Talk:Twin paradox/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Statements of "fact" should be in context

The article includes the following misleading statement (first paragraph), which is applicable in only a specific scenario and is not generally applicable. It should be placed in the context of a specific problem statement. This misleading statement can cause readers to reach an incorrect conclusion.

“However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey.[5]”

As far as I know, the twin paradox specifies only that the traveling twin goes away and comes back. It does not require a linear “out and back” path that includes inertial frames. Any statement of resolution should be viable for direct linear travel, travel along a polygonal path, circular path, etc. It is perfectly acceptable that very specific examples and related solutions are described as long as they are stated as such and separate from descriptions of generalizations. Futurerichperson (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The statement says that "this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity", which is correct. This scenario is the scenario as presented in the preceding text, and the problem statement of that scenario is assumed to be the the one with the linear out and back path, as it is usually presented in the literature — see the cited sources. Non-linear scenarios (and in fact any scenario not involving a measurable and significant influence of gravity) can also be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity, but that is handled in the remainder of the article. The lead of the article is supposed to provide "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents" - see WP:LEAD and MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE. I think the lead does a pretty fine job here, and I see no misleading statements. - DVdm (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is your assertion that the best way to convey scientific principles to readers, who may not have backgrounds in science, is to provide a statement that requires the reader to hold the same assumptions as the author in order to properly interpret (e.g. 'they should know the scenario I am talking about')? Your Wikipedia reference reinforces that the content should be written for a “nonspecialist reader”.

As far as I know, there is no single, specific, description of the Twin Paradox scenario, which you appear to acknowledge when you state “usually”. In the article, the scenario is stated in multiple ways (e.g. 3 brothers, Doppler). The article also references the linear version with inertial frames as being the “simplest version of the thought-experiment”, which implies there are other common versions, some of which do not include 2 inertial frames. Why imply that the solution for 1 scenario applies universally?

What is the harm in placing statements in the proper context and being unambiguous? Futurerichperson (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

There are four references in the lead that support the current, classic, usual wording. For the lead that should be enough. There's no need to have a complete, exhaustive treatment at that place in the article. That is done later in the body. The article is about the paradox and how and in which context it is solved. The lead does an excellent job at that introducing that. DVdm (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If by “four references” you mean the initial citations that require users to navigate away from the article and read/understand separate articles in order to properly understand the lead (the basic, easy to understand intro), I would say that the lead fails the Wikipedia standards you referenced. It requires that people reading this introduction to the concept need to have fairly advanced understanding of the concept in order to understand the basic introduction. That sort of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia.

As you mention, the article contains sections related to the various (multiple) ways that the paradox can be resolved. It is appropriate to focus on individual resolutions (e.g. 2 inertial frames) contextually in those sections.

The best ways to handle the introduction would be to either 1) generically mention that there are multiple solutions and that they will be described following or 2) very briefly list all solutions to pique interest and not show bias toward a particular solution. Option 2 could be done with less text than the current text it would replace.

It is also potentially misleading that the lead states “Another way of looking at it is to realize the travelling twin is undergoing acceleration, which makes them a non-inertial observer.” and in the following paragraph you see “However, it has been proven that neither general relativity, nor even acceleration, are necessary to explain the effect”. That does not seem like an excellent introduction; it could appear contradictory from the perspective of a “nonspecialist reader”. Futurerichperson (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing contradictory about saying that acceleration or general relativity can be used to explain, but that they are not necessary. I find nothing potentially misleading about the lead. We don't have to summarize the entire article in the lead. - DVdm (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)