Talk:Twin paradox

simple diagram

Consider adding a diagram like this one: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/st10.jpg no fancy colors or animation needed, this is simple and very clear

Media references

There are two science fiction movies concerning this subject: The_Time_Travelers_(1964_film) and Journey to the Center of Time (1967 Remake) - zmin_inc (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Gravitational effect explanation

Paul Langevin told about the Twin paradox at Bologna in 1911. I think that is the first mention of the "Twin paradox". How can a paper from 1907 give an explanation to the Twin paradox (it's in reference one). And it also seems strange to associate Born and "gravitational effect" to something which is supposed about SR only. I tried to google a bit and all mentions of this, point to this Wikipedia article, so I find this suspicious. Any idea? JPLeRouzic (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How do I contribute

I am new to this. I would like to contribute to the discussion. Have I started correctly? R F Norgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.243.252 (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Looks like you have forgotten about

• Talk:Twin paradox/Archive 3#The separation distance
• Talk:Twin paradox/Archive 3#The impossibility of an sr explanation of the twins paradox
• Talk:Twin paradox/Archive 3#Further questions re the article
• Talk:Twin paradox/Archive 3#A more detailed criticism of the article
• Talk:Twin paradox/Archive 3#A different version of the Twins Paradox
• Special:Contributions/86.129.192.176.

Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Distance travelled.

My apologies if I am covering now what has already been covered in the past. The current resolution of the Twins Paradox with SR employs a consideration of the distance traveled as seen by each clock. This is surely totally unnecessary as the experiment is designed to compare the measurement of elapsed time between two events (separation and re-union) as measured by two different clocks. Also the employment of distance in the Resolution appears to be faulty. R F Norgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.243.252 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

The article talk page is for discussions about changing and improving the article, not for discussions about the subject. For questions about the subject you might try the wp:Reference desk/Science. Anyway, in our article, the sections Twin paradox#Resolution of the paradox in special relativity, Twin paradox#Difference in elapsed time as a result of differences in twins' spacetime paths and Twin paradox#Difference in elapsed times: how to calculate it from the ship don't seem to mention distances. - DVdm (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Specific example

I am rather confused after reading the above replies. If an article is wrong then putting it right is surely an improvement. The distance that I referred to was mentioned under Specific Example. I was in error when i said previously that it was under Resolution. Nevertheless i did expect a reply to my point.I would appreciate one now from someone.

I still do not understand what one does with the four tildas 2.96.243.252 (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC) R F Norgan 12 Feb2013

In the section Twin paradox#Specific example distances are used, not specifically to resolve the paradox, but to explain to the reader what the observers would measure and to show that this is consistent with length contraction. The distances are correct. I have added two sources supporting the analysis in the section.

About the four tildes: when you type them, the Wikipedia system replaces them with your signature. Look at the top of the edit window. It says:

"This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)."

DVdm (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My point is a simple one. The twins paradox is a time dilation experiment. That is it is the comparison of the time keeping of two identical clocks measuring the elapsed time between the same two events. The distance traveled by either of the two clocks is totally irrelevant to the experiment. No argument, in the archives or not, can logically deny that point. Thus this section is irrelevant and only serves to confuse the reader. It should be removed.

However, if you have an argument against this point please make it.

I still dont understand the four tildas.2.96.243.252 (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the section is irrelevant. It has been here for a long time, and it is backed by reliable sources, so the de-facto consensus seems to be that it is appropriate to keep it.

About talk pages, please have a look at the wp:talk page guidelines and specially at wp:Talk page formatting, where it is explained how we format discussions here. I have removed the new section header and indented our remarks according to the guidelines.

About the four tildes: you typed them and the system has replaced them with your signature. Good! - DVdm (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that I cannot yet see how to add indented comments to an existing topic.

As to your reply to me I cannot accept that you and many others disagreeing with my point, or indeed the length of time that Specific Example has existed, are scientific arguments. If you have a scientific argument to counter my point then please make it. If you do not then it is only proper for you to concede.2.96.243.252 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reformatted our comments again, using colons. Each colon increases the level of indentation. At the bottom of the editing window, you find a link to Editing help.

About the Twin paradox#Specific example section: our articles are supposed to report the current mainstream scientific view. It is not our job to comment on it or to make, propose, or even discuss changes based on our own "original research" — see wp:NOR. The section is backed by two mainstream sources, so there is no compelling reason to remove it at this point. Perhaps other contributors will comment on this — see wp:consensus. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see a way to get into the page as it does not have an edit facility. Would you assist me further on that point.

I will be very clear on this next point. I am not changing accepted scientific theory in the slightest. You are improperly accusing me of doing so. In special relativity time dilation and length contraction are two separate effects. If you disagree with me then state your scientific case--or concede. It appears that you have no argument. Where do we go from here?

