# Benefits of time dilation / length contraction pairing?

1. Mar 15, 2009

### neopolitan

There have been more than a few threads where there clearly is confusion about the use of time dilation and length contraction.

People initially think that:

1. in an frame which is in motion relative to themselves, time dilates and lengths contract; and
2. velocities in a frame which is in motion relative to themselves are contracted lengths divided by dilated time.

I admit that it stumped me for a long time, because of what I see as inconsistent use of primes and for me a much more useful pair of equations would have a more consistent use of primes, similar to the Lorentz transformations.

I was told during a long discussion that time dilation and length contraction are used, even though they pertain to different frames, because they have greater utility. I took that at face value, but now I wonder again.

What exactly is the greater utility of time dilation and length contraction equations which prevents the use of two contraction equations which would do away with the confusion I mentioned above?

(And by the way, introducing arguments that t in time dilation is the period between tick and tock doesn't really help, because this is more indicative of the confusion since we use clocks everyday to measure the time between events in terms of the number of ticks and tocks rather than in terms of the duration of pause between each tick and tock. Reinterpreting how we use time to make the equation work is not indicative of any greater utility.)

If it is a purely historical thing, then I would be far happier with it if that little tidbit were taught at the same time as the equations are introduced. But it isn't.

There is also the potential argument that they are only useful right at the beginning of one's odyssey into relativity, so it doesn't really matter. Sure, ok, then it doesn't matter if you use a more intuitive pairing does it?

Bottom line: what is so great with time dilation?

cheers,

neopolitan

2. Mar 15, 2009

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Would it surprise you to learn that these "time dilation" and "length contraction" are merely consequences of the Lorentz transformation coupled with Einstein's SR postulates?

So do you really have a problem with the fundamental theory, or do you simply have a problem with the consequences of the theory? If you do not have a problem with the fundamental theory (because you didn't even mention it), then where in the logical derivation of the consequences did we lose you and they become "inconsistent"? For example, start with a standard derivation of time dilation as presented in standard physics textbooks. Point out exactly where such a thing becomes logically inconsistent.

What is so "great" about time dilation? It explains a whole bunch of empirical observations. What more can you ask for?

Zz.

3. Mar 15, 2009

### JesseM

They are consistent. Unprimed is used in these equations to represent times and lengths in the frame where the ruler/clock is at rest; primed is used to represent the corresponding times and lengths in the frame where the ruler/clock is moving. Can you specify what alternative you're proposing?

4. Mar 15, 2009

### Saw

I would put it the other way round, ZapperZ. I've looked at the transversal light clock example and the longitudinal light clock example by themselves and wondered how one can derive from those examples the consequence that there is RECIPROCAL TD and LC , if you consider those derivations isolatedly.

A different thing is that, if you consider jointly RECIPROCAL TD, LC and RS, the whole system of SR really seems to make sense. Thus the "standard derivation of time dilation as presented in standard physics textbooks" may have a limited use as a way to derive the quantitative aspect of those elements, which however only make sense (as a RECIPROCAL measurement) when they are put together and integrated in a "global system", which by the way does not contemplate any duality of opinions about reality, but, on the contrary, full agreement on what has really happened.

But maybe I am imagining something you are not saying. In your view, the "standard derivation of time dilation as presented in standard physics textbooks" (for instance, the light clock example)..., does it logically prove that there is RECIPROCAL time dilation?

Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
5. Mar 15, 2009

### neopolitan

No, if L=x' and L'=x (or perhaps $$L = \Delta x'$$ and $$L' = \Delta x$$).

Is that what you are saying?

But then where is the consistency of prime notation that JesseM claims in his post?

I do understand that, with the awkward interpretation, time dilation does explain a lot of empirical observations. No problems there. But so would a time equation in the same form as the length equation, and it would not lead to the problem with people thinking "speed of light in another inertial frame is contracted length divided by dilated time ... hang on, that's not invariant!" Then they visit here and have someone metaphorically yelling at them "you are mixing frames!" without actually explaining why you can't use time dilation and length contraction that way.

