Paper detail

Twin Paradox and the logical foundation of relativity theory

We study the foundation of space-time theory in the framework of first-order logic (FOL). Since the foundation of mathematics has been successfully carried through (via set theory) in FOL, it is not entirely impossible to do the same for space-time theory (or relativity). First we recall a simple and streamlined FOL-axiomatization SpecRel of special relativity from the literature. SpecRel is complete with respect to questions about inertial motion. Then we ask ourselves whether we can prove usual relativistic properties of accelerated motion (e.g., clocks in acceleration) in SpecRel. As it turns out, this is practically equivalent to asking whether SpecRel is strong enough to "handle" (or treat) accelerated observers. We show that there is a mathematical principle called induction (IND) coming from real analysis which needs to be added to SpecRel in order to handle situations involving relativistic acceleration. We present an extended version AccRel of SpecRel which is strong enough to handle accelerated motion, in particular, accelerated observers. Among others, we show that the Twin Paradox becomes provable in AccRel, but it is not provable without IND.

preprint2005arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.