Time dilation ll

DaleSpam

You are quite welcome, but you should be aware that I am open-minded on the subject of the meaning of the word "physical". I am willing to take either position for the sake of communication. Also, I suspect (again just guessing) that Einstein's opinion changed after Minkowski.

However, since your opinion appears to be firm that frame-dependent quantities can be considered "physical", then it should come as no surprise that clock A can "physically" tick over at a slower rate than clock B in one frame whilst clock B can "physically" tick over at a slower rate than clock A in another frame describing the exact same situation. The same thing happens with all other frame-variant "physical" quantities like energy, momentum, speed, etc. (e.g. clock A can "physically" have more speed than clock B in one frame and vice versa in another frame).

jtbell

So, does this thread basically boil down to a disagreement over the meanings of words like "physical" and "reality"? If so, then this properly belongs in the philosophy forum, IMO.

neopolitan

I think cos is moving towards something like this:

"if the slowing down of clocks is supposed to real or physical, then something is amiss, and if results (like the twin paradox) suggest that only one clock ran slow, then the mathematics should be suspected, rather than the reality or physical results"

cos,

I am not saying categorically that that is your contention, it is merely what I think you are saying.

However, I should point out that you have to take into account everything in a situation like the twin's paradox. Specifically, you need to consider simultaneity (I say this even though this is not my favoured approach). Both twins will calculate that the other twin's clock ran slow during the inertial phases. What the twins will not agree on is how long those inertial phases lasted.

So the results will be (time on a slow clock running for a longer time) and (time on a slow clock running for a shorter time). The change in direction was an event that was colocal with the acelerated twin, but not colocal with the twin who was inertial throughout, which means that - taking into account simultaneity - the stationary twin will calculate that the travelling twin turned around later than travelling twin calculated. This is totally in agreement with the fact that the travelling twin's clock ran slow compared to the stationary twin.

So if you like, both clocks really ran slow, the travelling twin really turned around later than was said on his clock and at the end of the journey one clock will really show more time elapsed than shown on the other - and both clocks are showing the real time elapsed for that clock.

cheers,

neopolitan

cos

It is relevant to the discussion inthat, in the discussion you made what I considered to be snide and belittling comments which were themselves not relevant to the discussion.

It is my understanding that Hubble argued that the greater redshift of the more distant galaxies was not an indication that the universe is expanding thus he would not have accepted the veracity of Einstein's calculations that it is!

Einstein's maths indicated the amount by which, in his opinion, clock A lags behind B and, as Einstein pointed out, because A lags behind B it must have 'gone more slowly' (i.e. ticked over at a slower rate) than B whilst A was moving.

According to Einstein's section 4 maths, clock A is ticking over at a slower rate than clock B but according to the maths employed by the observer accompanying clock A it is B that is ticking over at a slower rate than his clock.

Having calculated that B 'is' ticking over at a slower rate than his own clock, observer A 'determines' or 'predicts' that when he arrives at B's location he will find that it lags behind his clock yet he learns that it does NOT!

HE has 'done the math' yet finds that it gave an erroneous answer. Of what value his math?

You are, I believe, confusing Einstein's depiction of a non-inertial observer with his previously depicted inertial observer.

I assume that you have read his papers and essays written after 1929 and to save time not only for myself but also for others that may be following this thread perhaps you would be so kind as to nominate just one of those papers showing that he recanted or amended his section 4 STR comments.

Albert Einstein's 1905 article 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' is said to be the foundation of modern-day physics and in that article he indicates that inertial observers that are moving relative to each other will both determine that the other person's clock will be running slower than their own however in section 4 of that same article he shows that an observer who has accelerated will not find that the other clock is ticking over at a slower rate than their own clock but at a faster rate!

DaleSpam

His math is fine and does not give an erroneous answer, you just made a mistake. Clock A is non-inertial, so the acompanying observer correctly determines that the other clock "physically" runs faster overall. In fact, all reference frames (including both inertial and non-inertial frames) will agree that clock B runs faster on average.

matheinste

Hello cos.

Probably of no consequence but in an early traslation of about 1920 part of your quoted text reads:-

-----From this, we conclude that a clock placed at the equator must be slower by a very small amount than a similarly constructed clock which is placed at the pole, all other conditions being identical.-----

The words "be slower" are used rather than "gone more slowly". The words "balance clock" do not appear. This may of course be due to the transators M.N. Saha and S.N. Bose.

