- #1
dayalanand roy
- 109
- 5
- TL;DR Summary
- According to relativity, if motion is relative, and if A is moving away at a high but constant speed in relation to stay-home B, B is also moving away from A at the same constant speed; then if A is accelerating away from B, why not B is also considered to be accelerating away from A at the same rate? If movement is relative, why not acceleration is relative? After all, at every moment, when A's speed of moving away from B increases, B's speed of moving away from A should also increase? Or, when
I am not a physicist. I need your kind help in removing my following doubt about twin paradox.
What I have been able to understand about twin paradox is this-
1. Special relativity deals with non-accelerating (inertial) motion.
2. The traveling twin (A) moves at a high speed in relation to the stay-at-home twin (B), hence A's time dilates and he ages less in comparison to B.
3. The stay-at-home twin (B) also moves at a high speed in relation to the traveling twin (A) (according to relativity), hence B's time too should get dilated and B should also age less in comparison to A. It does not happen so (only A ages less), hence it is a paradox.
4. According to available explanation, only A's time gets dilated and he ages less, because it is A only who accelerates as he leaves home and then as he returns back to home.
If what is I understand is correct, then my problem is this-
According to relativity, if motion is relative, and if A is moving away at a high but constant speed in relation to stay-home B, B is also moving away from A at the same constant speed; then if A is accelerating away from B, why not B is also considered to be accelerating away from A at the same rate? If movement is relative, why not acceleration is relative? After all, at every moment, when A's speed of moving away from B increases, B's speed of moving away from A should also increase? Or, when A's direction of movement in relation to B changes, B's direction of movement from A should also change.
But relativity denies this. It says that only the traveling twin accelerates. Please give me a simple explanation of it (if possible, without mathematics).
Thanks and regards.
What I have been able to understand about twin paradox is this-
1. Special relativity deals with non-accelerating (inertial) motion.
2. The traveling twin (A) moves at a high speed in relation to the stay-at-home twin (B), hence A's time dilates and he ages less in comparison to B.
3. The stay-at-home twin (B) also moves at a high speed in relation to the traveling twin (A) (according to relativity), hence B's time too should get dilated and B should also age less in comparison to A. It does not happen so (only A ages less), hence it is a paradox.
4. According to available explanation, only A's time gets dilated and he ages less, because it is A only who accelerates as he leaves home and then as he returns back to home.
If what is I understand is correct, then my problem is this-
According to relativity, if motion is relative, and if A is moving away at a high but constant speed in relation to stay-home B, B is also moving away from A at the same constant speed; then if A is accelerating away from B, why not B is also considered to be accelerating away from A at the same rate? If movement is relative, why not acceleration is relative? After all, at every moment, when A's speed of moving away from B increases, B's speed of moving away from A should also increase? Or, when A's direction of movement in relation to B changes, B's direction of movement from A should also change.
But relativity denies this. It says that only the traveling twin accelerates. Please give me a simple explanation of it (if possible, without mathematics).
Thanks and regards.