Dr. Lincoln Is Wrong About The Twin Paradox (Special Relativity)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ต.ค. 2023
- A famous resolution of the twin paradox on TH-cam has been done by Doctor Lincoln and even though it might seem legit, it is in fact wrong.
Doctor Lincoln claims he solved the paradox without acceleration by introducing not two but three observers but the Lorentz transformations were incorrectly used and the problem presented in his video is in fact just hidden clock synchronization problem.
link to the Lincoln's video:
• Twin paradox: the real...
attributions:
www.freepik.com
www.vecteezy.com
for vector graphics
www.mixkit.co
for audio effects
The absolute best explanation can found on the FloatHeadPhysics channel.
Very good script and graphics. You demonstrate through you presentation and demeanor your intellectual authority.
Great explanation!
You helped me understand more of what Dr. Don was really saying about them by emphasizing what happened in your animation. This is the first time I've seen the Lorentz transformation with the additional term, and it's kind of mind-blowing.
However, I believe the key to solving the Twin Paradox, at least not in general relativity like curved spacetime, is to consider the plane of simultaneity. The moving observer has to switch the plane as they change the frame of reference. When they do that, the plane flips, and there is an instant delay in time. However, if it were instant, this would mean it's like a sharp corner worldline, not continuous. So acceleration is a process when an observer occupies a non-inertial frame, constantly passing through infinite planes of simultaneity. This is when they see time for the rest of the universe changing, and I also consider an alteration in explanation using a uniform gravitational field. However, in the reference frame of Special Relativity, we can think of this as an observer passing through an infinite number of inertial frames and infinite planes of simultaneity without requiring the existence of a gravitational field. The gravitational field is just a way to strengthen the first postulate of Special Relativity.
My own solution is the following :
If we create a station attacted with two light bulbs seperated.
where both light bulbs ignite at the same time, the moving Twin will see a difference in the order of events in the outgoing case and the return case due to the effect of simultaneity . This is my solution to the Twin Paradox. What do you think?
In the end, both B and C will agree that A is older, but they will all say the others have experienced time dilation, which is symmetrically beautiful!
Yep, the answer lies in the relativity of simultaneity! :D
Great video man - thanks for setting things straight. I have studied GR and SR as a "hobby" and it's amazing how much "bad" information is floating around youtube.... I am looking forward to your next video.
m.th-cam.com/video/iYJ5i2Oc-2M/w-d-xo.html
I questioned Dr. Lincoln's explanation. When it comes down to the twin's paradox, it boils down to the question why, if each twin was travelling at the same speed relative to the other, will one have aged faster than the other when they meet up again on the return. It can only be due to a difference in their experiences, and the only thing that breaks that symmetry is that one of them was changing their inertial frame of reference, and that only happens if they undergo acceleration.
Sabine Hossenfelder's explanation in her video involved the acceleration and change of inertial frame of reference, and Dr. Lincoln did a follow up video and with a rather hand-waving argument said that they were actually in agreement, but had taken a different way in explaining it. That really threw me.
I should add that, in the "real world", the stay at home twin is undergoing his own accelerations, but we can get rid of that by allowing him to just follow a geodesic. Being in an orbit in space would do that.
I would also add that I've also seen a lot of very misleading statements about what the nature of the paradox is with the twins.
You say "if each twin was travelling at the same speed relative to the other", but what is important here is that they are not travelling at the same speed relative to each other, hence the clock values are different. Only one is travelling a distance, in this example so has a different velocity ie reference frame. In this example the difference in distance is caused by acceleration, but the difference in distance can be done without that, as per the 3 observer solution. You only need the twins to be in different reference frames, you don't have to have one change.
@@zakelwe Re "only one is traveling a distance": How so? From the frame of reference of the one traveling a distance, he is at rest and it is the earth that is moving a distance.
"That really threw me." It threw me, too. I was all like, "No, they're not the same explanation!"
The difference in their experience is actually very simple, in setting up the frame we are assuming ourselves to be positioned at one of the perspectives, and we are setting up our standards of length, time etc, based on that. Once we have set up one perspective as the "standard", the other has a quite clear asymmetry to it. The error is to imagine there is a neutral space in which all of it is taking place that we can refer to. To imagine it could or should be symmetrical is already to imagine some sort of neutral containing space, containing both perspectives. Yet there is no such space, indeed a core lesson of relativity is the fact that there is no such neutral container space.
Consider a "paradox" where I walk along two sides of a right triangle, while you walk along the hypotenuse. From your perspective I'm always walking at an angle (therefore slower), while from my perspective you're the one walking at an angle - I'm always moving faster than you are in the direction I'm currently going.
So if both of us always think the other person is slower, why do you get to the end before me?
You can either go through my observations step by step and show that when I turn the corner I go from thinking you're behind me to thinking you're ahead of me, so our observations match by the end and there's no paradox.
Or you can just say "don't worry about comparing people who aren't at the same point in space. One of them took the straight path and the other took the curvy path, the end."
In _special_ relativity acceleration has to be involved to move a single observer between reference frames. But the acceleration itself is not the cause of time dilation. This would go directly against the Clock Hypothesis.
A clock's rate only depends on its instantaneous relative velocity.
The time along the path is equal to the sum of the times along its inertial parts.
Acceleration in SR can be modeled as a series of instantaneous inertial frames.
What fermilab is showing is that the twin paradox can be broken down into the path length considerations without having to think about the actual turnaround and still get the same result at least qualitatively.
(I am not actually sure the integral over the acceleration period always yields the exact same result as the sum over the total path length, though)
Blaming acceleration for the time dilation is attractive but misleading.
This becomes more relevant in General Relativity, when we can have diverging/converging spacetime paths without any proper acceleration.
I think Dr. Lincoln can be forgiven for not involving the full Poincare group transformation, since it doesn't add much to the final result. Though it does lead to open questions, like the symmetry of the observers.
Hi. Of course, twin paradox can always be resolved by comparing the proper time elapsed for each observer and you always get one definite number. But I don't think this is twin paradox about. I think the problem is that it should not matter which clock you are looking at (excluding aberation effects). If we live in a resonable world you should come to the same conclusion in both scenarios, whether you are looking on your own clock or your twin's clock. If this is not the case then there is a paradox.
In twin paradox, if each observer just look at his own clock then there is not a problem but since time dilatation is symmetrical then there is a problem when looking at your twin's clock for "traveling" observer. If you just do instantenious change of the reference frame, you will always find out that the clock of the Earth observer jumped instantenously towards future and you need to explain why. For me, the most natural explanation is the principle of equivalence.
@@lukasrafajpps Hi and thank you for your reply!
"and you need to explain why."
That is precisely the point of introducing a third observer. A portion of earth's history is only cut out if you look at what the receding observer can see _before_ they meet the approaching observer plus what the approaching observer can see _after_ they meet.
The receding observer will see these events after the meetup while the approaching observer has already seen them. They are consistently contained in their full history.
(as you correctly explain in the video)
And you come to the same conclusion, no matter which clocks you look at, but to compare elapsed times, in this case you have to look at more than one. Because looking at the forever receding clock holds no meaningful information you could compare to the earth clock.
A physical acceleration will allow _one_ observer to see the full history by seeing earth "speed up" during the acceleration. I don't really think you need the equivalence principle for that, since that is already described by Rindler Coordinates in SR.
But really, in this case you are looking at infinitely many clocks, because the accelerated coordinates are stitched together from infinitely many momentarily inertial ones.
I would be interested to hear your comments on gravitational time dilation. Particularly as it applies to light frequencies and distance calculations between galaxies.
