanics. See my clarifications in posts #17 and #25 here [edit: replaced by direct links]:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/acceleration-and-the-twin-paradox.779110/#post-4898903
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/acceleration-and-the-twin-paradox.779110/page-2#post-4900264
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes adoion
  • #33
harrylin said:
The twin paradox only appeared with Einstein's development of general relativity

That's clearly incorrect. The 'twin paradox' problem implied by the inertial frame scenario in Einstein's theory was already known since about 1911 (still several years after Einstein's 1905 paper appeared; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox ). It seems more like Einstein developed GR in order to be able to include non-inertial scenarios and thus 'get out of jail' with the twin paradox issue here.
I found a further interesting article in this respect here http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
 
  • #34
Fantasist said:
That's clearly incorrect. The 'twin paradox' problem implied by the inertial frame scenario in Einstein's theory was already known since about 1911 (still several years after Einstein's 1905 paper appeared; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox ). [..]
Sorry if my clarification was not clear enough. As I as well as others here remarked, there was no such paradox known in the context of SR alone, and it was still not paradoxical in that context in 1911 - the so-called "twin paradox" of textbooks is just an SR student exercise. Note also that Einstein started developing GR from about 1907.
 
  • #35
adoion said:
ok so what ingredient needs to be added??

A particle can't accelerate without a force. So to have two particles, one of which accelerates and the other doesn't, you have to have a force that applies to one and not the other.

Most thought experiments involving Special Relativity just assume contact forces: A rocket is accelerated by throwing matter behind it.
 
<h2>1. Was Einstein the first to propose the theory of relativity?</h2><p>No, Einstein was not the first to propose the theory of relativity. The concept of relativity was first introduced by Galileo in the 16th century and later expanded upon by other scientists such as Isaac Newton and Hendrik Lorentz.</p><h2>2. Why is the twin paradox not considered a paradox?</h2><p>The twin paradox is not considered a paradox because it can be explained by the theory of special relativity. According to this theory, time is relative and can be affected by factors such as speed and gravity. Therefore, the twin paradox can be explained by the fact that one twin experiences time differently due to their different speeds and accelerations.</p><h2>3. Did Einstein fully understand the implications of his theory of relativity?</h2><p>It is debated whether Einstein fully understood the implications of his theory of relativity. While he was able to make groundbreaking predictions and discoveries based on this theory, some argue that he may not have fully grasped the implications of his work, as he continued to work on refining and expanding his theories until the end of his life.</p><h2>4. How did Einstein come up with the theory of relativity?</h2><p>Einstein's theory of relativity was based on his thought experiments and mathematical equations. He was inspired by the work of other scientists such as Maxwell and Lorentz, and also drew upon his own observations and experiences. It was a combination of his genius and his ability to think outside the box that led to his groundbreaking theories.</p><h2>5. Did Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionize the field of physics?</h2><p>Yes, Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized the field of physics. It completely changed our understanding of space, time, and gravity, and has been confirmed by numerous experiments and observations. It also paved the way for further advancements in physics, such as the development of quantum mechanics.</p>

1. Was Einstein the first to propose the theory of relativity?

No, Einstein was not the first to propose the theory of relativity. The concept of relativity was first introduced by Galileo in the 16th century and later expanded upon by other scientists such as Isaac Newton and Hendrik Lorentz.

2. Why is the twin paradox not considered a paradox?

The twin paradox is not considered a paradox because it can be explained by the theory of special relativity. According to this theory, time is relative and can be affected by factors such as speed and gravity. Therefore, the twin paradox can be explained by the fact that one twin experiences time differently due to their different speeds and accelerations.

3. Did Einstein fully understand the implications of his theory of relativity?

It is debated whether Einstein fully understood the implications of his theory of relativity. While he was able to make groundbreaking predictions and discoveries based on this theory, some argue that he may not have fully grasped the implications of his work, as he continued to work on refining and expanding his theories until the end of his life.

4. How did Einstein come up with the theory of relativity?

Einstein's theory of relativity was based on his thought experiments and mathematical equations. He was inspired by the work of other scientists such as Maxwell and Lorentz, and also drew upon his own observations and experiences. It was a combination of his genius and his ability to think outside the box that led to his groundbreaking theories.

5. Did Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionize the field of physics?

Yes, Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized the field of physics. It completely changed our understanding of space, time, and gravity, and has been confirmed by numerous experiments and observations. It also paved the way for further advancements in physics, such as the development of quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
594
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
653
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
85
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Back
Top