I am not drawing any conclusions from this, it is just a point of interest.

Mateinste

cos

On the assumption that "..the accompanying observer correctly determines that the other clock "physically" runs faster overall." and on the assumption that he is an enquiring scientist is it not possible that he might ask himself what force has made clock B PHYSICALLY run faster than it did before he started moving?

He is an astronaut returning to the planet following turn-around; he 'sees' Earth clocks ticking over at a faster rate than they did before he started accelerating hence he 'sees' shorter Earth seconds than he did before he started moving thus he must also 'see' Earth minutes, hours and days to also 'be' ticking over at a faster rate than they were before he started moving ergo he 'sees' the Earth spinning on its axis and orbiting the sun at a considerably faster rate than it did before he started moving.

Is he not likely to ask himself what physical force has made the planet spin faster on its axis and orbit the sun at a much faster rate than it did before he started his return journey?

Although he 'determines' that the Earth clock 'is' running faster than it did before he started moving and that the planet 'is' spinning faster on its axis than they did before he started accelerating is he not likely to realize that this is nothing more than a (mathematically generated) illusion created by his non-inertial motion?

In section 4 STR Einstein pointed out, in effect, that clock A, having moved to clock B's location will lag behind clock B due to the fact that clock A 'goes more slowly' (i.e. ticks over at a slower rate) than clock B not that clock B would leap ahead of clock A thus that clock B would incur time contraction which I believe was for Einstein an anathema.

You wrote "... all reference frames (including both inertial and non-inertial frames) will agree that clock B runs faster on average." and i agree with that comment; clock B does 'run faster' than A due to the fact that, as Einstein pointed out, clock A runs slower than B however for them to be of the opinion that clock B runs faster than it did before A started moving is erroneous - according to Einstein's section 4 STR.

According to Einstein - clock A ticks over at a slower rate than it did before it started moving NOT that B starts ticking over at a faster rate. Clock A accelerates and it is, according to Einstein, this factor that physically causes it to tick over at the slower rate. There is no force, no action on it's behalf which causes clock B to physically tick over at a faster rate than it did before A started moving.

cos

It is not simply a disagreement over the words "physical" and "reality" but a disagreement over those words as they apply to Einsteins section 4 STR depictions.

cos

My reference was specifically in relation to Einstein's 1905 paper not any other translation.

In section 4 he wrote -

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

neopolitan

cos,

I assume that you are refering to the section titled "Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks" since that section ends with:

Shortly before, in that same section:

Now it should be remembered that this is Einstein. If I wrote something similar on this forum, I would probably be appropriatedly chastised for an inaccuracy - perhaps not for being incorrect, but for not clearly stating something.

The time t is the time occupied in the journey from A to B, in the frame of the clock which remains stationary. According to the stationary clock, the clock which was moved travelled a distance of x = v.t.

I'd say that the time t' on the moving clock at the end of that journey would be:

[tex]\gamma ( t - x.v / c^{2} ) = \gamma ( t - t.v^{2} / c^{2} ) = \gamma t (1 - v^{2} / c^{2} ) = t / \gamma [/tex]

The difference is therefore [tex]\Delta = t - t' = t ( 1 - 1 / \gamma) \approx 1/2t . v^{2} / c^{2} [/tex].

When that moving clock stops, there are a number of ticks from the "stationary" clock still travelling to catch up, x/(c-v) = vt/(c-v) worth. Those ticks in transit will, when added to the ticks already received, show that the more time has elapsed has elapsed on the stationary clock, even though that time elapsed at a slower rate.

So Einstein's answer, while possibly not immediately intuitive, is not erroneous.

cheers,

neopolitan

neopolitan

I have to admit that I laughed out aloud at this.

Einstein's paper was written in German. The original text can be seen here.

The 1920 translation is of the same paper. A translation today (using more modern language) would be a translation of the same paper.

cheers,

neopolitan

DaleSpam

Certainly. And the answer would be the fictitious forces present in his non-inertial frame.

I don't mind how you use the word "physical", but you need to be self-consistent. You cannot claim that frame-variant quantities, like the rate of a clock, are "physical" and then exclude the frame-variant fictitious forces from being "physical" also. In a non-inertial reference frame fictitious forces can do work, can have potential energy, can cause mechanical stress and strain, and have many other measurable effects.

Yes, that is why they are called fictitious forces. That is also why he is not likely to try to do the analysis in his non-inertial rest frame, but is more likely to do the analysis in some inertial frame.