In any case, the solution to this "paradox" is to calculate the proper times of the two world lines. Without a clear definition of proper time, a confusion arises.
The problem people have with twin paradox is pure time dilatation and its symmetrical nature. The resolution is that one of the observers breake the symmetry by changing their inertial frame (accelerating). Every resolution will tell you there is an instant time jump on the clock of A in the reference frame of B on the turnaround and this instant time jump has to be explained if we wish for the full explanation.
@@lukasrafajpps I find it confusing to say that the answer is two instantaneous accelerations - and that's it. To me, a proper time consideration is the only psychologically satisfying solution, i.e., the problem reduces to a triangle inequality in Minkowski space.
@@xjuhox but how do you satisfy the claim "moving clocks tick slower"
@@lukasrafajpps The claim "moving clocks tick slower" is _meaningless_ when we consider non-constant motion. (The relativity postulate allows only non-accelerating paths.) The infamous anti-relativist Philipp Lenard tried to disprove special relativity by considering the relative motion of distant stars with respect to the rotating Earth and then he obtained a superluminal speed of Earth that should also be physically true. But since the circular motion is not constant, i.e., the speed changes all the time, Lenard's counterexample is _meaningless_ in the context of special relativity.
In any case, since the earthbound twin travels only in time and the rocket twin travels both in space and time, the truest and deepest explanation of twin paradox is to consider proper time and to apply triangle inequality with respect to the Minkowski metric.
@@xjuhox What do you think of Dialect Philosophy's claim that there's no asymmetry between the accelerating observer and the stationary observer in spacetime coordinates?
That third observer is a red herring. IRL a trip to 20 LY out and back doesn't have a 3rd observer. Also, in Lincolns argument, translated to a round trip for observer B, he suffers a singularity at location C, ie infinite acceleration. It is a non-physical situation. In short, you need to solve GR equations for accelerated frames, and you'll get a different answer if (1) you come to rest at C and fly past A on the return, (2) if you begin return acceleration at C and and fly past A on the return, (3) if you come to rest at C and come to rest back at A when you return, (4) if you begin return acceleration at C and then come to rest at A on the return, and finally (5) if you do not follow a geodesic from A to C (and/or back again...)
could you do a video or explanation on this scenario please.
triplets.
1 triplet E stays on earth.
1 triplet R goes right at some speed close to light
1 triplet L goes left at same speed close to light.
they stop and turn and come back to earth.
by my understanding. the triplet on earth should be older and the other two triplets R and L the exact same younger age as each other.
But here's where i get confused again.
Now same exact scenario if we remove triplet E from the scene. we get left with just triplet R and L.
Now triplet R and L can both argue each other is moving away and coming back, whilst they themselves are staying still. Without earth as the reference point they can argue they are stationery.
So how would their ages be the same? when they meet up. Cos it seems like I've now suddenly entered into the twin paradox and 1 twin should be younger than the other.
what am i missing here in my understanding.
Another possible angle to look at the problem is invariance of space-time intervals.
Take time component of 1-2 flight space-time interval add time component of 2-1 flight space-time interval and compare it with A proper time space-time interval.
What do we get?
Is the time component of 1-2 flight space-time interval the proper time of B observer?
Is the time component of 2-1 flight space-time interval the proper time of C observer?
Did we compare proper times of a 'round trip'?
Instead of just saying acceleration is resonsible for age difference, I would say the uniform motion parts are also responsible.
Because if we slice the 'history' into a family of spacelike hyperplanes (simultaneity planes), i.e. treating the problem in a manner of 'intial value problem', that's exactly what's happening when we slice by slice look into simultaneity planes.
The 'selfish' observer-wise analysis is more 'practical' in terms of local measurements, but in my opinion it means all we can say is 'just compare intial and final events' or 'just calculate length of ENTIRE worldlines'. If we stick to local measurements, it's no way for observer C to figure out the corresponding simultaneous event far away, etc. We can't talk about intermediate process at all with local measurements unless we change the setting by introducing a continuous exchange of signals between observers.
Intead, the intial value problem set up really leave a room for talking about intermediate process, in which age of observers are just mechanical observables parameterized by spacelike hyperplanes. We can talk about for a given parameter, what are readings of age. And this fundamentally reduce to the fact that everything has a Lorentz symmetric dynamics (at least when energy is not too high considering the possibility of Lorentz violation) thus every clock including human aging would obey clock dilation which, differentially speaking, has nothing to do with acceleration but only depends on instant speed. (You only need first derivatives to calculate length of a worldline.)
(Btw it's really weird to me to say 'time dilation' since 't' is nothing more than a parameter while readings of clocks are real observables.)
What a mess, but I thought the same about Doc Lincoln's explanation.
simultaneity is relative to what stationary basis you take yes. basically, in SR everyone takes the basis corresponding to sitting still in the medium, the ambiguity in simultaneity isn't physical it is just the notion that you do not know what basis is correct. but you are correct that setting this experiment up in this exact way requires synchronizing clocks non locally which is not really possible to do unambiguously without some sort of broken symmetry. but it isn't strictly necessary to do that for this setup, what you can do instead is just send c away to a far away planet and tell him that you will send a light signal to him such that he can start traveling back towards you at a certain velocity relative to whatever, you just wing it and wherever you end up having the meeting place between c and b is kind of irrelevant, you only need c to record b's time and reset his own clock, then when he gets back to a we should always see a have a long elapsed time no matter the velocity of b or c. and no matter the stationary frame basis you took :). the twin paradox is kind of independent of convention so synchronizing clocks is not really an issue fundamentally. but the deeper problem with saying it has nothing to do with acceleration is that acceleration is just a change of velocity, instantaneous acceleration is identical to the setup here, it has no effect on the clocks at all anyway, and the reason for the solution to the twin paradox is just to say one path is longer in every frame you could view it from, which is true and that is the end of that story. but if you do it simultaneously in every medium based basis there is also the funny property that the uniform motion trajectory always has the longer time elapsed no matter what you do, even if you assume an ether where the moving observers time definitely ticks slower than the uniform motion twin but also ticks faster for part of the journey, for a very simple reason, the part where it ticks faster than the uniform motion twin gets much much shorter in the "objective ether time" when compared with the two other paths of uniform motion where the round trip twins long leg always moves faster and therefore their total time elapsed is slower. as you boost them in the ether so to speak to look for faster and faster representations of the situation, the "faster legs" gets closer and closer to 45 degrees the kink gets flatter and flatter but ultimately the elapsed times are conserved anyway for any representation. it is always just a triangle that gets deformed until its three legs are approaching the same light cone in either direction, the elapsed times and what each of them sees is always conserved anyway.
Thanks for the video, this was very helpful.
You're welcome!
Good job.
However, there's a point which everyone muddles. When B leaves Earth, does he accelerate from v= 0? Or does he start already at high speed ('born fast', so to speak)? These are two different scenarios. Same question for traveler C.
Your video would be improved by clarifying these questions.
Would it not be simpler to have an observer “D” at “2” (point L) that is in the same inertial frame of reference as 1, 2 & 3? That way D could send a signal at both B & C and as they are equal distance away they would get the “GO” signal at the same time and then they would meet at point “L” / ”2”. B and C are moving in opposite directions but the Lorentz length contraction they experience with points 1, 2 & 3 are the same as their speed compared to the 1,2,3 frame of reference is the same although velocities are opposite. If you view it this way it all seems to make sense as Lincoln described it and a lot less complicated. Or am I missing something?
Space and Time are separate frames of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. The energy from the sun accelerates plants through the lifespan. Going faster in space doesnt necessarily change the amount of energy in the system. Not when you can just add more.