I know you can't, I just want to know what advantages exist with having time dilation and length contraction expressed the way they are?

Jesse, I can't believe you say the frames are all consistent. We went over it for days, in emails with diagrams. How about I post your very own diagram here to help clarify?

cheers,

neopolitan

#### Attached Files:

• ###### lengthcontractionandtimedil.jpg
File size:
52 KB
Views:
220
6. Mar 15, 2009

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Er.. come again?

There are two aspects to this. One is the logical derivation, i.e. mathematical derivation, based on SR's postulates. It has to based on that because there's nothing mathematically that can derive c being a constant in all frames.

The second is the experimental verification. A logical derivation of anything in physics is no guarantee that it is valid. It is the experimental observation consistent with such result that elevates its validity. It somehow appears as if you want to start from the tail end of it to justify itself, which is fine if you are trying to formulate a new theory. But considering that SR is such a well-established theory with solid foundation, and every one of the consequences can be derived from such foundation, it would be logical to start from there. And that's where I do not get the OP. Is there a problem with the foundation in the first place or is he/she only do not get the consequences? I don't think that is such an unreasonable query.

Zz.

7. Mar 15, 2009

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
I don't see it.

Forget SR/Lorentz transformation. Start with Galilean transformation. Do you have a problem with that as well? Write down the velocity and displacement of a moving object in two different inertial frames via Galilean transformation. My guess is that you have a problem with that as well, because fundamentally, none of what you wrote above really has anything to do with SR.

At what point do you acknowledge about the empirical verification of these things?

Zz.

8. Mar 15, 2009

### Mentz114

Hard to believe. Can't you see that this is an irrelevance. How else could you express time dilation except as an increase the gap between ticks ? Counting ticks still means you have to multiply the number of ticks by the time between ticks.

When you talk about primes, are you making a point about notation ? You could use some other way to distiguish two frames, but it wouldn't make any difference !

9. Mar 15, 2009

### JesseM

Yes, and never did you offer any convincing argument that there was something "inconsistent" about the standard definitions. My diagram shows that they are consistent, given the usual definition of "length" and "time interval"--the "spatial analogue of time dilation" and the "temporal analogue of of length contraction" in the diagram don't refer to any commonly-used or intuitive physical quantities (the 'spatial analogue of time dilation' refers to the distance in the primed frame between two events that are simultaneous in the unprimed frame; the 'temporal analogue of length contraction' is even weirder, it refers to the time in the primed frame between two surfaces of simultaneity that cross through the events in the unprimed frame).

10. Mar 15, 2009

### neopolitan

Yes, I know that is what time dilation is (and must be to keep everything right).

What is difficult for people new to SR, the very ones who are being taught time dilation, is that the equation involving t, ostensibly the same t which they may well be used to in Gallilean boosts (x'=x-vt) and the kinetics equations (v = (si-so)/t and so on), is using a quite different definition of t.

Jesse mentions "time interval", which is fine, I just wonder why we don't use a different symbol for time dilation ($$\tau$$ perhaps) to highlight the difference between "time interval" - time between ticks - and "(measured) time elapsed" - number of ticks.

But none of this answers the original question, what are the benefits of having time dilation and length contraction rather than a pair of equations which would not lead to the continual confusion I alluded to in an earlier post?

(It seems the only responses so far are "you can't do it any other way" and "you are confused". Is there really no other way?)

cheers,

neopolitan

11. Mar 15, 2009

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
This complain has nothing to do with SR. Look at your kinematics problem. You use the SAME thing there! This simply re-enforces my earlier assertion that this isn't about "time dilation" at all. You are simply confused on what we call 'time' in any dynamical system.

Zz.

12. Mar 15, 2009

### Mentz114

Neopolitan,
There are four equations, one for time each dimension. It's hard to see what you mean.
I don't think most people are 'continually confused'.

13. Mar 15, 2009

### neopolitan

Ok, I accept that I may be confused. Let's look at kinematics first.

Say I do a simple experiment with a small car designed to move at a set speed (I don't what that speed is). I run it past two posts (so and si) and measure the time.

