Why Does the Twin Paradox Not Prove Einstein's Relativity Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nuclear420
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment Rocket
nuclear420
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
One of the thought experiments Einstein proposed involved one twin staying on earth, while the second twin entered a shuttle. The twin in the shuttle went on a trip (a physical one), traveling near the speed of light. The twin in the shuttle would have time pass by slower than the one on the Earth, resulting in him being younger than his Earth twin when he returned.

The Question:
Since relativity is relative, can't we assume a reference frame where the shuttle is stationary and the Earth moves away and comes back near the speed of light? This would result in the opposite outcome, a contradiction. I know that this was originally proposed by physicists as proof that Einstein's relativity was flawed, but later debunked. Can anyone explain to me, in laymen terms, why it doesn't work?

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-- Albert Einstein
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nuclear420 said:
One of the thought experiments Einstein proposed involved one twin staying on earth, while the second twin entered a shuttle. The twin in the shuttle went on a trip (a physical one), traveling near the speed of light. The twin in the shuttle would have time pass by slower than the one on the Earth, resulting in him being younger than his Earth twin when he returned.

The Question:
Since relativity is relative, can't we assume a reference frame where the shuttle is stationary and the Earth moves away and comes back near the speed of light? This would result in the opposite outcome, a contradiction. I know that this was originally proposed by physicists as proof that Einstein's relativity was flawed, but later debunked. Can anyone explain to me, in laymen terms, why it doesn't work?

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-- Albert Einstein

>>> If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Yes, indeed. The crux of the problem lies in how to compare time with a moving clock? How many stationary clocks do you need to compare time with a moving clock? That's the key. If you figure this out, you will see why you have been fooled by this paradox.
 
Last edited:
nuclear420 said:
The Question:
Since relativity is relative, can't we assume a reference frame where the shuttle is stationary and the Earth moves away and comes back near the speed of light? This would result in the opposite outcome, a contradiction. I know that this was originally proposed by physicists as proof that Einstein's relativity was flawed, but later debunked. Can anyone explain to me, in laymen terms, why it doesn't work?
It doesn't work because the time dilation equation is only intended to be used in inertial reference frames, meaning a spacetime coordinate system where an object at rest in those coordinates would be moving inertially forever, never accelerating. The shuttle is not moving inertially when it turns around (any change in speed or direction is an acceleration, and will be felt as G-forces so it's an objective thing whether or not you accelerated in special relativity), so it can't just take the Earth's relative velocity to it at all times and then plug that into the time dilation equation to predict how much the Earth twin will age.

For way more info on the twin paradox and various ways of understanding it, see this page:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
 
Hey there! I asked a similar question not too long ago and after hours of searching for an answer, I found this really helpful site - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/. I’m so glad I bookmarked it! You’ve got to check out the applet! It’s so funny! It always makes me laugh when I see it. ;)
 
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...
Abstract The gravitational-wave signal GW250114 was observed by the two LIGO detectors with a network matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 80. The signal was emitted by the coalescence of two black holes with near-equal masses ## m_1=33.6_{-0.8}^{+1.2} M_{⊙} ## and ## m_2=32.2_{-1. 3}^{+0.8} M_{⊙}##, and small spins ##\chi_{1,2}\leq 0.26 ## (90% credibility) and negligible eccentricity ##e⁢\leq 0.03.## Postmerger data excluding the peak region are consistent with the dominant quadrupolar...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
3K
Back
Top