Quoting Stewiesaidthat - Space and Time are two separate frame of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Combining the two frame to believing that clock measures time is what creates the paradox.
Space-Time diagram? That shows one person is experiencing more space in the same amount of time.
I remember trying to figure out the twin paradox, running into Don Lincoln's video after watching several others, and thinking, "Finally! I understand!" But I guess I didn't understand. Of course not being a physicist myself, I'm still not sure. If the experts disagree, how can I adjudicate between them?
At Constant Velocities...
A observing C will initially be observing C at the Propagation Latency of 2L in the past, so will not see C start to move until Propagation Latency of 2L after the actual start of movement as the Photon from the actual start of movement will take that Propagation latency of 2L , but as C moves closer to A, from A's perspective, C's clock will have to seem to be constantly speeding up as the Propagation Latency of the light from the instantaneous location of C decreases until when C reaches A, there will be no Propagation Latency and so A will be seeing C in real time in the Present.
A observing B will initially be observing B in real Time with zero Propagation Latency, but as B moves away A, from A's perspective, B's clock will have to seem to be constantly slowing down, each 10 clicks would have to be longer than the previous 10 clicks... as the Propagation Latency of the light from the instantaneous location of B increases until when B reaches the mid point where it passes C, at Propagation Latency 1L in the Past as viewed by A, and on to the starting point of C at distance 2L, there will be maximum Propagation Latency of 2L and so A will be seeing B at a Latency of 2L in the past. A will not see B arrive ar the same time C arrives as it will take Propagation Time 2L for that light to reach A...
From Observer A, both clocks DO NOT change linearly, but exponentially as the Latency increases or decreases.
B observing C, and C observing B, will first see the other at 2L Propagation Latency in the past, reducing to Zero Propagation Latency at the center point when they meet and pass each other (twice as fast as the reduction of C as viewed by A), but then they will see the Propagation Latency increase again to 1L Propagation Latency in the past when the ships are then only half way between the center point an the final destination, so they will not actually observe the other ship reach the 1/4 or 3/4 point until a long time after the ship actually got there, due to the increasing latency... and continue to on the the destination at distance 2L from the other ship, so each will not observe the other arrive at their destination until the Propagation Latency of 2L after they themselves arrived at their destination... Though They arrived AT The Same Time....
Each will view the other's clock to be Constantly speeding Up from start at Latency 2L in the past to midpoint meeting point at Zero Latency in the Present, due to constantly reducing propagation latency that has to be accounted for, and then from the point where the clocks start to move apart to again slow down to account for the increasing Latency form Zero to the Propagation Latency of 2L.
Both clocks DO NOT change exponentially, but exponentially squared as the Latency increases or decreases at a much faster rate than that to Observer A...
Zero Paradox. Only Doppler SHIFT!
Add in Aceleration or Deceleration, and the effect is further amplified...
Very clear explanation! Thank you a lot!
Glad it was helpful!
I don't see how that Fermilab video gets at the twin paradox at all. It CAN'T, because it doesn't account for the effect that turning around at location 3 has on B's simultaneity lines.
I think the thing that most people struggle with when it comes to the twin paradox is that they are looking for a single reason for why the one twin ends up being younger when they reunite. In that I mean one that both the traveling and stay at home twin will agree upon. But instead what you have is that while the two agree at the end who aged less, they have different views on how this came about, and both of their views are equally valid.
What always bothered me in the original twin paradox, where one stayed home and one went across the galaxy, was that the one traveling at relativistic velocity would be younger after the trip. But my question is why? There is no reference frame that is standard. No difference between the first one or the second one moving. They BOTH move RELATIVE to each other. At 1/2 c, or less. There is no ground to stand on.
Yes but only one observer was inertial the whole way. The symmetry is still there though. If the travelling twin decided to not turn back and continue The Earth observer could accelerate to catch up with him and in that scenario the Earth observer would be younger.
@@lukasrafajppsit sounds to me like people don't understand what an inertial frame is. But more importantly, they don't understand that the observer is not even in the same frame of reference as the clock.
All time dilation calculations have to consider the universe as the ultimate reference frame if you want them to make sense. If one twin remains stationary then that twin is in the universal reference frame. If they're both moving then you need to pick a random location as the reference frame to represent the Universe. I'll tell you why this is so if you ask.
@@lukasrafajpps Of course, both twins claims they are not moving, have zero velocity and therefore have zero acceleration . The resolution has to be that there is some actual physical difference, and one twin is wrong about being in an inertial frame. As soon as we identify some physical difference, there isn’t a paradox any more, just a calculation.
I think this th-cam.com/video/3V00tAfcHCI/w-d-xo.html provides a more intuitive explanation. In fact, it sort of is about acceleration. One is staying still, the other changes their inertial frames twice. When you change inertial frames, you also contract distances and relative times.
I thought that guy was at CERN. Or did he move to Fermi lab recently?
Not sure. As far as I remember the channel was called fermilab for a pretty long time.
The whole reason they need observer B and C is to avoid any accelerations, just keep all observations at uniform velocities. This was originally proposed byLord Halsbury and others were able to eliminate any acceleration. The travelling twin moves his clock reading to a third, which is moving in the opposite direction.
The solutions using acceleration are commonly referred to a dynamic whilst non accelerative are known as kinematic solutions of the twin paradox.
So who is right? Well, in the example given there is only one twin, and the change in reference frame is caused by acceleration of one twin determines the relative clock values. However, as Dr Lincoln points out, acceleration is not needed to cause this, just uniform velocity. The paradox is solved by having different uniform reference frames rather than changing between them, that of ( B and C ) being different to A. So his statement is also true, perhaps a more general formation.
As someone once wrote :-
"I am sure that the twin paradox will provoke again and again papers since it is not a problem to solve but it is in itself a social and psychological phenomenon. There is no end."
Even more so now with all these youtube videos, there are dozens of them.
Please remember that when muons are created in the atmosphere, they travel with almost constant speed before decay, which tell us muon experience time differently than the observer on earth. Thus acceleration cannot be used to explain the twin paradox.
they are under earth's gravitational acceleration?
That is not twin paradox. Muons don't change their frame of reference. This video does not deny time dilatation in SR it explains why only one observer is younger while time dilatation being symmetrical.
Please remember that not all muons are created equal. Nor do they experience the exact same acceleration force over their lifetime. Using muons an example of time-dilation is sheer ignorance of basic physics.
Equating the workings of a mechanical clock to biological processes is sheer ignorance of physics and biological processes.
What accelerates the cesium-133 atom to the 9 billion oscillation rate? Why is it chilled to absolute zero and.how does that fact affect time for the atom.
What force accelerates plant growth. From seed germination to physiological maturity. How does a change in velocity cause plants to receive less sunlight
How does acceleration in space affect the biological processes of animals.
This time-dilation/Twin Paradox nonsense is the result of a ignorant layman who plagiarized from others. Didnt understand the underlying physics and cobbled together a fictitious spacetime universe and peddled it to the ignorant masses.
Acceleration in space also creates an acceleration in time event. It takes a basic understanding of physics in order to understand what the acceleration in time event entails. It takes critical thinking skills in order to transpose the physics from one frame of reference to another frame of reference.
Just remember. The laws of physics are equally applicable in all frames of reference. Whether that frame be space. Or time. Oriented vertically, horizontally or curved.
If there is acceleration in the Space frame, there is most likely and acceleration event in the Time frame. The clock's atom is chilled to absolute zero in order to prevent an acceleration in time event from occurring when a force is applied. Can the same be said for the observer? This is where the critical thinking skills come into play. What are the frames of reference and what are the acceleration events.
