Einstein and the twin paradox

Pesic, Peter

doi:10.1088/0143-0807/24/6/004

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies [e.g., 6,7] has pointed that the essence of the Twin Paradox is the impossibility of simultaneity between the clocks of the two twins. But why should time dilation work in favor of the traveling twin, who becomes younger?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other attempts to solve the twin paradox evoke the relativity of accelerating frames. As mentioned before, Einstein himself, after developing General Relativity, resorted to this explanation in 1918, when he argued that since one of the clocks is in an accelerated frame of reference, the postulates of the Special Theory of Relativity do not apply to it and so 'no contradictions in the foundations of the theory can be construed' [6,10]. More recent attempts which evoke General Relativity are aplenty [e.g., [11][12][13][14].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Information relativity theory solves the twin paradox symmetrically

Suleiman¹

2016

phys essays

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Twin Paradox is one of the most fascinating paradoxes in physics. In Special Relativity, the paradox arises due to the nonexistence of a preferred frame of reference, resulting in both twins observing that he or she is younger than the other twin. Nonetheless, it is commonly agreed that the "traveling" twin returns younger than the "staying" twin. The prevailing solution is obtained by deviating from the relativity principle and assuming that the "staying" twin's frame is preferred over the "traveling" twin's frame. Here I describe a newly proposed relativity theory, termed Information Relativity (IR) and show that it solves the twin paradox symmetrically, with the twins aging equally.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Information relativity theory solves the twin paradox symmetrically

Suleiman¹

2016

phys essays

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The apparent paradox is that, if motion is relative, both twins are traveling at speed relative to each 4 For a more thorough discussion of the range of implications to be drawn from a definition of narrative in cognitive terms, see Walsh (2018). 5 A succinct and accessible exposition and resolution of the twin paradox is Lasky (2006); a thorough discussion of the pedagogical challenges of explaining the paradox is given in Shuler (2014); the history of Einstein's own engagements with the problem is given by Pesic (2003). 6 Note that here and subsequently my concern is with the bare narrative form of my examples, not the extent to which they exhibit the qualities we associate with novelistic fiction.…”

Section: Bereitgestellt Von | De Gruyter / Tcs Angemeldetmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Narration of Scientific Facts

Walsh¹

2019

Narrative Factuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If there is a meaningful concept of scientific fact, it is one that cuts across the more careful standard distinction between scientific observation and scientific theory. That is, there are both empirical scientific facts (water at a pressure of one atmosphere boils at 100 degrees centigrade) and principled general scientific facts (cell theory describes the fundamental structure of living organisms). Both observations and theories may come to be regarded as factual within a scientific community; the sense of 'fact' that applies, though, is not only more rigorous but also more skeptical than factuality as ordinarily understood. To call a fact 'scientific' is not exactly to say that it is a more absolute fact (as common usage implies), but rather that it is a more accountable fact. The rigorous aspect of this accountability is secured by the methodical standards of science: theories must be testable, and be extensively tested; particular observations must meet the criteria of established practice in the relevant field and hence be, at least in principle, reproducible. The skepticism that attaches to the notion of fact in science is just the flip side of the accountability. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable to be testable, and their legitimacy is not a matter of confirmation, strictly speaking, but of demonstrated robustness in the face of efforts at falsification. As the Popperian doctrine of falsificationism has it, scientific facts are not ultimately confirmed, so much as tested beyond reasonable doubt (2002 [1959]).There are pragmatic dimensions to such factuality: theories are accountable within the scope of their applicability, within certain degrees of approximation, and within the limits of the questions they answer, and these considerations are contingent upon the current agenda of research in the relevant fields. A robust theory is one that is too well tested to be worth further testing, but that criterion is relative to a given state of the science. Scientific facts, then, are part of the discourse of knowledge, and there is an irreducible conceptual gap between facts in that sense and the states of affairs with which they are concerned.This point is similarly applicable at the level of scientific observations. They are factual to the extent that they are independent of the circumstan-

show abstract

“…Em particular, formularemos o problema com Ana em repouso e Bob em movimento hiperbólico. 3 O fato deste tipo de movimento ser estudado na maioria dos cursos introdutórios de TRE torna nossa abordagem atraente pela simplicidade matemática e por, ao mesmo tempo, preservar a riqueza conceitual envolvida com o movimento acelerado de Bob. Dentre outros, isso facilitará o entendimento das previsões feitas no referencial não-inercial de Bob, que é onde reside o maior desafio à compreensão completa da resolução do problema.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Dilatação do tempo, referenciais acelerados e o paradoxo dos gêmeos

Freitas

Gomes

2018

Rev. Bras. Ensino Fís.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumo Ainda que o problema do paradoxo dos gêmeos seja tão antigo quanto à própria teoria da relatividade especial, a compreensão da sua resolução é, muitas vezes, obscurecida por falhas na intuição do estudante. Geralmente, estas se originam em um entendimento incompleto das previsões da teoria ou do seu limite de validade. Neste artigo, apresentamos uma resolução didática do problema dos gêmeos com intuito de elucidar algumas dessas falhas. Dando ênfase ao real conteúdo da previsão relativística de dilatação do tempo, eliminamos uma primeira intuição que possa sugerir a existência de um paradoxo. A partir disso, mostramos como a relatividade especial é suficiente para abordar o problema, não havendo necessidade de recorrer à relatividade geral. Finalizamos apresentando uma resolução do problema considerando tanto do ponto de vista do gêmeo estacionário quanto o do gêmeo viajante.

show abstract

Einstein and the twin paradox

Cited by 18 publications

References 8 publications

Information relativity theory solves the twin paradox symmetrically

Information relativity theory solves the twin paradox symmetrically

The Narration of Scientific Facts

Dilatação do tempo, referenciais acelerados e o paradoxo dos gêmeos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About