Confused about time dilation. (Just got introduced to relativity))by PrincePhoenix Tags: confused, dilation, introduced, relativity, time 

#1
Dec1911, 10:29 AM

P: 111

I just got my first official introduction to relativity in my textbook (I'm equivalent to a high school senior student). It is part of a chapter on modern physics.It first mentions the two basic postulates and then briefly introduces what length contraction, time dilation, increase in mass, energy mass equivalence (all with an equation each) and speed of light as a limit are.
I am a little confused with time dilation. According to the textbook, the clock at rest in a reference frame appears to tick slower to an observer moving with respect to that frame of reference.The time interval they measure is t' = t/√(1v^{2}/c^{2}) , where t is the time interval as measured at rest in the frame of reference of the clock. 1)To me it seems that this means that the moving observer will measure a longer time interval, meaning the time in the reference frame of the clock has slowed down from his point of view. But that's exactly opposite to what I've read about the decay of pions where time seems to slow down for the fast moving particle as viewed by an observer in the lab's frame of reference. 2) Also in the topic just before relativity, the textbook mentions that motion and rest are relative. So to an observer at rest in the reference frame with the clock, the other observer (moving w.r.t the frame with the clock) seems to be moving. But then to the moving observer (in his own reference frame) this clock and its frame of reference seems to be moving. Shouldn't each observer see the other's clock ticking slower? What would that mean??? 



#2
Dec1911, 11:03 AM

P: 2,475

1) the moving observer measures a second as a second, the stationary observer measures a second as a second too. The stationary observer looking at the moving observer's clock says it is moving slower so that to his mind time has dilated / slowed down for the moving observer.
How did they determine a second transpired? By watching a light beam travel from the floor to ceiling and back again. The moving observer sees it go up and come down, one second. The stationary observer uses the same method with a light clock in his frame. Both observers agree that the speed of light is the same. Hence the stationary observer concludes that it took longer for the light on the moving observer's train to bounce up and down because it had to travel a greater distance due to the forward motion of the train. Hence the stationary observer concludes that time is slower for the moving observer. (By similar reasoning, the moving observer says No! time has slowed for the stationary observer because to the moving observer the stationary dude is the real moving dude). Back to the pion, it lasts for a short amount of time but if it is traveling at near light speed then to us it is aging more slowly and thus hangs around for a longer period of time. (The pion is the moving observer). I guess if I were pion, (yada dadada dadadada... fiddler on the roof...) then I would see the world as slowing down but that's another story. Your question is similar to the twin paradox. Which twin ages more? the moving one or the stationary one. SR is ambiguous on it as both twins say the other is aging more slowly. Once the moving twin (moving relative to the universe of stars) slows down and stops then you see it is he (or she) that has aged more slowly ie is younger. Acceleration and deceleration were covered by Gen Rel not SR. 



#3
Dec1911, 11:08 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,521

Are you sure the textbook says, "the clock at rest in a reference frame appears to tick slower to an observer moving with respect to that frame of reference"? Although this is true, it's also true the other way around and usually the equation you stated is for the other way around. In other words, t is for time in a reference frame and t' is for time in a second reference frame moving with respect to the first one.
Here's how I would explain it: pick a reference frame. Any clock at rest in that reference frame ticks normally. Any clock moving in the reference frame ticks slower according to the equation you quoted. You have to be careful when you talk about time intervals between two clocks moving with respect to each other because they are at different locations between the beginning and ending of the interval and relativity of simultaneity comes into play. The proper way to deal with such things is to use the Lorentz transform but that's probably beyond your interest right now. 



#4
Dec1911, 11:20 AM

P: 89

Confused about time dilation. (Just got introduced to relativity))
The time dilation happens due to the relative speed of the two observers in relation to each other, and can only be detected as such. What this means is that none of the two observers will notice anything special if and when they move; it is only when, after having moved at some speed close to the speed of light relative to each other, you put them both to rest and compare their clocks that they will notice a difference in the time readings. Remember  there is no absolut frame of reference, the relative speed between the two clocks is all that counts.




#5
Dec1911, 11:28 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,521

First, you can't talk about "moving relative to the universe of stars" because they are all moving with respect to each other and there is no such frame we can identify as a preferred one based on the universe of stars. Second, even when one of the twins slows down and stops with respect to the other twin, SR is still ambiguous about which twin ages less. It is true that in a frame in which they are now both at rest, the one that "slowed down and stopped" is the only one that experienced time dilation and so is younger, but other frames will not agree. For example, in a frame in which the "traveling" twin was at rest, it's the other twin that is now younger because he was always moving but the "traveling" twin was at rest for a period of time making him the one that aged more. This is the reason the Twin Paradox always has the twins reunite because it is only then that all frames will agree on their age difference. Third, acceleration and deceleration of observers/objects/clocks are covered in SR, it's just that you can't use the Lorentz Transform to transform an inertial Frame of Reference to an accelerating Frame of Reference, it only works between nonaccelerating (inertial) Frames of Reference. 



#6
Dec1911, 11:46 AM

P: 111

If the first observer's clock seems slow to the second, shouldn't the second's clock seem faster to the first?




#7
Dec1911, 12:09 PM

P: 111

Thank you. 



