
#19
Feb2112, 10:28 PM

PF Gold
P: 706





#20
Feb2212, 08:51 AM

P: 5,634

Apparently that Wikipedia piece IS rather obtuse ...
I'm not going to pursue interpretating those two paragraphs any further [not worth it] , but I wondered when I read them if their comments were trying to point out that clock times vary within a reference frame dependent on different gravitational potentials.... 



#21
Feb2412, 01:05 PM

PF Gold
P: 706

And here is the same explosion from the Yellow clock's perspective: But the point I wanted to make was, if I had, for instance, selected rapidities in the domain of (100,100) instead of between (3,3) then there would hardly be any noticeable difference in the distribution for the selected clocks. So in fact, I guess I misspoke, because it's not the number of clocks that makes a difference, but the width of the rapidity space. If you'd like to see all 11 perspectives, see here 



#22
Feb2412, 07:28 PM

P: 3,966





#23
Feb2512, 09:24 AM

PF Gold
P: 706

But, let's say, for instance these 5000 clocks have some negligible mass. There would be a problem at t=0 because they occupy a point, and the negligible masses at zero distance would have an infinite force between them. But, can you somehow relate what you are saying to the animations; actually it doesn't make any sense to me in regards to the diagrams. How would you see an apparent expanding sphere of clocks if you were at the edge of a flat front? If you look in one direction and see a bunch of clocks moving away, and if you look the other way and see no clocks, how could you avoid being aware that you were near the "edge" of the clocks? 



#24
Feb2512, 10:18 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,523





#25
Feb2612, 02:57 AM

P: 8

I have a simple question. From what I understand about relativity and proper time (I am beginner btw) is that when a clock moves at a huge speed, then it will measure different time than the coordinate time in some other reference frame. So, does that mean it really slows down? as in the difference between its ticks is observed to be slower compared to the other synchronized clocks? For example if I matched my wristwatch against a clock and then traveled at the speed of light then stopped and saw another clock that was already synchronized with the first clock, then I will see that my wristwatch does not match anymore. So it seems to me that what happened is just not a matter of mathematical manipulations but rather a physical reality (wristwatch moving slower) is that true?
Also on wikipedia it says second is 'the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom' but that seems absolute to me? Also, last question when people say synchronizing two clocks. Does this mean just making sure they have the same reading at the time of checking? or does it mean they have the same pace of ticking? For example if two clocks read 12:00 but one ticks faster does this mean they are not synchronized? Thank you. 



#26
Feb2612, 03:03 AM

P: 8

Also, my book says that this formula only works in inertial frames.
[tex]\Delta \tau = \int \sqrt[]{1v^2}dt ; v=speed[/tex] Bu that does not make sense because v is in terms of t and it is supposed to change over time which means there must be acceleration!? 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Time Dilation Problem; Find the proper time, ts.  Introductory Physics Homework  4  
Derivation of Proper Time and Proper Space  Special & General Relativity  17  
Time Dilation/Proper Time Question  Special & General Relativity  17  
"Speed of time": temperature tells thermal time/proper time (Smerlak Rovelli)  Beyond the Standard Model  1  
proper time or proper time interval  Special & General Relativity  3 