@@lukasrafajpps They don't change their frame of reference true, but if they had a clock and you the experimenter had a clock and synced them at the start, then stopped them as it bounced off your head... then guess what, its clock will be different. And neither of you have accelerated.
The muon is the equivalent to one half of the journey in the classical example, you are the other twin ( but far better looking ! )
the mathematics is completely redundant really, all you need is the length contraction of a longitudinal light clock in a space time diagram, and you can make the right triangle, by changing basis in the stationary frame or ether frame, you simply shift the angles of the trajectories and theory respective length contractions around, and the bounces back and forth inside the light clock as drawn on the spacetime diagram keeps perfect track of time in all the representations easily. you can show it just by assuming length contraction of the right sort from the time dilation of transverse light clocks matching a longitudinal light clock by means of that form of length contraction draw the longitudinal light clock in the 1+1 space time diagram, don't worry about correct coordinate transformations, transform the state instead by adjusting only the length contraction of the light clocks in the diagram depending on angle, that is one equation to put into an animation and the time keeping simply takes care of itself, then you can just show what is going on for all possible frames of reference by simply transforming the space time diagram.
How about agreeing with Poincare and the whole paradox is solved?
Thanks for your clear demonstration!
After watching Dr. Lincoln says that acceleration played no role, I was quite skeptical because you can imagine a case where both twins have the same age at the end despite one staying on Earth and the other becoming relativistic:
Imagine that B takes a rocket with a constant acceleration g, so that after 1 year he is close to c. At midway (T/4, L/2) he rotates its rocket by 180° then at (T/2,L) his speed relative to A becomes 0 and he begins his travel back to A. At midway (3T/4,L/2) on his comeback he rotates its rocket by 180°, and he finishes on Earth with no speed (T,0).
During all this time both twins have experienced the same constant acceleration of g, so due to the equivalence principle they have to have exactly the same age at the end
and that’s exactly the point of Lincoln: In your example the non-traveling twin A will still have aged more than the B, because Bs reference frame is constantly rotating in spacetime with respect to the stationary observer A. It’s this change/flip/rotation of the reference frame that causes the difference in relative time, aka relative age. Note: not the physical aging changes but the simultaneity of A and B so they will meet at different local times/ages.
An additional gravitational time dilation at 1 g is too small to have any practical effect. And in your example it is even exactly the same for both twins and cancels. And yet they have different ages with respect to each other when they meet.
So the change of the reference frame (which can be caused by an acceleration or by beaming into another rocket) is the cause of the different ages when they meet again, not the time dilation of the acceleration.
Lincoln avoided this gravitational time dilation with his experiment and can show that the twins still differ in age when they meet, because half way the reference frame gets flipped. When B beams to the rocket C halfway, during this flip into the reference frame of C the time of A makes a jump in Bs reference frame. The symmetry is broken.
So the breaking of the symmetry is the cause why the 2 twins age differently, not the time dilation due to any acceleration.
Is this „only a theory“? No, it can be observed and had to be taken into account in particle accelerators and the GPS system for example.
In my example, both twins experiment exactly the same spacetime, they both are constantly accelerated upward with 1g, and if you suppose they cannot see outside there are no experiment that can determine that one is on Earth and the other is moving. So we are exactly in a case where equivalent principle can be applied => Both have exactly the same age at the end@@WalterBislin
The problem is that we are talking about special relativity here, with zero acceleration, your example involves general relativity. This is why this specific example of a twin travelling to a star and turning around is a bad base to start off with.
Interestingly if you had a twin orbiting the other in a geostationary orbit then not only is there no relative acceleration to or away from the other twin but the distance between the twins does not change either ! And still one has time dilation effects due to special relativity.
Hence why special relativity has to be taken into account for GPS satellites along with General.
3 observer universe , all equal . 2 blast away in opposite directions 1 remains at their centre of gravity . That one has standard time for the entire system . the 2 that are moving , at the same velocity in opposite directions have slowed clocks perfectly in synch. The 1 left at the centre ages faster because HIS clock is not slowed. For systems with large mass vs very small mass , it is the MASS that determines the governing body in the results . Time in a rocket slows . Time on earth doesn't. To make time on earth slow would require a huge amount of energy to move the earth away from the rocket at velocity.
No, it happens as the traveler is turning around, and it doesn't matter whether you turn around slow and gracefully with low acceleration (which takes a long time) or infinitely fast with a "sharp corner" in the world line. The simultaneity lines still shift, and that is how the Earthbound twin gets older.
And exactly because it doesn't matter how fast you turn around, you can simply remove the turnaround completely. All you need is the shift of simultaneity lines, which you get with the third observer.
Only if you insist that one observer travel the entire worldline do you need acceleration.
@@narfwhals7843 Fair enough, but the whole thing that makes it seem "paradoxical" to some people is the fact that that a large chunk of the Earth twin's life passes by during the turn-around; when you already have a third observer moving that period gets built in to the initial situation - the third observer sees the Earth observer as "older" right from the start, and that doesn't seem mysterious at all. With two twins and an instant turn-around, then at no point during either the outbound or inbound journeys does the moving twin "see" that part of the stationary twins experience - it just snaps by during the turn-around. It's very hard for me to look at that and say that it was anything other than the turnaround that led to the asymmetric outcome of the experiment.
It just becomes a much less interesting process when you slap in a third observer like that.
Exact! IMHO with accelerations out of the equation you have indeed exact symmetry between the two twins and you are facing the paradox.
No because it only matters that the twins are in different inertial reference frames with different velocities, not that you have to change from one to another by acceleration. Acceleration will make you have a different frame, as per this example, but it is not needed to still avoid the paradox. As per what Dr Lincoln was saying.
Where's the acceleration video?
I prefer my explanation since it also reveals the absolute cause of the Special Relativity phenomena.
I don't think Dr Lincoln is wrong. He is just using a though experiment idea that C leaves at a time that would make him get to the middle point at the same time B would. The thought experiment is to show that no one accelerated but there was no paradox. The best way to see this is Minute Physics video on the twin paradox.
Yes , good summary.
Nice work
Great job!
Looking at the video now, surely the suggested solution of Lincoln is immediately incorrect as he has assumed an ability to synchronise clocks with a distant observer, disobeying relativity of simultaneity.
I can't believe this. It is such a basic mistake, he has assumed we can synchronise clocks with a distant observer!! We can do no such thing in special relativity. Whatever, from that point on he is explaining, it is not within the strictures of special relativity. He has assumed some sort of existent instantaneous space at a distance, over which we can synchronise clocks, but this is precisely the core point of what we cannot do in special relativity. This third observer is totally fictional and physically impossible. He is positioned in some sort of non-existent Newtonian container space, striving to create a neutral space where there is none.
Why do you need to synchronize clocks after the fact? Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Are you trying to measure motion tri-laterally or something?
You synchronized clocks at the start and compare readouts at the end. The clock with the lowest readout has measured the greatest distance. Simple as that. Trying to read anymore into it just plain ignorance of basic physics.
Force decreases with distance. In order to take a measurement, you need a constant. What is the constant between synchronized clocks? The operating frequency.
If you want to know which twin is older or younger, you need to use the equation E=mc. Energy equals Time. How much energy did each twin consume? The synchronized clocks used the same amount of energy and experienced the same amount of time. A reasonably intelligent person will understand what that means.
You are still facing the paradox, I mean.
Well done!
Doesn't the expansion of the universe screw things up?
