| New Reply |
synchronized clocks with respect to rest frame |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Mar6-12, 12:38 AM | #69 |
|
|
synchronized clocks with respect to rest frameNow, we have two unknown variables [itex]t'[/itex] and [itex]\tau_d[/itex]. |
| Mar6-12, 05:38 AM | #70 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| Mar7-12, 09:29 AM | #71 |
|
|
First lets take another situation, lets just say that the two clocks on the train are in sync in the train's frame of reference. Lets say that the train is moving at .5c in the stations frame of reference. Do you understand why the clocks won't by in sync in the stations frame of reference, if they are in sync in the trains?
|
| Mar29-12, 11:13 PM | #72 |
|
|
|
| Mar30-12, 05:58 AM | #73 |
|
|
As much as i see this, we have here four dominant terms: time dilation, length contraction, light speed and rest frame.
my question is this: Lets assume that we all think and believe that the clock aboard the train returns with time dilation on it, also as a result of constant speed (put aside time dilation as a result of acceleration). There is some sort of effect on the clock, while moving at constant speed, and acceleration has nothing to do with it at all, that can't be denied. Now, say this guy has some sort of machine that has clocks and light detectors and works in a certain way, that is not effected by length contraction. This machine was calibrated to work in a certain way, before the train was moving. We know and agree that light does not change its speed. We agree that time dilation exists at constant speed. Yet, after the train is moving, that machine is still working as it did, it stays calibrated, after it was calibrated while at bay! Let us see what we have: a calibrated machine, regardless if the train is moving or not moving at constant speed. Light speed is the same regardless if train is moving or not. Length contraction does not effect that machine. We are left with only time dilation effecting that machine while at constant speed. and with the word : rest frame. If time dilation is effecting that machine, and yet it stays calibrated, there must be somthing counter effecting it to stay calibrated. What is this thing called? How can a choice of a rest frame have this effect? my rest frame is always on the train station and all through this experiment i never bother to exchange any signals with the train. Only when it returns do i ask these question. What does a rest frame have to do with it? Or should we return to acceleration as a source for all this? |
| Mar30-12, 07:17 PM | #74 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| Mar31-12, 01:50 AM | #75 |
|
|
Hello DaleSpam,
First you had came up with this equation After this I had created another doubt When, I had asked you [itex]t'_a=\tau + 0.75,[/itex] [itex]t'_o=\tau, [/itex] [itex]t'_b=\tau - 0.75[/itex] using [itex]\tau[/itex], and [itex]d[/itex]. We know here [itex]d_a=-1[/itex], [itex]d_o=0[/itex], [itex]d_b=1[/itex] and [itex]\tau = 0.6t[/itex]. But, To solve "decreasing desync as [itex]\tau[/itex] increases" problem you came up with the idea of [itex]\tau_a[/itex], [itex]\tau_o[/itex], [itex]\tau_b[/itex]. Now, we have the equations. [itex]t'_a=\tau_a - 0.75 d_a,[/itex] [itex]t'_o=\tau_o - 0.75 d_o, [/itex] [itex]t'_b=\tau_b - 0.75 d_b[/itex]. And as I said before we have now two unknown variables per eqaution ([itex]t'_a[/itex], [itex]\tau_a[/itex]), ([itex]t'_o[/itex], [itex]\tau_o[/itex]) and ([itex]t'_b[/itex], [itex]\tau_b[/itex]). So, the question is how can we get values of [itex]t'_a[/itex], [itex]\tau_a[/itex], [itex]t'_o[/itex], [itex]\tau_o[/itex], [itex]t'_b[/itex] and [itex]\tau_b[/itex] using known variables [itex]t[/itex], [itex]d_a[/itex], [itex]d_o[/itex] and [itex]d_b[/itex]? |
| Mar31-12, 05:46 AM | #76 |
|
|
Here is another question:
When the train returns, we can see that somthing happened, e.g. we have time dilation on the clock, and we agree that at least part of that time dilation was produced by constant speed (CS). There is true evidence that somthing happened there. Now regarding the clocks that are not synchronized, although they are both on the same train (but apart from each other): is there an experiment that can be done, which will show us this difference of de-synchroniztion between them, after the clocks will return to the station, and not by sending signals when the train is on the move? if not, how come one clock can bring back evidence to the station of a phenomenon (CS time dilation on a single clock), while another phenomenon, the de-synchronization of two clocks, is not somthing that can be brought back as evidence? or is such an experiment plausible after all for two clocks? or is this de-synchronization, a result of accelerating and de-accelerating and not of constant speed? |
| Mar31-12, 08:38 AM | #77 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| Apr3-12, 02:25 AM | #78 |
|
|
[itex]t'=\tau_a - 0.75 d_a[/itex] [itex]t'=\tau_o - 0.75 d_o[/itex] [itex]t'=\tau_b - 0.75 d_b[/itex] Now, please look at this But, you said that there are three value [itex]\tau_a[/itex], [itex]\tau_o[/itex] and [itex]\tau_b[/itex] exist. So, train clocks cannot be remain synchronized for R. |
| Apr3-12, 05:07 AM | #79 |
|
|
Please, look at this too
[itex]t[/itex] is R's clock's reading for R. [itex]\tau[/itex] is train's clocks (A, O, B)'s reading for R (The reading is same, so train's clocks is synchronized for R) ([itex]\tau[/itex] is not train's clocks reading for O, so it cannot have different values as per [itex]d[/itex]). And [itex]t'[/itex] is trains clock's reading for O (We have boosted here the train clocks reading for R ([itex]\tau[/itex]) to train's clocks reading for O ([itex]t'[/itex])) (Train's clocks is not synchronized for O, so [itex]t'[/itex] should have different values as per [itex]d[/itex]). So actually subscript should be used with [itex]t'[/itex] not with [itex]\tau[/itex]. |
| Apr4-12, 07:55 AM | #80 |
|
Mentor
|
OK, there are so many things incorrect with your previous two posts that I think it will be better to explain the general approach rather than respond point-by-point. If you still have specific questions afterwards then I will be glad to respond point-by-point.