#8
Dec1911, 12:16 PM

P: 2,475

Thats the thing about relativity, no observer is special. All observers agree that light travels at the same speed (deemed true via the Michelson/Morley experiment).
Observers using identical clocks such as the light clock. I see my clock bounce up and down and I see your clock take a longer time to bounce up and down because of your motion and conclude that you are living more slowly. Conversely, you see your clock bounce up and down but see my clock take longer and conclude the same thing. Who is right? Both of you are, until one of you decelerates and you both are now stationary to one another comparing your clocks. The one who decelerated with respect to the universe has the slower clock. SR doesn't describe acceleration or deceleration for that you need to study Gen Relativity where it says clocks in an accelerated frame of reference tick more slowly than ones in an inertial frame of reference. On the Earth we do not normally live in an inertial frame of reference, unless we are falling from a mountain, building or sky... When you fall you are weightless and so are in an inertial frame of reference. Here's a reference to the twin paradox on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox 



#9
Dec1911, 01:06 PM

P: 1,098

I'd say this happens because the observation is semetric, to the point of your text "...textbook mentions that [inertial] motion and rest are relative.". As far as observations go, who is moving the pion scenario? It is relative (motion), so both conclude the other is moving, simular to the "slower ticking", both see the others clock as ticking slower. So it's really no more a leap then the concept motion is relative, and you haven't asked how both observers can be at rest at the same time if one is moving . This issue is the same for all observations (measurements+calculations) the observers make of each other. i.e. the other length contracted, has more kenitc energy ect. If you would like to see more clearly (visually) how upon return to the "rest frame" the at near c traveller has definitively aged less check out doppler effects. For me that resolved the twin paradox absolutely. And I found it really clarifies the effect direction of motion has on this kinda "paradox". I tried to think of a better answer to "how can my clock be slow for the pion and the pion's clock slow for me at the same time?" incorporating your use of the term "at the same time". I couldn't think of one, but maybe someone here could elaborate on this; It seems to me a point of SR could be that this type of question is nonsensical because there is no "same time" that the two frames share (i.e. a proper time). Said differently it is only an observation (measurement+calculation) the others clock is ticking slower. Get them at rest with each other and it becomes diffinitive who's clock was "actually" was ticking slower. Ah I think I got it, when you say "at the same time" it implies a preffered frame, while the question explicitly says there isn't one. In that sense it's nonsensical. Your question is understandable for sure, but I think an answer should include this explination/distinction, it maybe the term "at the same time" is why it doesn't make sense to you that dilated time is relative. 



#10
Dec1911, 02:10 PM

P: 3,178

Imagine first a system at rest S with two clocks: C1  C2 An observer who is using that system, will synchronise the clocks such that according to these clocks, radio signals take the same time both ways. Now imagine a second, moving system S', also with two clocks: C1'  C2' >v Those two clocks have also been synchronised such that according to those clocks, radio signals take the same time both ways. Consequently, according to the rest observer, C1' will be advanced on C2'. Now, suppose that the systems pass each other at close distance as illustrated below. To determine the rate of a clock in relative motion, its "time" must be measured at two different positions: C1'  C2' >v C1  C2 The consequence for a moving observer in S' (from the perspective of the observer in S): First the time of C2' will be compared with for example C1, and next the time of C1' with C2. The difference of the moving clock readings will be exaggerated due to the "false" synchronisation, and be more than the advance of clock C1. Thus the moving clocks will appear to have a higher rate (according to S') thanks to the different clock synchronisation. As a matter of fact, I now see that this has been explained with a detailed calculation example here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=250340 Harald 



#11
Dec1911, 02:17 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,521





#12
Dec1911, 02:57 PM

P: 1,098

Could you let me know if I got that right ghwellsjr? 



#13
Dec1911, 06:40 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,521

Yes, that is correct.




#14
Dec2011, 05:10 AM

P: 111

So the answer to my questions is, any clock at rest in a reference frame ticks normally. Any clock moving in that reference frame ticks slower. The moving clock's observer in its reference frame will see the same for the other clock. Both observers are correct in their own reference frames. And we can only compare whether one ticked slower than the other when both are brought to rest in the same reference frame. And that is studied in General Relativity.
Did I get it right? 



#15
Dec2011, 05:30 AM

P: 3,178

*roughly correct: such expressions as "ticks slower" are absolute statements; however, the contrary is claimed by the other observer and a clock cannot tick both slower and faster than another clock. To avoid contradictions, it is common practice to write instead "appears to tick slower". However, when comparing two clocks at the same location then everyone will agree which clock is ahead. 



#16
Dec2011, 10:42 AM

P: 111

When both clocks are brought to rest in the same frame of reference, which will have ticked more?




#17
Dec2011, 11:13 AM

P: 1,098





#18
Dec2011, 11:22 AM

P: 111

Thank you. That clears it up for me. Thanks to everyone who posted here and helped me out.



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Time dilation  confused  Introductory Physics Homework  1  
Gravitational Time Dilation  Confused  Special & General Relativity  42  
Confused about time dilation  Special & General Relativity  22  
Confused by time dilation!!  Special & General Relativity  20  
Confused about time dilation  Special & General Relativity  3 