It is great that you show that Lincoln's treatment of observer C is sloppy and contains incorrect coordinate transformations. However, notice that despite Lincoln's sloppy handling of the coordinate transformations for observer C, you both arrive at the same time elapsed for the trip as measured by each observer. Your overall result agrees with Lincoln's overall result, i.e. 2*L/(gamma*v) for the astronauts combined measurements. Later, you assert that all the aging takes place during the acceleration. This is wrong. By your own calculation, clock B reads a shorter time at Event II than clock A. This literally means that the time between Event I and Event II is shorter for observer B than it is for observer A. The symmetry is broken because observer B is present at both event I and event II while observer A is not. If observer A were to compare the time interval for half the trip between the two stars, observer A's measurement would already disagree with observer B's measurement by the same factor.
I like that there is a real discussion brewing inside TH-cam about the twin's paradox!
We have Physics - problems and solutions against Dialect and Fermilab and then we have Dialect against ... well ... everyone! And maybe we have other channels against eachother than I dont know! The thing is - this is getting really interesting! Because where there is conflict - there are things to find out and new things to learn!
I don't know yet which one to believe, they all sound very convincing... I guess I will wait and see!
The paradox has been argued about it for donkeys years, it is nothing new. Read
A tale of two twins
L.Benguigui
Physics Department and Solid State Institute
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology
It is a good summary
Dr Lincoln is also wrong about six foot tall talking rabbits. When in all the fictitious wave function collapse, universe splitting events, did the laws of Physics change, such that those that govern genetic expression meant that my genes now code for a six foot tall talking rabbit?
The extra term of the Lorentz transformation must be coherent, and that is just what Dr. Lincoln wants to show.
t'=gt - gvx/c2
on the other hand I can imagine that S' is fixed and S goes with -v, then this must also be true
t=gt'+ gvx'/c2
There is a seemingly contradiction when looking at the times. Let's look at dt'/dt in both formulas, assuming a certain x or x' fixed.
Let's assume x'=0, which means x=vt, and let's derive dt'/dt for this point, the results must be the same.
Taking the first formula
dt'/dt= g-gv2/c2=1/g
Using the second formula, it is even easier
dt/dt'=g => dt'/dt=1/g =>
We get the same result.
Thank you for these videos. I like your explanations. Here is what ChatGPT4 says. ChatGPT4 agrees with you. I'd like to learn more about proper time and world lines. Maybe make a video about those? Also you drew a simultaneous line (or something). What is that?
Me:
How would you resolve the twin paradox in special relativity?
ChatGPT4:
The Twin Paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity that involves identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and the other remains on Earth. Upon the traveling twin's return, the paradox is that the traveling twin would age less than the twin who stayed on Earth, due to the effects of time dilation-a prediction of special relativity that time passes at a slower rate for an object in motion compared to one at rest, relative to an observer.
The apparent "paradox" arises because, from the perspective of the traveling twin, one might argue that it is the Earth-bound twin who is moving and therefore the Earth-bound twin should age less. However, this misunderstanding is resolved through the realization that the situation is not symmetric. The key to resolving the paradox lies in the fact that the traveling twin experiences acceleration and deceleration during the journey (turning around to return to Earth), which breaks the symmetry of the situation.
Special relativity's resolution to the Twin Paradox involves understanding the role of acceleration:
1. **Inertial Frames**: Special relativity applies fully in inertial frames of reference-that is, frames not accelerating. The Earth-bound twin remains in an inertial frame (for practical purposes, ignoring Earth's rotation and orbit around the Sun), while the traveling twin does not because the journey involves acceleration when turning around to come back.
2. **Acceleration and General Relativity**: The traveling twin's frame of reference changes when they accelerate and decelerate. This non-inertial frame (one that is accelerating) means that general relativity must also be considered to fully understand the scenario. General relativity predicts that time runs slower in stronger gravitational fields, which is analogous to the effects of acceleration due to the equivalence principle.
3. **Proper Time and Worldlines**: In relativity, the aging of the twins can be accurately calculated by considering their worldlines (paths through spacetime) and the concept of proper time (the time measured by a clock following that worldline). The twin on Earth follows a relatively straight path through spacetime, while the traveling twin's path includes a turn that represents the acceleration and deceleration. The proper time along the Earth twin's worldline is longer than that along the traveling twin's path, meaning the Earth-bound twin ages more.
Thus, the resolution of the Twin Paradox is that the traveling twin indeed ages less due to the effects of time dilation experienced during the high-speed segment of the journey. The asymmetry introduced by the traveling twin's acceleration and change in inertial frames is the key factor that resolves the paradox within the framework of relativity.
Chat gpt is not a reliable source of information. It will readily make stuff up to form something that looks like a coherent sentence. Don't ask it physics questions and expect to learn anything useful.
It is, for example, completely wrong about acceleration requiring general relativity.
Special relativity deals with acceleration just fine. Time dilation in accelerated frames is a prediction of special relativity. And you can use this to predict gravitational time dilation via the equivalence principle. The formula for the redshirt in the experiment is from special relativity.
Nice video and presentation.
Time dilation doesn’t take place on those who don’t understand SR.
Very good videos
All matter is electrons being held by the strong force, via electromagnetism.
Time is measured by comparing atomic rotations here and atomic rotations there.
All matter is under constant rotational acceleration because of this.
When matter is accelerated linearly, the simple fact that the electrons cannot travel faster than light is why real time dilation occurs.
Accelerated compared to what? There's no absolute frame. That doesn't mean there isn't acceleration, it means acceleration is relative and always operates in balance, energy exchange. When electrons are held spinning, they are under constant acceleration.
We have been taught that inertia is equal to an object's mass.
The real definition of inertia should be relativistic, it's actually equal to the sum of all relational vectors between this object and all other objects in the universe, these pairs of vectors all add up to zero, so, in a universe where everything needs a time delay to have any influence, inertia itself is time delayed by the inverse square law in space, as determined by the speed of light.
This is Mach's principle.
So, the inertial frame is relativistic and defines how motion occurs.
Linear and rotational motion of electrons or matter is defined entirely by it's relation to the location and density of surrounding matter, because there is no origin and no absolute frame.
Rotational motion is the interesting one, when an object is spun in a relativistic universe, it's inertia spins the other way the exact same amount to ensure the sum of vectors in this universe adds to to zero, according to Newton's action and reaction pairs. So, if matter is merely held and spun electrons, under constant acceleration for sometimes billions of years, there is a counter rotation in the inertia surrounding it.
You would expect to observe no rest point in such a universe where energy's effects are time delayed.
You would expect to see the counter rotation of matter within it's inertia, which surrounds it.
That's gravity.
Gravity isn't quantum in nature because it's merely kinetic energy within a relativistic universe. It's the counter rotations of atomic rotations themselves.
Matter is an intricate web of relations and locality is relevant because of the rotational motion case.
All the math checks out, I like that you managed to apply special relativity correctly, as difficult as that was, changing frames and having to calculate all the pairs of objects and frames.
When an object is accelerated initially and then left to drift away at high velocity from the initial point, it is under constant acceleration simply by being made of matter.
That is why it continues to effect the time dilation once the initial linear acceleration stops.
Simply combine the linear and rotational motion mathematically to ensure electrons don't travel faster than light and it's going to give you the same answers as special relativity does when applied correctly as above.
dr. lincoln's math was wrong. But if you do the right math, it all works out.
Excellent
If you are in strong gravity you age less as time flows slower. Gravity and acceleration are equivalent according to Einstein. So it is obvious that acceleration is what makes the traveler age less.
And what proof do you have that a person ages less with acceleration in space. What proof do you have that biological processes mimic mechanical processes and not the other way around.