To work out the speed, I use the equation I mentioned before.

How do I work out the time t?

This is my suggestion. I have a stop watch, I start it when the car passes the first post and I stop it when it passes the second post. The value on the watch is then t, which shows me the result in "ticks" each of which will probably be 1ms or 10ms long.

Therefore, t= (number of ticks on my stopwatch).

Not (time between each tick on my stopwatch).

Then I notice there was a separation between me and post si and cleverly work out that that means that I don't get to see the car pass the post instantaneously, that there are now simultaneity issues, and therefore I shouldn't really be using gallilean equations, but rather lorentz based ones.

How do I work out the speed now?

I can use the value on my stopwatch, plus the knowledge that the information about the car passing si travelled to me at c (approximately, because I am not in a vaccuum).

Still, my value of t is in terms of ticks of my stopwatch, t = (number of ticks of my stopwatch before I receive information about the car passing si minus the number of ticks of my stopwatch which elapsed while that information was in transit).

Then, I decide to get more tricky. Because I have been told that for things in motion relative to me time dilates, I want to see some empirical evidence for it.

I put a video camera on post si and a stopwatch on the car along with a mechanism which starts both my stopwatch and the stopwatch on the car as the car passes post so. I call the car "Prime". I call myself "Unprime". I call the result I calculate from my stopwatch t and the result captured on the video camera as the car passes t'.

I think that the result of my empirical experiment will be that time does not dilate, but rather contracts, since the car's t' will be less than my t.

I can get around that by changing the definition of time in my dynamical system. I don't think that is such a fabulous idea, but I could do it.

Am I simply confused here?

cheers,

neopolitan

14. Mar 15, 2009

### JesseM

What would be the pair of equations you're proposing, that wouldn't involve quantities which are far more unintuitive to students than "length" and "time interval", and which wouldn't be much more difficult to actually apply to the types of introductory problems found in textbooks? Please write them down.

15. Mar 15, 2009

### JesseM

Is the watch riding in the car or at rest relative to the posts on the ground? If at rest on the ground, then it must be far from at least one of the posts when the car passes it...how do you ensure that the watch is stopped "when" it passes the post it's not next to? Let's say the watch is next to the first post, so you start it when the car passes...do you stop it when you see the light from the car passing the second post, or do you prearrange things so that it will stop simultaneously with the event of the car passing the second post, relative to the rest frame of the watch and posts? If the latter, then this isn't a novel suggestion, it's the time interval that's always used when calculating speed=distance/time.
The time in speed=distance/time is always the number of ticks on your stopwatch, not "time between each tick on your stopwatch". We'd only be interested in the "time between each tick on your stopwatch" if we knew the number of ticks in the watch's frame and then wanted to figure out the time for the watch to elapse this number of ticks in a different frame where the watch was in motion.
Yes, then in this case you are really calculating the time on your watch between the car passing the first post and the time on your watch that is simultaneous with the car passing the second post in the watch's frame...as I said this is the time interval you'd always want to use when calculating speed=distance/time for the car in the ground frame.
But that's just because you have "primed" and "unprimed" backwards from the normal convention. The usual convention is that the unprimed t represents the time interval between two events on the worldline of a clock as measured in the clock's rest frame (so both events happen at the same spatial location in the unprimed frame, and t will be equal to the time interval as measured by the clock itself), whereas the primed t' represents the time interval between the same two events in a frame where the clock is moving (so the events happen at different locations in the primed frame). This is consistent with the convention for length contraction, where the unprimed L represents the distance between two ends of an object in the object's own rest frame, and the primed L' represents the distance between the ends of the same object in the frame where the object is in moving.

16. Mar 15, 2009

### neopolitan

$$t'=\gamma t$$

$$L_{x}'=L_{x} / \gamma$$

$$L_{y}'=L_{y} / \gamma$$

$$L_{z}'=L_{z} / \gamma$$

Then you are confused. I don't think you mean that though.

$$t'=\gamma t$$

$$L'=L / \gamma$$

$$t'=\gamma (t-x.\frac{v}{c^{2}}$$

$$x'=\gamma (x-vt)$$

then fair enough.

