Multiple clock thought experiment

In summary, the conversation discusses a thought experiment involving multiple clocks that are programmed to accelerate away from, remain moving for a time, and then return to their point of origin. The clocks differ only in their direction of travel, but due to time dilation, they will have ticked fewer times than the stationary clock at the point of origin. Despite differences in relative acceleration, the moving clocks will be synchronized with each other at the end of their journey. The principle of relativity states that all frames will agree on the times of the clocks when they meet at a single location. The only relevant speed for calculating time dilation is the speed relative to a particular inertial frame.
  • #1
Diffused
9
0
Consider a large number of clocks each within some apparatus programmed to accelerate away from, remain moving for a time, accelerate toward, remain moving for a time and then return to a point of origin. A similar clock simply remains at that point of origin. The accelerated clocks will reach relativistic speeds on their outward and inward journey. Each of the clocks both transmits its tick number and is capable of receiving and recording all the other clock's tick number.

The experiment begins in deep space so that any outside gravitational effects can be ignored. The only difference between the clocks is the direction of travel. Each clock travels in a straight line, taking the same outbound and inbound path.

When the clocks return to the point of origin, they have ticked fewer times than the clock that didn't move. Relative to the clock at the origin they have all accelerated and traveled at the same rate, so they should all have the same (lower) tick count.

Relative to each other clock, though, the clock's velocities differ since they were sent in various directions. The acceleration effects should be identical since they all have the same general program. To each moving clock, each other moving clocks should appear to tick at a different rate.

How then can the moving clocks be synchronized at the end of their journey? Do the differences in relative acceleration somehow compensate for the differences in velocity? Note that the clocks can spend any amount of time not accelerating, just moving at different relative velocities.

Obviously I'm missing something basic here. Hopefully it's something simple enough to understand.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Diffused said:
Relative to each other clock, though, the clock's velocities differ since they were sent in various directions. The acceleration effects should be identical since they all have the same general program. To each moving clock, each other moving clocks should appear to tick at a different rate.

Velocity plays no role, speed does. Since all the clocks , according to you, have had the same acceleration program over the same distance, they will have the same speed program. Since they had the same speed program, they will show the same elapsed time, so they are synchronized with each other (but not with the "stay at home" clock).
 
  • #3
starthaus said:
Velocity plays no role, speed does. Since all the clocks , according to you, have had the same acceleration program over the same distance, they will have the same speed program. Since they had the same speed program, they will show the same elapsed time, so they are synchronized with each other (but not with the "stay at home" clock).

Doesn't your answer assume, then, that there is an absolute measurement of speed? Only in relation to the stay at home clock are speed measurements the same.

Clocks that go out in similar directions would move slower in relation to each other. Clocks that go out in differing directions would move faster in relation to each other. Clocks that go out in opposite directions would move fastest in relation to each other. The moving clocks are comparing their motion with other clocks, also in motion. Doesn't the direction of motion contribute to relative speed?
 
  • #4
Diffused said:
Doesn't your answer assume, then, that there is an absolute measurement of speed?

No, it doesn't.

Only in relation to the stay at home clock are speed measurements the same.

The principle of relativity says that the result will be the same when judges from any other inertial frame,, so the "stay at home frame" is as good as any other frame for judging the results.


Clocks that go out in similar directions would move slower in relation to each other. Clocks that go out in differing directions would move faster in relation to each other.

True but irrelevant (see above).


Clocks that go out in opposite directions would move fastest in relation to each other. The moving clocks are comparing their motion with other clocks, also in motion. Doesn't the direction of motion contribute to relative speed?

Not wrt the "stay at home" frame. Wrt that frame, all clocks move according to the same speed program as per your OP.
 
  • #5
Diffused said:
Doesn't your answer assume, then, that there is an absolute measurement of speed? Only in relation to the stay at home clock are speed measurements the same.
All frames always agree in their predictions about the times of two clocks when they meet at a single location. So, if in the rest frame of the central inertial clock we can see by symmetry that all the accelerating clocks should read the same time at the moment they reunite with the central clock, then this would be the prediction of other frames too, though the calculations would be more complicated since the clocks would have different functions for speed as a function of time in the other frames.
Diffused said:
Clocks that go out in similar directions would move slower in relation to each other. Clocks that go out in differing directions would move faster in relation to each other. Clocks that go out in opposite directions would move fastest in relation to each other. The moving clocks are comparing their motion with other clocks, also in motion. Doesn't the direction of motion contribute to relative speed?
The only speed relevant to calculating time dilation (and elapsed time) in a particular inertial frame is speed relative to that frame, not the speed of different clocks relative to one another (that relative speed would only be relevant if you were calculating things from the perspective of one of the clock's inertial rest frames, so the relative speed would be the same as the speed of the other clock in this frame).
 