Wiki is asking that this subject should be made more understandable. Removing irrelevant text helps towards that end.2.96.243.252 (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

About editing: perhaps you have made your comment by clicking the New section link on top of the talk page. The idea is to edit this current section, not to create new sections. You can edit the current section by clicking the [edit] link next to the section header.

About the section: the best thing we can do at this point, is wait for other contributors to comment.

Meanwhile, it might be a good idea to sign up for a username. I have put a welcome message on your talk page with some handy links. One link explains how to create a username and why it's a good idea to have one. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC):

I hope that I have this right for posting. I do not see what new contributors are going to give if they too do not provide scientific explanations of their position, as you have not done. I will not be swayed by 1000 contributors who are merely trying to support the status quo but without scientific justification. I suggest that 'other contributors' are dispensed with and we move on to the next step -- whatever that may be. I have to say that I am very disappointed in your lack of solid replies to my criticism. On the other hand you have been very helpful. I will look into the username situation. I am already a financial contributor to Wiki.2.96.243.252 (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not really a place where we, as contributors, are supposed to provide scientific explanations of our positions. We are supposed to adequately reflect the mainstream —status quo, like you say— scientific viewpoint. Given the sources, I think the current section does that very well.

Also note that Wikipedia is about collaborating and consensus, and I don't think that your suggestion "that 'other contributors' are dispensed with" would be appropriate - see wp:consensus. - DVdm (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The question is this. Should Wiki reflect the views of the majority of its contributors when that majority mis-applies current accepted scientific theory where that theory is accepted as crucial to the explanation of the Wiki topic in question. It would appear that you would rather have a false Wiki explanation as long as the majority believed it. That approach is undoubtedly the easy way out as it avoids argument and critical thought. But by taking that course you are helping to perpetuate false beliefs via Wiki.Perhaps some of the contributors who accept the current false version of the twins paradox explanation did so simply because they too do not wish to challenge what other people have written before. As a contributor to Wiki it is surely your duty to see that wiki explanations are correct -- not to limply pursue the consensus.2.96.243.252 (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You talk about "the current false version of the twins paradox explanation". First, the section is not an explanation of the twin paradox, but a mere introductory example. Second, it looks perfectly correct and appropriate to me, and probably to all who contributed to it in the past. Third, it is properly sourced. So, without a wp:consensus there really is no compelling reason to remove it. - DVdm (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

First I did not think that Wiki was in the business of offering introductory examples. Wiki is asking for an explanation which is more understandable.You are in disagreement with Wiki in that you think no changes are required.

Furthermore, even though I point out the indisputable fact that time dilation and length contraction are two separate and distinct effects you continue to support their muddling together in the current Wiki explanation. The position that you take is as an unshakeable guardian of the status quo regardless of Wiki's desires or any other criticism however sound. This is not the position of a scientist rather that of a politician. Is their a channel within Wiki to which we can now take our dispute?2.96.243.252 (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Usually the next step is to wait for other contributors to comment, and then take it from there. I already pointed to our policy wp:consensus a few times. Please read it, and you will also find other "channels within Wiki" there. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I can fully understand the merits of a policy of consensus. But if nearly everyone affirmed that the Earth was flat, as at one time they did, does that mean that, in the face of evidence to the contrary, Wiki would state that the world was flat in its description. Because most people do not understand special relativity ( and I include many academics here) are those that do understand it condemned to conform to the majority?. I have made a very simple statement that the measure of the time interval between two time displaced events requires only identical clocks to make that measurement. Yet you argue that I am wrong.2.96.243.252 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't argue that you are wrong about that statement. I argue that distances can be mentioned in the introductory example. The sources do it, so Wikipedia can do it. - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the point of it? Distances are totally irrelevant to the measure of time. This section merely serves to confuse the article. Wiki want to make the article more understandable so removing irrelevant stuff is a step in that direction. You are fighting against the wishes of Wiki. Your whole argument seems merely to be the defense of the status quo, warts and all.92.17.73.236 (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that it serves to confuse the article. Per long-time status quo and cited sources, quite on the contrary. Assuming that both 2.96.243.252 and 92.17.73.236 belong to you (R_f_norgan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), let's see what others, if any, have to say. Cheers & patience. - DVdm (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, something is confusing readers according to Wiki. If it is not Specific Example perhaps you would care to give me your own opinion as to what it may be. I would also like to point out that just because something is accepted for a long time does not make it correct. Furthermore why do you trust your sources when they are in disagreement with the originating source, Albert Einstein. The problem with patience is that it is a euphemism for the manana syndrome. Nothing ever gets done.92.17.73.236 (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

New preliminary section

The current explanation of the twins paradox type of experiment does not seem complete. I suggest the following new initial section:- The twins paradox experiment is a specific example of a general test of time dilation/contraction. The essence of the general test involves the measure of the time duration between two time separated events by two identical and accurate clocks. The clocks are synchronized when stationary next to each other. The first event is their separation and the second event their re-union. At re-union the clocks read each other and find that they are no longer synchronized. As the two clocks differ then one clock reads the other to be slow and, naturally, that clock reads the first clock to be fast. The Hafele and Keating experiment is one example of a real experiment which proved this effect. In the experiment one clock remained stationary while the other was flown right round the Earth in a jet plane to eventually return to the stationary clock.