The pair I am talking about is:

$$t'=\gamma t$$

$$L'=L / \gamma$$

And the (to me more intuitive) pair is:

$$\Delta t'=\Delta t / \gamma$$

$$\Delta x'=\Delta x / \gamma$$

With the explanation that lengths contract in a frame in motion (no different to existing situation) and that clocks slow down in a frame in motion. If you like, you could then talk about how this is equivalent to time intervals dilating, with each tick taking longer in a frame in motion.

Then, when people like chrisc come along (and myself, many moons ago), they won't get into trouble for doing the obvious calculation $$x' / t'$$ and ending up with $$v / \gamma^{2}$$ or worse ... $$c / \gamma^{2}$$.

Hopefully this also answers Jesse's question.

17. Mar 15, 2009

### neopolitan

I know this is the convention. What is the benefit of that convention?

Note that I clearly specified thing so that I would have one primed frame (that of the car) and one unprimed frame (mine) and values from the primed frame would be primed and values from the unprimed frame would be unprimed. Is that not consistent?

The convention is to not really talk about a single frame, but to have a length for which both ends are simultaneous and clock for which ticks are colocated.

The thing that got me thinking about this most recently is chrisc's concern which I think was about light clocks (whether his issue was or was not about light clocks is immaterial either way).

Consider a single light clock. This has both a length (between a tick mirror and a tock mirror) $$\Delta x$$ and consecutive ticks $$\Delta t$$. Lie it down on a carriage of some sort so that the vector $$\Delta x$$ is parallel with the direction of the carriage's potential motion.

The only speed the carriage can have for which the conditions behind time dilation and length contraction can be simultaneously applied to the dimensions of the light clock (I'm only talking little 's' version of simultaneous here, not the strict definition) is zero. Only when the carriage is at rest (relative to are observer) are the ends of the light clock simultaneous (relative to the observer) and consecutive ticks are colocal (relative to the observer).

You can only apply time dilation and length contraction to the light clock in a non-trivial way by mixing frames. And if you try to use those, to work out the speed of the photon in the light clock, you end up with a non-sensical result - because of the frame mixing.

I can see that it is useful to be able to work out the amount by which you would need to slow down a clock which is at rest relative to you to match a clock which is in motion relative to you. But I still don't see the huge benefit associated with the pairing of time dilation and length contraction.

Is it mere orthodoxy? Is it historical? Or is there a real concrete advantage?

cheers,

neopolitan

18. Mar 15, 2009

### JesseM

That it would be awfully confusing if primed referred to the rest frame of the clock while unprimed referred to the frame where the ruler was moving, or vice versa.
Consistent with what? I thought we were talking about consistency between notation in the length contraction and time dilation equations, I don't know what it would even mean to ask if the time dilation equation alone is "consistent". You're certainly free to refer to the frame of the clock as the primed frame if you like, but then to be consistent you should also use primed to refer to the rest frame of the object whose length you're talking about in the length contraction equation.
I don't know what you mean by "frame mixing"--don't the time dilation and length contraction equations by definition involve two different frames, one labeled primed and one labeled unprimed? But it's still consistent in the sense that if you use unprimed to refer to the distance between the two mirrors in the clock's rest frame, then unprimed also refers to the time interval between the light going from one mirror to another in the clock's rest frame, and then you can use the time dilation and length contraction equations to get the distance between mirrors and the time between ticks in the frame where the light clock is moving.
I don't understand, the time dilation equation doesn't say anything about slowing down a clock at rest relative to you, it tells you how much time t' will have elapsed in your frame (i.e. how much time elapses on normal unslowed clocks at rest relative to you) when a moving clock ticks forward by some amount t.
Length contraction and time dilation are both just useful for solving basic problems without using the full Lorentz transformation (for example, if a ship is traveling to a location 12 light year away in the Earth's frame at 0.6c relative to the Earth and you want to know what the ship's clock will read when it gets there, you can figure it out either using the time t' it takes in the Earth's frame and then applying the time dilation equation, or using the distance L' between Earth and the destination in the ship's frame, and then use time = distance/speed in that frame). And if you want to write these equations next to each other, it would be confusing if you didn't use the same convention for which notation you use for the rest frame of the clock/ruler you're talking about.