  • #6
I'm sure that you're right and that the math will all work out in the end. Perhaps the simplest way of looking at it, from the stay at home clock, is the best.

Still, I'd like to look at it from the point of view of some of the multiple clocks and just do the math for an example or two, but don't know all the proper equations.

Here's a simpler and more definite example. Consider clocks W, X, Y, and Z. Clocks W, X, and Y are moving toward clock Z which is in our initial inertial frame of reference. In that frame of reference, at some point in time t, clocks W, X, and Y are one light second away from clock Z moving toward Z at 4/5 C. W and X are moving in opposite directions (towards each other.) Y is moving toward Z at a 45 degree angle from W and a 135 degree angle from X.

Can all the frames reference agree on the synchronicity of the start time? By distance contraction, at the start time W, X and Y will be 3/5 of a light second away from Z, so they should be able to agree with Z (but not necessarily with each other) as to their start time. Is this actually the case?

Do all the frames of reference agree on the relative approach angles? If not, how are they calculated?

Since the clocks are moving at relativistic speeds, their velocities are not simply additive when they try to compare speeds with each other.
So, I need to know, from each clocks frame of reference, how to 1) compute each other clock's observed speed and 2) compute their observed start time. If relative distance does not fall out from that, then I'd need that equation too. I'm sure that if I had the equations to do this that plugging in the numbers for any example would just work, but I'd like to just do it.
 
  • #7
Diffused said:
I'm sure that you're right and that the math will all work out in the end. Perhaps the simplest way of looking at it, from the stay at home clock, is the best.

Still, I'd like to look at it from the point of view of some of the multiple clocks and just do the math for an example or two, but don't know all the proper equations.
In general, if you know the position as a function of time x(t), y(t) and z(t) for a clock in one frame, you can find the position as a function of time in a different (primed) frame, i.e. x'(t'), y'(t') and z'(t') by using the Lorentz transformation equations (here written in a form which assumes the axes of the frames are aligned so that the primed frame's spatial origin is moving along the x-axis of the unprimed frame in the +x direction with speed v):

x' = gamma*(x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = gamma*(t - vx/c^2)

x = gamma*(x' + vt')
y = y'
z = z'
t = gamma*(t' + vx'/c^2)

with gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

So for example if x = c^2 * t^2 for some period of time, you could substitute x=gamma*(x' + vt') t^2 = gamma^2*(t' + vx'/c^2)^2 and then solve for x' as a function of t'.

However, the math is a lot simpler if you assume the accelerations are quasi-instantaneous, so that a clock moves away from the central clock at speed v1 for some time, then instantaneously accelerates so it's not moving back towards the central clock at speed v2, and it continues to move at that speed until it gets back to the central clock. In that case you just have to use the Lorentz transformation on the coordinates where the moving clock leaves the central clock, the coordinates where it accelerates to turn around, and the coordinates where it reunites with the central clock, and then in every frame the speed will be constant between each pair of events so you can just use (change in position)/(change in time) for a given pair to find the speed between that pair.
Diffused said:
Here's a simpler and more definite example. Consider clocks W, X, Y, and Z. Clocks W, X, and Y are moving toward clock Z which is in our initial inertial frame of reference. In that frame of reference, at some point in time t, clocks W, X, and Y are one light second away from clock Z moving toward Z at 4/5 C. W and X are moving in opposite directions (towards each other.) Y is moving toward Z at a 45 degree angle from W and a 135 degree angle from X.

Can all the frames reference agree on the synchronicity of the start time?
No, because of the relativity of simultaneity, events at different spatial locations which happen simultaneously in some frame A must happen non-simultaneously in a different frame B (unless frame B is moving exactly perpendicular to the axis between the events in frame A).
Diffused said:
Do all the frames of reference agree on the relative approach angles? If not, how are they calculated?
Different frames won't agree on all the angles, although if W and X were traveling along a straight rod at rest in frame Z, then other frames would agree that they are both traveling along a rod which is still straight in other frames (so the angle between them should still be 180 degrees in other frames). Calculating the angles would depend on the direction the other frame was moving relative to Z's rest frame, but you could do it using the Lorentz transformation above if you aligned the x-axis of Z's rest frame to be in the same direction as the motion of the second frame's spatial origin.
 
