I Twin Paradox Resolution

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter CSnowden
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Special relativity
CSnowden
Messages
27
Reaction score
4
TL;DR Summary
Looking for logical fault in a simple explanation of the Twins Paradox
In what sense is the following explanation of the Twins Paradox faulty in logic:

Each twin views the other as length contracted, but the twin on earth only sees the rocket in motion and thus shortened (along with the twin) while the destination planet is at rest in the earth frame and the distance to it is not contracted. However, the rocket twin sees the destination planet approaching at high speed and thus the entire distance to the planet is contracted and covered in a shorter time. The Return Trip seems subject to identical considerations of shorter travel versus the Earth Twin..

It is true that the rocket twin will see time passing more slowly on the Earth Twin's clock and so they will arrive back with their version of the Earth Twin's clock consistent with their shorter trip and their earlier age.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
Physics news on Phys.org
Totally have it now, many thanks - this can be closed now!
 
I guess you could make an explanation of the twin paradox based on length contraction. But I think most people who struggle with time dilation in this scenario will struggle even more with length contraction.
 
As with any misguiding paradox, one should address the misconception that leads to the paradox. IMO, they have no problem with SR time dilation or length contraction. In the Twins Paradox, the basic misconception is the belief that the situation of the two twins is symmetrical and identical. The OP shoots holes in that belief in a simple way. I think it is a good point.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
137
Views
10K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top