Your explanation is correct only in the inertial reference frame where B is at rest. In other reference frames there will be other explanations. But all reference frames will agree on the conclusion.

cos

On the basis that this precisely the comment to which I refer I fail to see how you could possibly be of the opinion that I may not have been '...referring to the section titled "Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks."'

It would be very much appreciated if we could adhere to relevant matters.

You may not have noticed but Einstein's comments have been criticized in this forum! Einstein has, somewhat belatedly, been chastised!

And according to the traveler the distance he travels is less than the distance from A to B as measured by the stationary observer.

What on Earth does "...there are a number of ticks from the 'stationary' clock still travelling to catch up." mean?

When the moving clock stops, A and B could press switches whereupon both clocks stop ticking so any 'ticks in transit' would be out of luck. Their time will have expired and they can no affect on the times registered by clocks A and B.

So Einstein's answer, while possibly not immediately intuitive, is not erroneous.

I made no suggestion whatsoever that Einstein's answer is erroneous!

cos

My references are to reality and I am of the opinion that fictitious forces do not come under that category.

So if something cannot be logically identified or physically determined it comes under the heading of a 'fictitious force'? It was a fictitious force that many years ago exchanged my tooth for a dime.

The concept of a 'fictitious force' is in my opinion a desperate grasping at straws analogous to the 'parallel universes' escape-clause, suitably impossible-to-disprove, concept.

People who believe in God are criticized by others for their faith in a 'fictitious force' yet apparently some people are apparently of the opinion that a non-material 'force' can result in an equal and opposite reaction provided the results supply the solution they seek.

Einstein indicated that clock A will lag behind B due to the fact that, whilst it is moving, clock A 'goes more slowly' (ticks over at a slower rate) than clock B.

It has been pointed out in relation to my previous thread in this forum that there could be third observer, C, relative to whom A and B were initially moving at v. When A accelerates he, from C's point of view, decelerates and comes to a stop in C's reference frame (thus ticks over at the same rate as C's clock) whereas B keeps moving relative to C at v thus from C's point of view clock B is ticking over at a slower rate than his own clock ergo also at a slower rate than clock A so when A 'accelerates' back to B's location (in B's reference frame, decelerates and comes to a stop alongside B) it is, in C's opinion, clock B that will lag behind A.

C moves to B's location and comes to a stop alongside A and B and finds, much to his consternation, that B does not lag behind A as indicated by his 'calculations' or 'determinations' or 'predictions' but that A lags behind B!

neopolitan

????

When the clocks are not colocated it takes time for the information from one clock to reach the other. The information travels at the speed of light. If the moving clock "looked" back at the stationary clock (as per Einstein's scenario), just before stopping, it would see only the time on the stationary clock that happened, in the moving clock's frame, x'/c ago (where x' is the separation that the moving clock thinks that it has from the stationary clock based on the travelling time). There will be more information still in transit.

Given that we can't agree as to whether you are saying Einstein's maths was erroneous or not, or that what he said matches with his maths, I don't feel this is going anywhere.

If you have a go at the maths, you will see that it matches the "reality" of what Einstein said (at least wrt to the 1905 paper). Until you do that, I really think I have to agree with Jtbell, at least in part, this is not a physics discussion. I just don't think it qualifies as philosophy either.

cheers,

neopolitan

Ich

Then why don't you help C with his predictions? Let the movement be sinusoidal, and let the "clock rate" be adjusted by -1/2 v². Sometimes a decent calculation saves many lines of philosophical debate.

Al68

No, that's not why they're no longer in synch.No. The ship's twin knows 2 things during the outbound inertial part of the trip:
1. Earth's clock runs slower than the ship's clock in the ship's frame.
2. The ship's clock runs slower than earth's clock in earth's frame.

When he stops at the turnaround, the ship's twin doesn't "find" that his clock ran slower than earth's clock, he knew all along that the ship's clock ran slower than earth's clock in earth's frame.The relative ticking rate of clocks is frame-dependent, not absolute. Nothing changed with earth's clock during the turnaround, the relative speed of the ship changed. Earth's clock didn't change its ticking rate, we changed which frame we're referring to, and the ticking rate of a clock is frame dependent.

It seems that you're ignoring Einstein's most important contribution to modern physics, that the rate that any clock runs is dependent on the relative speed of the observer. That means that if someone changes his speed relative to a given clock, the rate of that clock will be different. Not because the clock changed, but because the reference frame of the observer changed.