19. Mar 16, 2009

### neopolitan

So, cutting and pasting your words to avoid mistakes:

using "unprimed to refer to the distance between the two mirrors in the clock's rest frame" (L) and noting that "unprimed also refers to the time interval between the light going from one mirror to another in the clock's rest frame" (t) and keeping in mind that this is a light clock where we are using a photon, then c = L / t.

Using your logic, you use the length contraction equation to get "the distance between mirrors" and time dilation to get "the time between ticks in the frame". How far does the photon get in how much time? That would be the speed of light: c = L' / t' = c/$$\gamma^2$$ ?

cheers,

neopolitan

20. Mar 16, 2009

### JesseM

No, because in the primed frame where the light clock is moving, the distance the light travels to get from the left mirror to the right mirror is not equal to the distance between the left and right mirror at a single instant, since both mirrors are moving in this frame. If the whole structure is going from left to right at speed v, and the light is moving at speed c in both directions, then as the light goes from left to right, the distance between the light pulse and the right mirror is shrinking at a "closing speed" of (c - v), while as the light goes from right to left, the distance between the light pulse and the left mirror is shrinking at a closing speed of (c + v). So, the time in this frame for the light to go from left mirror to right and back to left is L'/(c-v) + L'/(c+v) = 2cL'/(c^2 - v^2). So if t' is the time for the light to go from left to right and back in the frame where the light clock is moving, then t' = 2cL'/(c^2 - v^2). So, plugging in $$L' = L*\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$ and $$t' = t/\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$ gives:

$$t/\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} = 2cL*\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}/(c^2 - v^2)$$
multiplying both sides by $$\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$ gives:
t = 2cL*(1 - v^2/c^2)/(c^2 - v^2)
And since (1 - v^2/c^2) = (1/c^2)*(c^2 - v^2) this simplifies to:
t = 2cL/c^2 = 2L/c, which is exactly what we'd expect to be true in the unprimed frame where the light clock is at rest and the distance between the mirrors is L. Of course you could also reverse this algebra to show that, since the two-way time in the light-clock rest frame is t=2L/c, the two-way time in the frame where the light clock is moving must be t'=2cL'/(c^2 - v^2).

Last edited: Mar 16, 2009
21. Mar 16, 2009

### neopolitan

Yes, Jesse, I know that.

You are obliged to have two way travel to make sense of it.

And you still have the issue with redefining what t means.

This was your benefit of time dilation:

One primed frame (either moving or not moving, I don't care which). The first authoritive document on SR I read talked about K and K'. One primed frame, one unprimed frame.

Values in the primed frame are primed. Values in the unprimed frame are unprimed.

Why is this so difficult?

Time dilation applies in a clock's rest frame where consecutive ticks are colocal.

Length contraction applies in a length's rest frame where the ends of the length are simultaneous (along with the bits in the middle).

This is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Time_dilation_and_length_contraction", and it has been there for a long time:

In that text I see the words, I can understand the words, but I see that different versions of the Lorentz transformation are used. It is equivalent to either mixing frames or redefining what t means.

I am not saying it is wrong. It is clearly the preferred way of doing things. I am just not convinced that there is any real benefit in doing things that way.