Newton's law of motion, F=ma, disproves relativitists' claim of time-dilation.
Explain how increasing the amount of force placed on the human body causes it to age less.
Explain how increasing the Earth's rotational rate changes the amount of sunlight a plant receives.
You are lost and confused because you don't understand that clocks don't measure time. They measure motion in space expressed in units of time. Just because the clock's power source redshifts -> change in operating frequency, doesn't mean it automatically translates to the observers frame of reference.
IMHO with accelerations out of the equation you have indeed exact symmetry between the two twins and you are still facing the paradox. You're right IMO.
@robya.2223 what paradox? Force equals Acceleration. If their is no acceleration. There is no force. No force means no change.
How can one twin age less if they experience the same exact amount of force.
I find it fascinating that people are still disagreeing on this twin paradox resolution yet nevertheless all are fully confident that it is resolved and that there is no problem for our ontological interpretation of special relativity. I believe Einstein was one of the first to suggest the acceleration part as a way to understand the asymmetry between the two observers. Yet I still see in philosophy of science recent claims that this is not strictly required, and that from the proper time of Minkowski space-time equations alone we can solve it. The issue I think goes quite deep into the issue of what ontologically relativity is actually saying about reality. I have my own way of resolving it which involves some quite specific philosophical concepts, but that is a whole can of worms of its own that requires an ontological shift in our whole perspective and I am still working my way through figuring it out to see if it all fits properly.
As personally, I don't think the proper time alone approach can explain it, nor do I think appealing to acceleration is adequate, because the core problem is about special relativity so it should be possible to explain it with only inertial frames, as unless we establish special relativity is first logically sound we cannot appeal to general relativistic effects as these are all premised on the assumed correctness of special relativity for local (albeit infinitesimally local) frames.
The problem is that space IS time, and vice versa. A cannot observe c, or even b for that matter. Thus relying on the record of b. There is no simultinaity, as you say. No way for a to know or prove anything,
1) it's called a "Poincare Transform" or an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform--it is a nuisance.
2) The point of 3 observers is that there are 3 straight world lines in the problem, and each one integrate "d(tau)" along the leg, so it all works out.
However, integrating d(tau) along any worldline always works in all frames because it is a covariant operation in Minkowski space (M4), and special relativity if self-consistent, and thus there are no paradoxes in M4. That is not a satisfactory resolution to the paradox.
The paradoxes appear when comparing different 3 + 1 breakdowns while forgetting linear transforms have a slope (time dilation) *and* an offset (clock bias).
In the journey from point A to point B a traveler accelerates and equally decelerates ( equally in the total quantity of energy used to do it per each procedure ) to get to point B. So, the traveler becomes younger at acceleration and older at deceleration, because what's making the process real at acceleration should be backward-symmetrical real at deceleration, therefore, there's no net change in age. The same coming back from point B to point A.
This is not about how a second relatively stationary person sees the traveler.
This is about the supposed "real effect" of acceleration on the real process of aging - not that I believe Einstein's idiocy called "relativity" ( Relativity is just a mathematical trick, not a real phenomenon. The approximate congruence with Newton's gravity expression has been made intentionally to be that way. Marcel Grossman has worked very hard to obtain that congruence. The whole relativity theory is just a huge erroneous and useless theoretical epicycle, Copernicus-times style, that has nothing to do with the real dynamic of the Universe. A superfluous mathematical trick, and nothing more than that. )
This is nothing to do with acceleration on time dilation, it is to do with uniform velocities and time dilation.
By the way, the GPS satellites to get accuracy use this superfluous trick to get you to where you are going and measure your acceleration, speed and position whilst you are going there ... so it is quite useful make believe !
zakelwe • Can you think correctly? Did you understand my point or not?
In case you can't think at all it is about the twin paradox.
The REAL dynamic of the Universe doesn't dictate how the GPS is adjusted practically on Earth.
The TRUE REAL DYNAMIC of the Universe is one thing, and the approximate practical calculations done on Earth represent a different thing.
There's no "time dilation", because "time", as a real material quantity, doesn't exist. Just try to fill a bucket with "time" and show it to me.
Einstein's calculations are just a different expression of Newton's interpretation and more sophisticated mathematically.
It is just a practical mathematical approximation of a dynamic, but it doesn't explain the dynamic correctly.
The so-called "gravitation" has a completely different real dynamic, as being part of the real natural dynamic of the Universe.
Thanks man!!!
13:19 Hannibal Smith type of moment lol
The Twin Paradox Just confuses the situation even more. It is more simple to state : The faster you travel through space, the slower you are traveling in time. Whether you are accelerating or a constant speed there is time Dilation. At Constant speed the time Dilation is constant throughout the ship. If the ship is accelerating the back of the ship is moving slower in time the front of the ship is traveling faster in time. When the ship is traveling close to the speed of C there is length contraction. What the observer on earth would notice that the ship is traveling close to the speed of C. The observer on earth would notice that the spaceman is moving very slowly in the ship. Since the spaceman is moving slowly he will observe the observer on earth to be moving slowly, there is and has never been a paradox.
Where is your evidence for 'moving faster in space = slower in time?'
The paradox exists because Einstein’s relativity nonsense is junk science.
Breakthrough Starshot. The solar sail is being accelerated in time as well as the nonreflected force accelerates the atoms.
Nasa's flight log data. Astronauts experience an accelerated heart rate condition during lift-off.
What none of you Einstein cultists understand is that clocks in motion use THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY as the stationary clock. Explain that one oh great and masterful Einstein.
Thanks for video dude.. these "guys" aggravate me also.
This topic always contains many unrealistic assumptions so it can make nonsensical claims about time dialation. Which confuse and frustrate. In end i decide people explain this as if its a magic trick not in a way to understand
Consideer these assumption, travellor accelerates at 1g same as earth human. Velocity is not constant, but gra it is for both on entire trip. Spacecraft rotates to acellerate so both feel exactlt same gravity. Both are in same inertal frame
Also both humans move away and toward each other by same velocity. So by relativity both have same age at end.
Therefore relative velocity and acceleration/gravity same for both and age are same.
I think people become confused with senational claims about cesium clocks on airplains, trying make this all about velocity, but moving around a rotating mass has other considerations, you can attribute to gravity or velocity if you wish to confuxe and excite people.
Firstly, light and observers have nothing to do with time. Turn out the lights and you may start to get a sense of what time is. Any experiments involving light and observers will be inconclusive. Everything happens in the present. Time dilation is merely the change in the rate at which objects age due to gravity warping space. Those objects are still in the present its just the rate at which they age is different.
So what happens if we add something to the classical Twin Paradox? This paradox always assumes that the observer that stays on earth sits like Buddha for 10 years or more without ever accelerating or decelerating. So to make it more clear that it should not be the case, let's have both Twins starting in the same rest frame on earth. Then Twin B gets in his spaceship, accelerates to.0.87c in 1ms and then keeps that speed until it reaches a place that's 5 light years away from earth, at which point he turns around (deceleration and acceleration again in 1ms to 0c and 0.87c respectively) and heads back to earth. On arrival again decelerates from o. 87c to 0c in 1ms.
Till here everything as usual. But let's introduce a twist:
Twin A after a while gets bored of sitting like Buddha (let's say after a couple of years in his clock) and decides to also jump in his own spaceship and have a short trip to around the moon and back. For it, he accelerates and decelerates equally to his twin, but his round trip just takes a couple of seconds as measured on earth. Then he goes back to sit like Buddha until his twin comes back to earth.
