What Does "Twin B Being 3 Years Younger" Mean? An Explanation from My Cousin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Remnant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relative
Remnant
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
My cousin stated that "Two twins born at the same time. Twin "A" remained on earth, and twin 'B" other be sent out in space(he did not specify where), and when twin "B" came back to Earth he would be 3 years younger than twin A. Could someone specify what he meant by that.

I am not sure if he was talking about relative time. That twin B would be 3 years younger before he came back to Earth and began catching up in relative time when he started heading back to Earth. If someone could specify my post, disprove my thought as maybe just a misunderstanding (its been many years since i heard my cousin tell me that statement). It would be much appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, time dilation does not depend upon direction. If twin B will be 3 years younger after his trip away from earth, he will NOT regain that time coming back. If he travels back at the same speed at which he went away (relative to the earth), one could argue that he would have to be 6 years younger when he arrives back on earth. I suspect in this case it is meant that B will be 3 years younger than A when he arrives back on earth.

One could also argue that, since speed is relative, twin B sees himself as stationary and twin A as moving away at the same speed and so twin A should be 3 or 6 years younger when they get back together. That is referred to as the "twin paradox" (and cannot be solved by saying what one gains going out one loses coming back!).

Resolving that paradox involves two different things. First, in order for twin B, who was initially stationary on earth, to leave, he must undergo an acceleration- inertial frames don't apply. In order to come back, he must also undergo an acceleration. The other point is that A remained on earth, subject to its gravitational field- and that also has its effect. That involves going into general relativity which is far beyond me!
 
Thank you for your input, i think that it was implied from my cousin that, 3 years was the time that it took for the twin to return to earth. I appreciate your time on this subject
 
Remnant said:
Thank you for your input, i think that it was implied from my cousin that, 3 years was the time that it took for the twin to return to earth. I appreciate your time on this subject
Just so you know, the time dilation formula says that in the Earth's frame of reference, a ship moving at speed v would be slowed down by a factor of \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}, where c is the speed of light. So if the twin were to travel away from the Earth and back maintaining a speed of 0.8c, and the trip lasted 5 years according to clocks on Earth, then the clocks on the twin's ship would be slowed down by a factor of \sqrt{1 - 0.8^2} = \sqrt{1 - 0.64} = \sqrt{0.36} = 0.6, so the traveling twin would only have aged (0.6)*(5 years) = 3 years when he returned to Earth.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top