cheers,

neopolitan

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
22. Mar 16, 2009

### JesseM

Then what were you asking? Why did you say "using your logic ... the speed of light: c = L' / t' " if you knew perfectly well "my logic" would not give me that equation?
You can make sense of one-way travel too if you keep in mind that stopwatches situated at the position of each mirror which are synchronized in the mirror's frame will be out-of-sync by vL/c^2 in the frame where the mirror is moving at speed v. In this case, in the frame where the mirror is moving, it takes a time of t' = L'/(c-v) for the light to get from the back mirror to the front mirror. So, in this time, the stopwatch at the front mirror has ticked forward from its starting time by t = L*(1 - v^2/c^2)/(c-v). But in the primed frame the front stopwatch started vL/c^2 behind the back watch, so the time on the front watch when the light reaches it is only ahead of the time on the back watch when the light left it by [L*(1 - v^2/c^2)/(c-v)] - [vL/c^2], which can be rewritten as [Lc^2*(1 - v^2/c^2) - vL*(c-v)]/[c^2*(c-v)] = [L*(c^2 - v^2) - vLc + Lv^2]/[c^2*(c - v)] = [Lc*(c-v)]/[c^2*(c-v)] = Lc/c^2 = L/c. And of course, if we consider things in the light clock's rest frame, it makes perfect sense that if we have synchronized stopwatches next to each mirror, the time on the stopwatch next to the front mirror when the light reaches it will be greater than the time on the stopwatch next to the back mirror when the light reaches it by L/c.
Where did I redefine it?
Why is what so difficult? I have never said anything that contradicted that, have I?
It's not clear what you mean by "applies in". Obviously in the clock's own rest frame, its time is not dilated! It's in the frame where the clock is moving that its ticks are dilated relative to ticks of coordinate time in that frame.
What different versions? Can you please be specific about what particular equations on that wikipedia page you think are using contradictory definitions or are mixing frames? Everything looks consistent to me, they are using $$\Delta t$$ to refer to a time interval on a clock at rest in the unprimed frame, and $$\Delta x$$ to refer to the distance between ends of an object at rest in the unprimed frame. And of course, x and t refer to the coordinates of particular events in the unprimed frame (which is a slightly different convention than I was using, but theirs is probably more clear as I didn't use a notation for time intervals that was clearly distinct from notation for time coordinates, although I did use 'L' rather than 'x' for spatial intervals).
Doing things that way as opposed to what other way? You really need to be way more specific about what exactly you're objecting to and what alternative you think would make more sense, I can't make heads or tails of what you're complaining about.

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
23. Mar 16, 2009

### neopolitan

Time dilation $$t' = \gamma t$$ applies in the clock's own rest frame where a rest frame is unprimed. The prime is an indication that something different is happening. Same with length contraction, it applies in the frame in the length's own rest frame where the rest frame is unprimed.

What I am saying is that the frames are not the same. You can see that in the wikipedia article quite clearly.

The second pair of equations in the article are the "inverse in terms of coordinate differences".
The first pair of equations give an observer in the unprimed frame the distance and time difference between two events from the perspective of an observer in the primed frame, using the measurements that the observer in the primed frame would use (contracted distances, longer periods between ticks in the primed frame).

The second pair of equations give an observer in the primed frame the distance and time difference between two events from the perspective of an observer in the unprimed frame, using the measurements that the observer in the unprimed frame would use (contracted distances, longer periods between ticks in the unprimed frame).

Because the Lorentz boosts like the Gallilean boosts use a version t such that x/t makes sense, where you could stand there counting ticks and the number of ticks is your value of t, the authors of the wikipedia article had to change frames between the derivations of length contraction and time dilation.

The authors mix frames to get around the redefinition of t problem.

Either t is redefined (from number of ticks to time between ticks) while still using the same sort of notation, or you've got frame mixing.

That's the source of a lot of confusion. And I still can't see what the benefits justifying this confusion are.

cheers,

neopolitan

BTW I usually don't mean "you" personally, but when I said you were obliged to use two way travel to make sense, I meant you personally. You can make sense of it with a one way trip (impersonal "you"). I am assuming that you know that, but also realise that one may have to complicate the issue further by bringing in simultaneity type issues. Anyway, the distance travelled between leaving one mirror and hitting the other mirror divided by the time taken to move between those mirrors will give you the speed of light in all frames. I do hope we don't disagree on that?

