Einstein's Clocks and Langevin's Twins
Galina Weinstein

TL;DR
The paper clarifies the historical and conceptual differences between Einstein's original clock paradox and Langevin's twin paradox, emphasizing Einstein's focus on measurement rather than biological or aging aspects of observers.
Contribution
It distinguishes Einstein's original focus on measurement procedures from Langevin's extension involving biological aging, clarifying misconceptions about the twin paradox.
Findings
Einstein did not explicitly present the twin paradox.
Einstein's work focused on measurement, not biological aging.
Langevin's twin paradox involves biological aging of observers.
Abstract
In 1905 Einstein presented the Clock Paradox and in 1911 Paul Langevin expanded Einstein's result to human observers, the "Twin Paradox." I will explain the crucial difference between Einstein and Langevin. Einstein did not present the so-called "Twin Paradox." Later Einstein continued to speak about the clock paradox. Einstein might not have been interested in the question: what happens to the observers themselves. The reason for this could be the following; Einstein dealt with measurement procedures, clocks and measuring rods. Einstein's observers were measuring time with these clocks and measuring rods. Einstein might not have been interested in so-called biology of the observers, whether these observers were getting older, younger, or whether they have gone any other changes; these changes appeared to be out of the scope of his "Principle of relativity" or kinematics. The processes…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsQuantum Mechanics and Applications · Time Series Analysis and Forecasting · Computational Physics and Python Applications
