A summary of our findings, as detailed in the Twin Paradox Report, is as follows. We investigated published books and journal papers and interviewed proponents of claimed resolutions of the problem. The proposed resolutions were divided into the following categories:

- Resolutions that claimed to employ only the postulates and methods of the special or restricted theory of relativity in which the differential aging effect is due to relative motion.

- Resolutions that invoke the general theory of relativity and, by implication, contend that there is no solution possible from the principles of the special theory of relativity.

- Resolutions that invoke, often implicitly, different or additional assumptions than used in either the special or general theory and, by implication, contend that there is no resolution possible using either theory.

Hence, it’s clear that there are many conflicting opinions about the resolution of the Twin Paradox among “mainstream”, relativist professors.

Although the mainstream consensus is that the paradox is not a problem and as such has a definitive solution, there is no agreement as to exactly what that solution is as the physics journals and textbooks are full of conflicting solutions to this problem. Hence, we suggest that an open, public discussion of this problem be undertaken with the objective of resolving this critical problem. We ask that, as step one, the “mainstream” physics community select a single, definitive solution to this problem. In addition, we ask that it state which alternative solutions are essentially equivalent to the chosen solution and which alternatives are deemed invalid. If the Twin Paradox is well understood and if there is a generally accepted solution, then this should be a very easy task.

[For more details see the Twin Paradox Report.]

If you want to sign this Open Letter, please Click Here.

Signed:
(Institutions for identification only)
Highlighted names are linked to related web pages