  • #8
JesseM said:
In general, if you know the position as a function of time x(t), y(t) and z(t) for a clock in one frame, you can find the position as a function of time in a different (primed) frame, i.e. x'(t'), y'(t') and z'(t') by using the Lorentz transformation equations (here written in a form which assumes the axes of the frames are aligned so that the primed frame's spatial origin is moving along the x-axis of the unprimed frame in the +x direction with speed v):
A good point, and unfortunately this particular form is mentioned too often to the detriment of the general form which is almost never referenced or used for educational reasons. In this particular topic the general form could be, although complicated, very instructive.

Any good references where the general form is written down with a couple of good exercises? I would argue that "the beef" in SR is when we get multiple boosts or rotations.
 
  • #9
Passionflower said:
A good point, and unfortunately this particular form is mentioned too often to the detriment of the general form which is almost never referenced or used for educational reasons. In this particular topic the general form could be, although complicated, very instructive.

Any good references where the general form is written down with a couple of good exercises? I would argue that "the beef" in SR is when we get multiple boosts or rotations.
The general transformation is given in matrix form in this section of the wikipedia article. I don't necessarily see why the x-axis form isn't sufficient for the question the OP is asking though.
 
  • #10
JesseM said:
The general transformation is given in matrix form in this section of the wikipedia article.
That is only the boosts right?

JesseM said:
I don't necessarily see why the x-axis form isn't sufficient for the question the OP is asking though.
Neither do I, but to make the calculations from one traveling clock to another one would obviously need a more general approach.
 
  • #11
Passionflower said:
That is only the boosts right?
Yes, only boosts, if you want to consider coordinate transforms where the spacetime origins of the different frames don't coincide you have to use the Poincaré transformation discussed in this thread.
Passionflower said:
Neither do I, but to make the calculations from one traveling clock to another one would obviously need a more general approach.
But weren't the other clocks besides the central one moving non-inertially? Did the OP say anything specifically about wanting to calculate things from the perspective of frames where the other clocks were at rest?
 
  • #12
JesseM said:
But weren't the other clocks besides the central one moving non-inertially? Did the OP say anything specifically about wanting to calculate things from the perspective of frames where the other clocks were at rest?
JesseM why are you so argumentative?

I am simply saying that if you want to calculate from the traveling clock perspectives you need a more generic transformation.

Please don't take everything so personal.
 
  • #13
Passionflower said:
JesseM why are you so argumentative?

I am simply saying that if you want to calculate from the traveling clock perspectives you need a more generic transformation.

Please don't take everything so personal.
It seems like you're the one who's taking things personally, since you're suddenly making negative comments about my personal style/motivations. I'm just questioning whether the general form of the Lorentz transformation is relevant to the OP, since I didn't see anything there that was about "calculating from the traveling clock perspective" and in any case those clocks were moving non-inertially. It's not like I'm criticizing you personally or saying it was a terrible mistake to think it was relevant, no need to make a big deal out of such a trivial disagreement.
 
  • #14
Off to do the math. I presume OP is Original Premise. Since that's overly complex, let's get back to the Simplified Premise with just 4 clocks.

One thing I'm not clear on. I think I need a time zero that is zero in multiple frames of reference, at least when calculated from clock Z's frame of reference. In the simplified premise, all three clocks are going to be at the same place (clock Z) in 5/4 seconds as read by clock Z, and some shorter time as read by each of the other clocks. In the SP, all of the clocks are moving in inertial frames of reference, so the moving clocks will all observe the shorter time elapse in clock Z.

Can I use spatial closeness to determine time zero? That is, from clock Z's frame of reference, we make time zero the point at which the clock's converge. Since this will occur in 5/4 second and each of the other clocks are proceeding at 3/5 the rate of Z's clock, we know the corresponding clock time for W, X, and Y relative to Z (and Z relative to W, X, and Y) but nothing about the W, X, and Y clocks relative to each other.

But they are all calculable from the equations above, as is the approach angle of Y. The basic assumption is that clocks that are very close to each other can instantaneously on their position in space and time. The secondary assumption is that I can correlate positions in instantaneous position in space and time in one frame of reference to those in multiple secondary frame of reference, and thereby correlate any desired frames of reference with each other. The key is that any measurement must be at the same point in space.

Checkpoint one: From Z's frame of reference, at time -5/4, clocks W, X, and Y are one light second away from Z moving toward Z at 4/5 C. At time zero, W, X, Y and Z will be nearly at the same point in space and each of their clocks will read zero. This will also be the common point zero in space. From Z's frame of reference, clocks W, X and Y read 3/5 of -5/4, or -3/4. However, clocks W, X, and Y each measure their distance to Z as 3/5 of a light second. Since they are moving at 4/5C, they will reach Z in 3/4 second, at time zero. All this is as measured in frame Z. Correct so far?
 