What's the end result now? Due to the same acceleration in both twins during the whole period, are they now indistinguishable from each other, both young and innocent? Or has Twin A still got older and wiser than Twin B? And if so, why? If not acceleration or the 2 frames BS, what's the only other possible thing that breaks the symmetry? It can't be velocity through time, since velocity is always relative, right? Or is it? 🤔
@@marcusviniciusdarosa6309 Thanks for the reply. Though the point is not to calculate the time for each one's point of view. The answer has to be that the time experienced by Twin A is much longer than the time experienced by Twin B. Just as in the classical Twin Paradox. Twin B (who has travelled to a place 5 light years away from the Earth and back) is younger than Twin A (who's round trip has only lasted a couple of seconds). The difference with the classical Twin Paradox is that here both twins have accelerated and decelerated equally, and both have been in at least 2 inertial frames. Which means that for this variant of the paradox neither solution works anymore (the one that says that it's acceleration what breaks the symmetry and the one that says that it's Twin B being in two inertial frames instead of one).
And so the point is that if those solutions stop working, doesn't it mean that there must be another solution that keeps working and therefore it's the correct one?
@@marcusviniciusdarosa6309 I may not have explained it correctly in the first place then.
The brother on earth does not visit his twin. It's just that he doesn't stay in a single reference frame throughout his brothers long trip. Instead he visits the moon and comes back. When? It doesn't matter. Anytime. If you prefer, he can just leave the earth at the same time as his brother. But while his brother continues to travel at 0.87c for the next 10 years as measured on Earth, he himself just travels to the moon, where he lands and then just sits on the moon for some 10 years, at which point he returns to Earth and reunites with his twin brother.
Both have accelerated equally, from 0 to 0.87c in 1ms and then decelerated to 0 again. Twice each (because both do a round trip, just to different places).
The main difference is the total time they have been moving at velocity 0.87c. Twin A for a couple of seconds and Twin B for some 10 years. But if velocity is relative, then both have been moving at 0.87c reletive to each other for those 10 years. So why would Twin B have stayed younger in this case? It can't be acceleration, since we have made that equal for both. It can't be the 1 vs. 2 inertial frames at which they both measure time because we have made that equal too (both measure it in more than 1 frame). So if those can't be the solutions, what can it be then?
@@marcusviniciusdarosa6309 Well, sorry for my apparent inability to explain myself correctly.
The twins do meet at the departure and at the return. Just like in the original paradox. I just introduce a small change that shows that the proposed solutions to the paradox are unrealistic. They both rely on Twin A staying like a statue for 10 years. So I explicitly change that by introducing a trip to the moon and back (which at the same time makes the acceleration equivalent for both during the whole period). Nothing too complicated, I hoped.
Anyway, thanks for your time. I don't want you to spend more time with this if you are not interested yourself.
@@marcusviniciusdarosa6309 Thank you. The result is as you say, it doesn't matter if Twin A travels to the moon or not. In both cases he will be older than his brother when they meet. That's because his brother has been travelling at 0.87c for those 10 years (as measured on earth).
Why not peer reviewed papers yet? I know why.
Nicely calculated. Don Lincoln doesn't understand relativity beyond what you'd learn in high school. To be fair his understanding of particle interactions is excellent.
Did you learn relativity in high school?
@@mad_vegan I didn't. Undergrad was theoretic physics and mathematics, then gravitational physics and cosmology in grad school. You?
@@kylelochlann5053 Not formally. I learned the basics on my own, but only studied special relativity in a fourth semester physics course in college.
Absolutely brilliant. Side note: at 08:16 the correction terms in green need to be exchanged between x' and t', but you correct the issues in the following calculations. Overall the best explanation I've seen on youtube about the paradox.
The twins paradox is only a "thought experiment", that is to say that it is an experience in name only. This is not an experiment (done in a laboratory), it is a prediction.
Everyone is free to believe or not in this imaginary prediction.
Experiments concerning this prediction have been done. See for example hafele-keating
I don't understand your reasoning, which seems to be: *since we've achieved B, then A is confirmed!*
(with B the hafele-keating round-the-world flight, and A the linear journey of a twin in a rocket).
What would you have thought if your physics teacher had told you: take a ride on a merry-go-round and measure the constant centripetal acceleration (B), that will confirm the thought experiment (A) of the linear and uniformly accelerated acceleration of free fall?
*The round-the-world flight (B) and the twin paradox (A) are two different "experiments".*
Fermilab is a childrens channel.
It's hard to find a video of Lincoln where he doesn't make at least one inaccuracy. He carries around a set of misconceptions in his head that he then uses to confuse his students and send them on their way lol
When you worship at the Alter of Relativity, you are bound to be confused.
Mass increases with acceleration? Wrong. How many people believe that acceleration to the speed of light is impossible because it leads to infinite mass? Where are you coming up with that nonsense?
Time-dilation. Acceleration in space equals deceleration in time. Once again, wrong.
Gravity. The earth is pulling objects in towards the center. Once again, wrong.
Your whole scientific model is flawed. You get one thing wrong and it just keeps compounding. Not only that, it shows you lack the intelligence to understand the observation.
Go ahead. Tell me I don't understand physics without telling me YOU don't understand physics.
Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.
-Nicholas Tesla
m.th-cam.com/video/iYJ5i2Oc-2M/w-d-xo.html
Can you cite examples?
There are no twins in his scenario, twins start in the same location with the same velocity.
I like these videos, Post your nano address and I'll send you a tip.
Hi, I am glad you like the videos :)
my address: nano_3ihihr9y8mfzyabtpebm1c4j6p53ui3mih6oo6afx1sqyqxsd6q13nknmkgr
thanks
Just found this, sent 5 nano. Be sure to keep your secret seed safe if you don't spend it right away.@@lukasrafajpps
Yeah that dude is a science ‘communicator’ who undoubtedly has others do his physics for him, he tries to confidently explain deep ideas on a surface level for the interested layman, so I expect mistakes in both theory and interpretation.
Very good jop.
I agree with you 100% - I saw that Fermilab video years ago and absolutely rolled my eyes. For someone to declare themselves an expert and get in front of people on TH-cam like that, and get it WRONG, is just pathetic.
What is wrong with modern physics? None of these videos mention the fact that space and time are two separate frames of reference. That clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Not time. You can have any outcome you want because you control the force that accelerates biological processes.
To keep it simple, plants are accelerated in time by sunlight. Replace the sun's energy with a grow lamp and you have time-dilation of your choosing within reason.
Hatching out a chicken egg? Adjust the temperature of the incubation chamber to delay or accelerate the hatching date.
This is what happens when people with low IQs and very limited knowledge think they are intelligent.
Modern physics is a joke because they don't understand that space and time are separate frames of reference.
Oh, you "rolled your eyes" did you? lol. No, it's not pathetic. you're pathetic. All the worlds great thinkers have and will be wrong about things. Furthermore, how do you know the Fermilab video is wrong and not this one? You don't... you're not smart enough to even be in the discussion.
Prof Lincoln is correct when saying that is wrong to claim the difference occured during accelaration. However, the only consistent explanation of why the effect is asymmetric is acceleration. So trying to ignore acceleration in the twin paradox is misleading.
Only if you insist on having a single observer move along the rocket's path. Which is why Dr Lincoln introduced a third.
However, you could argue that this is no longer really the "twin" paradox.
@@narfwhals7843Space and Time are two separate frames of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Your acceleration in time will vary because you are in a different TIME frame of reference. The cesium-133 atom is essentially in cryostasis while the observer is not.
