Negative Clock Readings: Compatible with Relativity?

bernhard.rothenstein
Messages
991
Reaction score
1
are clocks, displaying a negatve time, compatible with special relativity?
thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bernhard.rothenstein said:
are clocks, displaying a negatve time, compatible with special relativity?
thanks

If you mean... "can a clock-reading be a negative number?",
I would say "yes, it is compatible with special relativity".
 
Bernhard, its good to see you posting again. How have you been?
bernhard.rothenstein said:
are clocks, displaying a negatve time, compatible with special relativity?
thanks

Negative numbers often represent quantities that refer to prior quantities. I.e. a negative value of height merely represents a distance from a surface which is below ground level. A negative time would merely represent a time before the event where you set your clock to read zero. So if you set you clock to read t = 0 at 1:00am then 12:30am would have a negative value of the time. This is important to understand given the nature of non-simultaneity since if the clocks are synchronized in S then the clocks in S' which are moving relative to S will not be synchronized. The Lorentz transformation of events will then give negative values of time. One must know how to interpret these values.

Best wishes

Pete
 
pmb_phy said:
Bernhard, its good to see you posting again. How have you been?


Negative numbers often represent quantities that refer to prior quantities. I.e. a negative value of height merely represents a distance from a surface which is below ground level. A negative time would merely represent a time before the event where you set your clock to read zero. So if you set you clock to read t = 0 at 1:00am then 12:30am would have a negative value of the time. This is important to understand given the nature of non-simultaneity since if the clocks are synchronized in S then the clocks in S' which are moving relative to S will not be synchronized. The Lorentz transformation of events will then give negative values of time. One must know how to interpret these values.

Best wishes

Pete
Thanks Pete
Consider please the clocks C(0) and C(x) and a source of light S(0) at rest in the I frame.
When C(0) reads t(e) S(0) emits a synchronizing light signal in the positive direction of the OX axis. It arrives at the location of clock C(x) when it reads t(E). Equation
t(E)=t(e)+x/c (1)
Does it hold for negative and positive values of t(e)? With what consequences?
 
Pete doesn't seem to be around anymore. I don't know why.
 
bernhard.rothenstein said:
Thanks Pete
Consider please the clocks C(0) and C(x) and a source of light S(0) at rest in the I frame.
When C(0) reads t(e) S(0) emits a synchronizing light signal in the positive direction of the OX axis. It arrives at the location of clock C(x) when it reads t(E). Equation
t(E)=t(e)+x/c (1)
Does it hold for negative and positive values of t(e)? With what consequences?

A negative clock reading simply indicates an event that occurred before another event that occurs when the clock reads zero.

The actual value of a clock means nothing by itself, it only makes sense when you compare it with another clock value; it is the difference between two clock values that is significant.

In the example you give, it doesn't matter if the times are negative. However, you may need to think what it means for x to be negative. The words that you used imply that is impossible, because you say the light goes in the positive OX direction.

From some of the previous threads you have posted about similar equations, it might make sense to insist that the equation is still true for negative x, but then the description of what this means would need to change: you would have to consider a signal towards S(0) for negative x, but away from S(0) for positive x. On the other hand you could modify the equation to be

t_E = t_e + \frac {|x|}{c}​

but that would have consequences on what you derive from that equation.

Or you could simply insist that x is always positive and then no problem arises.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
868
Replies
23
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
39
Views
3K
Back
Top