  • #15
Diffused said:
Can I use spatial closeness to determine time zero? That is, from clock Z's frame of reference, we make time zero the point at which the clock's converge.
Yes, the equations of the Lorentz transformation demand that all frames have their spatial origins (x=0, y=0, z=0) at the same position at a time-coordinate of 0, meaning the event (x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0) in one frame is the same as the event (x'=0, y'=0, z'=0, t'=0) in another frame. There is a more general transformation called the "Poincare transformation" that doesn't have this requirement, but to keep things simpler you will probably want to stick to the Lorentz transformation.
Diffused said:
But they are all calculable from the equations above, as is the approach angle of Y. The basic assumption is that clocks that are very close to each other can instantaneously on their position in space and time.
Not sure what you mean by this. They will both agree they are very close to each other, but unless they are both at a position-coordinate of 0 and a time-coordinate of 0, they will in general disagree about the position and time coordinates assigned to the event of their being next to each other. That's the whole point of the Lorentz transformation, that it relates the coordinates on frame assigns to a given physical event (like the event of two clocks passing next to each other) to the coordinates a different frame assigns to the same physical event. You might take a look at the illustrations and diagrams I gave in this thread, showing how each frame can be imagined to assign coordinates to events using local measurements on a set of rulers and synchronized clocks. For example, see this image:

MatchingClocks.gif


The circled event shows two clocks passing right next to each other, and both frame A above and frame B below agree on the time each clock showed at the moment they passed next to each other. However, frame A assigns coordinates x=346.2 meters, t=1 microseconds to the moment these clocks passed, while frame B assigns coordinates x'=173.1 meters, t'=0 microseconds to the moment they passed.
Diffused said:
Checkpoint one: From Z's frame of reference, at time -5/4, clocks W, X, and Y are one light second away from Z moving toward Z at 4/5 C. At time zero, W, X, Y and Z will be nearly at the same point in space and each of their clocks will read zero. This will also be the common point zero in space. From Z's frame of reference, clocks W, X and Y read 3/5 of -5/4, or -3/4. However, clocks W, X, and Y each measure their distance to Z as 3/5 of a light second. Since they are moving at 4/5C, they will reach Z in 3/4 second, at time zero. All this is as measured in frame Z. Correct so far?
Agree with all of your numbers, but it's not quite right to say "all this is as measured in frame Z", since the sentences in bold refer to how things look in rest frames of the other clocks.

Now, suppose we assume the W clock is moving along the x-axis of frame Z in the +x direction, and the x,y,z,t coordinates of frame Z are related to the x',y',z',t' coordinates of the W rest frame by the simple form of the Lorentz transformation:

x' = gamma*(x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = gamma*(t - vx/c^2)
with gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Then in this example, v=0.8 and gamma=1/0.6. So if in the Z frame, W is at position x=-1 light seconds at t=-1.25, and the W clock reads -3/4 = -0.75 at this time, then the transformation shows that the coordinates of this event in the W frame are:

x' = (1/0.6)*(-1 + 0.8*1.25) = (1/0.6)*(-1 + 1) = 0
t' = (1/0.6)*(-1.25 + 0.8*1) = -0.45/0.6 = -0.75

So, you can see that in W's frame, W reads -0.75 at t'=-0.75 as you'd expect.
 

What is the multiple clock thought experiment?

The multiple clock thought experiment is a hypothetical scenario used to explore the concept of time dilation in special relativity. It involves placing two clocks at different points in space, with one clock moving at a high velocity relative to the other. The experiment demonstrates how time can appear to pass at different rates for observers in different frames of reference.

Why is the multiple clock thought experiment important?

The multiple clock thought experiment is important because it helps us understand the fundamental principles of special relativity, which is a critical aspect of modern physics. It also has practical applications in fields such as space travel and GPS technology.

How does the multiple clock thought experiment relate to time dilation?

The multiple clock thought experiment is based on the principle of time dilation, which states that time appears to pass at different rates for observers in different frames of reference. In the experiment, the moving clock appears to run slower than the stationary clock, demonstrating the effect of time dilation.

What are some real-world examples of the multiple clock thought experiment?

One real-world example of the multiple clock thought experiment is the use of atomic clocks in GPS satellites. The satellites are moving at high speeds relative to Earth, causing time dilation to occur. This must be accounted for in order for GPS technology to accurately calculate location and time.

Are there any limitations to the multiple clock thought experiment?

The multiple clock thought experiment is a simplified scenario and does not take into account factors such as gravitational time dilation or the effects of acceleration. It is also not possible to physically place two clocks at different points in space to directly observe this phenomenon. However, the principles demonstrated in the experiment have been confirmed through numerous experiments and observations in the real world.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
651
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
923
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
88
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
115
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
433
Back
Top