First, when you are doing spacetime diagrams what you are doing is mapping the position of an object as a function of time to the shape of a geometric object. This increases the dimensionality of an object, i.e. a 0D point particle is represented by a 1D worldline (for this analysis we are ignoring the size of the clocks so they are represented by worldlines). Second, you can always write a 1D worldline in parametric form with a single parameter. So, you can always write it in the form [itex](t(\lambda),x(\lambda),y(\lambda),z(\lambda))[/itex] where [itex]\lambda[/itex] is the parameter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_equation Third, the parameterization is not unique. So if you have any continuous and invertible function [itex]\lambda(\zeta)[/itex] then [itex](t(\zeta),x(\zeta),y(\zeta),z(\zeta))[/itex] is also a valid parameterization of the same worldline. Fourth, the parameter need not have any significance, but it can. For example, one common parameterization is to use the time in a given reference frame, t, another common parameterization is to use the proper time displayed on the clock, τ. The latter parameterization is particularly common since it is frame-invariant and physically measurable. Fifth, if you have multiple worldlines then each worldline will have its own parameterization and thus its own parameter. Sixth, for each reference frame there are a series of surfaces of constant coordinate time called hyperplanes of simultaneity, or just planes of simultaneity. There is one such plane for each value of coordinate time. Seventh, two clocks are considered to be synchronized in a specified reference frame at a given coordinate time iff their displayed proper time is the same at their respective intersections with the plane of simultaneity. Do you understand these concepts? Do you need further explanation of any? I will try to post the application of these principles to this specific problem later today. |
| Apr4-12, 02:42 PM | #81 |
| Apr4-12, 02:58 PM | #82 |
|
|
|
| Apr4-12, 04:11 PM | #83 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| Apr4-12, 04:31 PM | #84 |
|
Mentor
|
OK, so to use the above approach in this problem the first thing that I did was to write the worldline of the clocks in parametric form. Since you first described the situation in R's frame, I used that frame for the description and parameterized it in terms of coordinate time. The result is the first equation of post 42.
Then, since the parameterization is not unique and since proper time has the advantages listed above as well as the direct application for determining synchronization, I decided to re-parameterize in terms of proper time instead of coordinate time. The relationship between the two parameters is the second equation in post 42, and the resulting parametric equation of the worldline is given in the third equation. Once that is done, then the worldline in the primed frame is found simply by using the Lorentz transform, as shown in post 48. Now, we have a parameterization for each worldline in terms of proper time in both the primed and the unprimed frame. So at this point we make 3 worldlines, corresponding to A, O, and B, by substituting d=-1,0,1 respectively. As mentioned above, each worldline has its own parameter, hence the subscripts on the proper time. I.e. there are three clocks displaying numbers and so there are three proper time values listed. Now, in order to determine if a pair of clocks are synchronized in some frame we find the proper time at the intersection of the worldline of each clock with the same plane of simultaneity. This is done by setting t or t' equal to some value and solving for the two values of proper time. If the values are equal then the pair of clocks is synchronized and vice versa. Does that make sense now? |
| Apr4-12, 04:50 PM | #85 |
|
Mentor
|
[itex]\Delta\tau^2 = \Delta t^2 - \Delta x^2 - \Delta y^2 - \Delta z^2[/itex] For τ>0 [itex](\tau - 0)^2 = (t-0)^2 - ((0.6t+d) - (0 + d))^2[/itex] [itex]\tau^2 = 0.64 t^2[/itex] [itex]\tau = 0.8 t[/itex] The d cancels out. |
| New Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: synchronized clocks with respect to rest frame
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| So clocks in motion are 'slower' to observers in rest, shouldn't the clocks tick less | Special & General Relativity | 26 | ||
| 10 synchronized clocks | Electrical Engineering | 4 | ||
| a question with the readings of synchronized clocks | Special & General Relativity | 2 | ||
| Please Help....Synchronized Clocks | Special & General Relativity | 8 | ||
| synchronized clocks in special relativity | Special & General Relativity | 17 | ||