When I wrote L'/t' I was meaning (in context) the primed observer's length divided by the primed observer's time. Your equations didn't use the same definitions. Your quoting of me left out, quite inconveniently, the words "the time between ticks in the frame" where it was clear that "the frame" was the frame where the light clock is moving since I was responding to you where you said "you can use the time dilation and length contraction equations to get the distance between mirrors and the time between ticks in the frame where the light clock is moving".

Then you went and used "the time between ticks in the resting frame". So yes, I know what you did. You changed definitions midstream again.

It reminds me of the scene in A Fish Called Wanda, where Kevin Kline is told to raise his other hand so he does, while putting down the first hand. "Don't change definitions." Okay, I'll mix frames then! Tada, same answer! So I have to say, don't mix frames and don't change definitions and then there is no confusion. Or, alternatively, do either but make clear that you are changing definitions or mixing frames and explain why it helps to do so.

It's that last little bit I am after.

Last edited: Mar 16, 2009
24. Mar 16, 2009

### JesseM

You are just repeating yourself without giving any answer to my question of what "applies in" means. Do you agree that in the clock's rest frame, its ticks are not dilated relative to coordinate time in that frame? Do you agree that the clock's ticks are not "dilated" in any objective frame-independent sense? If so, what do you mean by "time dilation applies in the clock's own rest frame"?
Again, a totally vague and incomprehensible statement if you don't give more specifics. What is different from what, exactly? Primed and unprimed are just arbitrary conventions for identifying two different frames, but each frame's view of the other is totally symmetrical--a clock at rest in the primed frame would be dilated in the unprimed frame just as a clock at rest in the unprimed frame is dilated in the primed frame.
The laws of physics are the same in each frame, even if the behavior of specific objects is different in different frames.
Where?
And when you say they are "not the same", are you referring to the fact that the first pair of equations have minus signs while the second pair have plus signs? If so, this is only because we have defined "v" in a specific way--it is the velocity of the origin of the primed frame along the x-axis of the unprimed frame (so a positive value for v means the origin is moving in the +x direction, a negative value means it's moving in the -x direction). If you instead define v' to be the velocity of the origin of the unprimed frame along the x' axis of the primed frame, then the second pair of equations would have a minus sign instead:
$$\Delta t = \gamma(\Delta t' - v' \Delta x' /c^2)$$
$$\Delta x = \gamma(\Delta x' - v' \Delta t')$$
The notion of what is determined by an "observer" in a given frame usually is just a cute way of talking about measurements in that frame and that frame alone, so it's totally confusing to talk about an observer in one frame learning the values of measurements made in a different frame. Let's just drop the talk of "observers", OK? The first pair of equations tells us the distance and time intervals between two events in the primed frame if we already know the distance and time intervals between the same two events in the unprimed frame.
The second pair of equations tells us the distance and time intervals between two events in the unprimed frame if we already know the distance and time intervals between the same two events in the primed frame. Agreed?
Where? I asked you to refer to the specific steps and equations you have a problem with when making complaints, you aren't doing so--if you refuse to do so I will have to bow out of this conversation. I see no way in which your claim makes sense, since in the time dilation and length contraction equations they consistently use $$\Delta t$$ to refer to the time between events on a clock at rest in the unprimed frame, and $$\Delta x$$ to refer to the distance between events on either end of an object which is at rest in the unprimed frame.
$$\Delta t$$ always refers to the number of ticks of coordinate time in the unprimed frame between two events (and for events which occur at the same position in the unprimed frame, this is equal to the number of ticks between the events on a clock at rest at that position), if you think it's ever used differently you're confused about something.

25. Mar 16, 2009

### neopolitan

Actually no, I was referring to the primes. Good try though.

Agreed

Ok, we are getting somewhere. According to me, how many ticks will I calculate to occur in the primed frame between two events if:
1. $$\Delta t$$ is the number of ticks in the unprimed frame between those two events,
2. a clock in the primed frame is has a speed of v relative to me,
3. I am at rest with the clock in the unprimed frame, and
4. I remember to take into account the inertial motion of the other frame (thus adding or deleting some ticks as required)?

More ticks or less ticks than the unprimed frame?

cheers,

neopolitan