A Thought Experiment with Time Dilation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion explores a thought experiment involving time dilation as predicted by special relativity, specifically focusing on a rocket ship traveling at 0.8c relative to a surface in space. The experiment reveals that while the spaceship measures time dilation at 0.6, discrepancies arise when calculating the light beam's travel time between two detectors due to the skewed path observed at high velocity. The calculations suggest that time dilation may differ in the direction of travel compared to the transverse direction, challenging the conventional understanding of time dilation in special relativity. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the need to consider length contraction in the rocket's reference frame.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity principles
  • Familiarity with time dilation and length contraction concepts
  • Basic knowledge of reference frames in physics
  • Mathematical proficiency in using the Pythagorean theorem for relativistic calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of time dilation in special relativity
  • Learn about the Lorentz transformation equations
  • Investigate the concept of simultaneity in different reference frames
  • Explore experimental validations of special relativity predictions
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the complexities of time dilation and its implications in high-velocity scenarios.

chemiker
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
A thought experiment:

Reference frame: A surface in space with no atmosphere.
A rocket ship is approaching just above the level of the surface. Its measured velocity is a constant 0.8c (0.8 times the speed of light) relative to the surface. Special relativity predicts that time in the spaceship runs at 0.6 times that on the space surface.

The spaceship has a very small window which will face the space surface when it arrives, as well as two light detectors, one at the window and a long one 1 m away and parallel to the window. A laser beam projects a beam perpendicular to the space surface and in the path of the coming spaceship window. A very short flash of light falls on the window detector and then on the detector 1m away as the spaceship passes.

The detectors in the spaceship show the beam to take a skewed path because of the ships 0.8c motion relative to the light beam. The length of that path is observed to be (0.8^2+1^2)^1/2 = 1.28 m. Since the time dilation is 0.6 relative to the surface, the time difference at the two detectors measured by a clock in the spaceship should be: 0.6x1.28/c where c is in m/sec. This yields 2.56x10^-9 seconds. Dividing by the distance 1.28 m gives a time it took the beam to travel a meter of 2.00x10^-9, yielding a measured c of 5.0x10^8 m/sec if the time dilation were correct. Of course this is nonsense. (Note that 5.0x10^8/0.6 = 3.0x10^8 suggesting maybe there is no time dilation in the transverse direction.)

A person on the space surface, knowing that the window and screen are 1 m apart and recognizing that the very short beam will travel in a straight line calculates that the light beam takes 1/c seconds to traverse the distance between the window and screen from his reference position which is 3.33x10^-9 sec. A person in the spaceship sees the light beam traveling 1.28 m in his reference frame. Since he must, according to relativity, measure c at 3.0x10^8 m/sec he should experience a time delay between the two light signals of 1.281/3.0x10^8 or 4.27x10^9 sec. Thus the time dilation factor would be 0.781 in the transverse direction and not 0.6 as special relativity would predict for the direction of travel.

How can time be dilated differently in one direction (the direction of travel) from the transverse direction? A clock cannot distinguish directions. Perhaps someone can straighten me out, or time dilation in special relativity crumbles.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The length of that path is observed to be (0.8^2+1^2)^1/2 = 1.28 m.
No, it's (1.33^2+1^2)^1/2 = 1.67 m. The distance is 0.8 m in the surface frame, from which the rocket appears length contracted.
 
Ich said:
No, it's (1.33^2+1^2)^1/2 = 1.67 m. The distance is 0.8 m in the surface frame, from which the rocket appears length contracted.
You are right, of course. I didn't consider the fact that in the rockets reference frame distance in the direction of the surface has to expand by a factor of 1.33 if time slows by a factor of 0.6 so that both observers see the other's reference frame receeding at 0.8 c. Thanks for straightening me out.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K