All this relativity stuff is just junk science. C is an absolute. That debunks SR. The fundamental law of physics is F=ma or Force Equals Acceleration. Both observers experienced the same amount of time. One just experiences more space. How much force (acceleration in time) each observer experiences is not calculable given the limited amount of information. What is the relationship in the number of heart beats each observer experiences would be a more accurate indicator.
@@narfwhals7843 that's right, that is no longer the twin paradox.
Well, if you take the special relativity alone, then yes. The principle of relativity clearly states that it applies only on the INERTIAL frames and therefore traveling observer can't use special relativity to figure out what time should the clock on Earth read because he can't consider him as stationary the whole trip. There is no paradox at all because we simply reached the limit of SR. Only observers that were inertial the whole time can use SR.
If you really want to have a paradox then you have to formulate it using general principle of relativity meaning it also applies to accelerated frames. In this case twin paradox is unsolvable unless you add something that will again break the symmetry. The equivalence principle will do the job as now you can describe the traveling observer as stationary the whole time.
@@lukasrafajpps this is how stupidity reigns supreme. There is no paradox because there is no Relativity. No time-dilation. Light is an absolute in which ALL motion can be measured against. The clock with the least amount of time on has traveled the greatest distance in space. Space and Time are TWO SEPARATE frames of reference. A clock measures motion in SPACE. NOT TIME.
The correct physics is Newton's law of motion F=ma. How much force are the twins experiencing in their respective frames. The traveling twin is undergoing ACCELERATION. Force equals Acceleration and Acceleration equals Force. The traveling twin is being Accelerated in Time as well as in Space. Unless they are in cryostasis as is the cesium-133 atom of the atomic clock.
You can't see reality because you are looking in a mirror. Everything is backwards (180 degrees) from reality with your current physics models.
That's why you are stumbling around in the dark and don't know left from right.
Both twins experience the same amount of time. One just experiences more space. What effect that exta distance traveled has is not determinable from the information given. Suggest you compare heart rates to get a more accurate assessment.
Einstein was wrong about the twin paradox, along with all of his disciples. There is no such paradox if you use the correct equations for relativity. If there is a slower clock in frame of reference S', as Einstein theorizes. then the correct way to represent the time of that clock starts with these equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Since the equation for time shows that t'=t, these equations say nothing about a slower clock in frame of reference S'. To represent a slower clock in S', you need to use a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for velocity and time.
x = x' - (-vt/n')n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the slower clock in S'. (-vt/n') is the velocity of frame of reference S(x,y,z,n) relative to frame of reference S'(x',y',z',n') according to the time of the clock that shows n'. The equation n=n' shows that the time of the clock that shows n' is being used in both frames of reference. There is still a preferred frame of reference because if you cancel out the (n')'s in the equation for x, you get
x = x' + vt
which is the same as our equation for x' in the original set of Galilean transformation equations. What we are observing is an energy difference, not a length contraction or a twin paradox.
I think Don’s explanation is pretty good. Acceleration has nothing to do with time dilation. Is is the longer physical path that matters. If you travel the longer path the total number of vibrations is less, so slower clock. This in because clock is determined by vibration in the space medium, with is a fixed rate.
I don't think you understand the situation correctly. In Dr. Lincoln video observer C is only introduced to show that to observe the twin paradox you need to change your reference frame from one inertial frame to another. Without this change there is no twin paradox as A and B will never meet again, therefore A will forever see B aging slower than he while B will forever see that A ages slower then her. The explanations including gravity or acceleration are used only because then observer B can change their inertial reference frame from the one a moving away from, to the one moving toward A, and when someone hears the word "observer" usually a human observer (or in this case a single atomic clock) comes to mind. But you don't really need an accelerating observer to explain what's happening, it is enough that you switch from an inertial reference frame to another.
BTW at around 6:12 you state that simultaneity is relative. But that is only true for observers who move relative to each other. When they are not moving relative to each other their clocks can be synchronized so that both B and C may start at t=0. However there is no need for that it only simplifies the explanation. The only requirement is that C must move in the opposite direction than B with the same velocity relative to A. When they meet anywhere C synchronize the clock with B. The line of simultaneity between A and B and A and C is different. See the figure on page 169 in 'Spacetime Physics' (E.F. Taylor & J.A. Wheeler, 2nd ed.) The reason that although both B and C see A aging less during the periods they can observe, while A sees both B and C aging less still C will be younger than A is that the observations of B and C exclude a large portion of the time that passes on Earth while they are travelling.
"BTW at around 6:12 you state that simultaneity is relative. But that is only true for observers who move relative to each other."
Of course I think I mentioned they were moving relative to each other. This explanation suggest you don't need acceleration therefore all observer were always moving relative to each other and therefore their clocks were never in synch. If you wanted to first synchronize their clocks then after that one would have to accelerate and then the sentence "no acceleration was considered" can not be used
"he reason that although both B and C see A aging less during the periods they can observe, while A sees both B and C aging less still C will be younger than A is that the observations of B and C exclude a large portion of the time that passes on Earth while they are travelling."
I think you have to explain this one better. When did the Earth's aging happen?
@@lukasrafajpps Watch Minute Physics twin paradox video. It's the only one I'm aware of that makes clear the missing time on earth in the twin paradox, and that time is missing whether you're talking about the classic twin paradox, or the 3-person, no-acceleration version of the paradox. To me, that missing chunk of time highlights that in fact, yes, this really is a paradox. Minute Physics doesn't seem to see it that way, you can watch to see his explanation.
The earth aging happens after B meets C for B, which is also before B meets C for C
Excellent breakdown and graphics. I'm glad I'm not the only one finding poor physics on youtube.
The fallacy is the the Lorentz transforms indicate an actual change in the "moving" system. They indicate what the observer measures about the moving system IMO, NOT about any actual changes because of relative velocity. Thus, the "paradox" is a misuse of the equations.
No
You lost me. What if we make the problem 100% symmetrical. Let's consider two twins (A and B) moving at a constant speed in opposite directions on the surface of the Earth. Assume a motionless Earth. The twins are each moving at a speed of 0.25 times the speed of light, but in opposite directions. Their trajectory is circular, orbiting the Earth, and they cross each other twice per revolution. From the perspective of twin A, twin B is moving at 0.5 times the speed of light in one direction. And from the perspective of twin B, it is twin A who is moving at 0.5 times the speed of light, but in the opposite direction. When they meet (twice per revolution), who’s younger and who’s older?
This video was not meant to explain twin paradox but to show that one popular explanation is not an explanation. To your question the problem is that they are both non-inertial. Of course, both of your observers will have the same age as they both experience the same non-inertial frame.
@@lukasrafajpps All you have to do to make them inertial is to put them in orbits above the earth moving in opposite directions. Orbits are inertial frames. The answer is that satellites moving in opposite directions above the earth have clocks that tick at the same rate---slower than earth clocks if you disregard gravity (though they overall tick faster, because the increase in clock time due to being higher up the gravity well has a larger effect). But it doesn't matter which way they're going. There are only two explanations that I can see for this: 1) Even though those orbits aren't inertial, special relativity doesn't deal with gravitational effects, and for the purposes of time dilation calculations, each satellite looks to the other as if it is accelerating and changing frames continuously, even if it actually isn't. Or 2) There is such a thing as absolute motion.
@@erinm9445 Earth satellites have a special and general relativity effect on them. Ignoring the general due to gravity the special relativity effect is caused by the difference in velocity between the satellite and the earth station monitoring them.
@@lukasrafajpps They are the same age because they are in the same inertial frame, ie same velocity. An observer on the earth in a different inertial frame will have a different age to both of them.
Just another nonsense