The only theory available to the physics establishment remotely capable of predicting this effect is special relativity which predicts time dilation as a consequence of relative velocity. However the postulates of special relativity specify that the two clocks must be inertial; yet one clock at least must accelerate during the experiment.

The twins paradox version of the general test severely restricts the paths that the clocks may make during their separation (the twins act as identical clocks in human form). The object of the restriction is to adapt the test specifically such that the suitability of special relativity is maximized. To this end one clock is made inertial throughout while the necessary accelerations of the other are confined to three periods of duration short relative to two long periods of inertiality. The application of special relativity to the general test with unrestricted paths, inferring constant acceleration, does not seem possible. END

I would appreciate comments. RFNo (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See the above section. See also our policies on wp:reliable sources, wp:secondary sources and wp:original research. Als note that you already have an account: R_f_norgan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - DVdm (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My source is Einstein's special relativity. Plus Hafele and Keating. Your comments are not very specific.Are you unhappy with any particular part of my proposal and if so what and why? My point is that the Wiki explanation of the twins paradox is deceitful.The current explanation concentrates on one very specific example of the general experiment in order to put special relativity in the best light. It is not Wiki's job to support any particular scientific theory. Surely it is Wiki's job to explain to the public the difficulties that exist in the explanation of this particular phenomenon. i2.96.245.214 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is not Wikipedia's job to explain to the public the difficulties that exist in the explanation of some phenomenon. This is an encyclopedia — not a forum, not a textbook, not a publisher of original thought. For an overview of what Wikipedia is not, see wp:NOT.

Have a look at how reliable sources are actually used in our articles. The policy on wp:original research does not allow us to draw conclusions from a source, or give a new twist to it. Also, the policy on wp:synthesis forbids drawing conclusions form combined sources. Your analysis and your conclusions are wrong, and my being not specific is due to the fact an article talk place is not the place to discuss someone's personal views about the subject — see wp:talk page guidelines. If you are looking for comments, I can recommend sci.physics.relavity on Usenet, or a personal blog, or some open forum. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I see the point as this. The twins paradox experiment is very well known. Hence wiki has a page on it. The reason that it is well known is because the desynchronisation of two clocks, in itself a simple thing to appreciate, cannot be explained by modern science. People expect modern science to be able to explain these things and when it can't it becomes an issue of great interest. I agree that it is not down to wiki to attempt an explanation but I believe that wiki should fully explain the circumstances of the experiment and also why modern science fails in this case. The current wiki explanation of the experiment is deceitful in that it does not explain the experiment properly and fully but distorts it so as to put the theory of special relativity in the best possible light. Wiki is not there in order to support particular theories, no matter how eminent the author. I repeat, the point of interest in this wiki article is that the observations cant be explained.2.96.245.214 (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you see the point yet. It is not Wikipedia's task to explain "why modern science fails in this case", even if it would indeed fail. Wikipedia reports and shows how it is explained in the mainstream scientific literature. Whether that explanation is deceitful or unsatisfactory for you, is a matter of opinion, and this is not the place to vent opinions. - DVdm (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I take it, therefore, that you wish to keep secret from the readers of this article that the twins paradox journey path is only one of an infinite number of possibilities, and that that one path has been specially chosen to suit a particular theory. Please confirm if that is your position or not.RFNo (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If we can find a few high quality, mainstream scientific, reliable sources that state that "the twins paradox journey path is only one of an infinite number of possibilities, and that that one path has been specially chosen to suit a particular theory," then perhaps we can put something along that line in the article. Otherwise we can't. That is Wikipedia"s position. - DVdm (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

One does not need an eminent physicist to qualify the obvious. The Hafele and Keating experiment (which I have quoted)is an example of a different journey between separation and reunion of the two clocks to the Twins Paradox. In that case the journey is complex for both clocks. The object of a Wiki article is surely to explain something to the reader without prejudice, distortion and deceit. The current Wiki article is arranged merely as an advertisement for special relativity (and a poor one at that)at the cost of the truth. No wonder readers have difficulty in understanding it. I ask you to reconsider your position.RFNo (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to reconsider Wikipedia's position, sorry. I think you really have come to the wrong place. - DVdm (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

May I ask what authority you have to speak on Wiki's behalf? RFNo (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)