A problem with time dilation help?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of time dilation in the context of special relativity, specifically examining scenarios involving light beams moving in relation to an observer traveling at 99% the speed of light. Participants explore the implications of moving with and against light beams simultaneously, raising questions about the nature of time and simultaneity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that when moving at high speeds, observers will perceive their own clocks as running normally, while external observers will see their clocks running slow.
  • Others argue that the speed of light remains constant regardless of the observer's motion, leading to questions about how light behaves when one is moving at 99% the speed of light in one direction.
  • A participant questions the implications of having one light beam traveling with them and another traveling in the opposite direction simultaneously, seeking clarification on how this affects their perception of time and light speed.
  • Some participants suggest that the presence of light beams does not influence time dilation, which is determined by relative speed to an observer at rest.
  • There is a discussion about the definitions of simultaneity and the one-way speed of light, with references to how these concepts relate to the observer's frame of reference.
  • One participant expresses confusion about whether time dilation and length contraction can coexist in scenarios where light is moving in different directions relative to the observer.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are multiple competing views regarding the implications of time dilation and the behavior of light in the described scenarios. Some participants clarify concepts while others express confusion, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of time dilation and simultaneity, as well as the dependence on the observer's frame of reference. The discussion highlights the complexity of interpreting relativistic effects in different contexts.

  • #91


Your disagreement must indeed be subtle as I fail to see where you think I'm incorrect.

The only part of my post about SR is where I agree that the second postulate is indeed a postulate, do you not think the second postulate is a postulate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92


TrickyDicky said:
Your disagreement must indeed be subtle as I fail to see where you think I'm incorrect.

The only part of my post about SR is where I agree that the second postulate is indeed a postulate, do you not think the second postulate is a postulate?

Sure a postulate is a postulate. :smile:
However, you agreed that a definition is a postulate. :-p
My point was that a mere definition isn't a postulate.

A postulate may be open to falsification (as is the case with both SR's postulates); and to be precise it should relate to definitions (as is also the case with both SR's postulates). In contrast, a definition is a human choice that can't be falsified (although it can be poorly chosen).

Is that too subtle?? :rolleyes:

Cheers,
Harald
 
  • #93


harrylin said:
Sure a postulate is a postulate. :smile:
However, you agreed that a definition is a postulate. :-p
My point was that a mere definition isn't a postulate.
Nope, I agreed with the definition of postulate, which is not the same as agreeing that a definition is a postulate. Hope this is not too subtle. :-p
harrylin said:
A postulate may be open to falsification (as is the case with both SR's postulates); and to be precise it should relate to definitions (as is also the case with both SR's postulates). In contrast, a definition is a human choice that can't be falsified (although it can be poorly chosen).

Is that too subtle?? :rolleyes:
Ugh, I'd say it is, but I think I can agree with this. :smile:
 
  • #94


TrickyDicky said:
Nope, I agreed with the definition of postulate, which is not the same as agreeing that a definition is a postulate. [..]

Evidently it's still not clear to you that you called a mere definition a postulate... Thus I'll have to start it as a topic. Anyway, it should become a FAQ. :smile:

Cheers,
Harald
 
  • #95


harrylin said:
Evidently it's still not clear to you that you called a mere definition a postulate... Thus I'll have to start it as a topic. Anyway, it should become a FAQ. :smile:

Cheers,
Harald

PS: On second thought I do agree with you that the way it was formulated here does fall under the second postulate: there was another subtlety in formulation that I overlooked! :blushing:
I now reiterated this topic in the new thread by rede:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=518005&page=2

Harald
 

Similar threads

Undergrad One way speed of light
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
612
Undergrad Please explain how length contraction and time dilation result in a constant c
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
High School Reciprocal time dilation
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad Is time dilation a real effect?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Undergrad Confused about time dilation -- motion vs energy
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Undergrad A question about Relativity of Time using Time dilation experiment
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School What does symmetry of time dilation really mean?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Another Time Dilation Question
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
High School Intuition for time dilation in a cesium clock
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Undergrad Regarding centrifugal effects on the time dilation of a moving clock
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K