Can Classical Mechanics Calculate Time Dilation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between classical mechanics and time dilation in the context of relativistic speeds. Participants explore whether classical mechanics can be used to calculate travel times and time dilation effects for an object moving at high speeds, particularly in hypothetical scenarios involving faster-than-light (FTL) travel.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if time experienced by an object traveling at relativistic speeds can be calculated using classical mechanics, specifically in scenarios where FTL is assumed.
  • Another participant asserts that the equations governing classical and relativistic scenarios are different, implying that classical mechanics cannot be directly applied to relativistic contexts.
  • There is a discussion about the elapsed time experienced by a traveler moving at relativistic speeds, with one participant noting that different speeds result in significantly different elapsed times, despite the same distance covered according to an external observer.
  • One participant seeks clarification on whether the time measured by a particle in a relativistic universe would be the same as in a classical universe, given the same mass and kinetic energy.
  • Responses indicate that the time experienced by the traveler in a relativistic context would not be the same as in a classical context, with specific calculations provided to illustrate the differences in elapsed time due to time dilation.
  • Participants express curiosity about the implications of these calculations and whether classical and relativistic travel times could correspond under certain conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the applicability of classical mechanics to relativistic scenarios, with some asserting that the equations differ fundamentally. There is no consensus on whether time dilation can be calculated using classical mechanics, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of mass and kinetic energy on experienced time.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific calculations involving rest mass, kinetic energy, and relativistic gamma factors, indicating a reliance on mathematical formulations that may not align with classical mechanics. The discussion highlights the complexity of relating classical and relativistic physics without resolving the underlying assumptions.

AndromedaRXJ
Messages
56
Reaction score
5
Okay so I have a question about time dilation, kinetic energy and classical mechanics. My question is, if an object were traveling at very high relativistic speeds and experienced time dilation, would the time it experience and measure during the travels be equivalent to the travel time if it were traveling in a classically mechanical universe where FTL is possible? Assuming the same amount of energy is used the accelerate the object in both cases?

For instance, say I have a small space pod that weighs 1000 kg. And classically (no relativity) If I were to accelerate the ship to, say, 5c, the KE of the ship should be 1.125e+21 joules. And if I'm five light-years from some location that I'm approaching, then my travel time will be 1 year until I arrive at that location.

So now relativistically, I have the same ship (1000 kg) and I spend 1.125e+21 joules to accelerate it. I know it won't be FTL, but my question is, if I travel 5 light years in roughly 5 years, will I only experience 1 year due to time dilation?

Basically, my question is, can I use classical mechanics to calculate classical FTL travel times to see what my time dilation would be relativistically with the same amount of KE?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AndromedaRXJ said:
I use classical mechanics to calculate classical FTL travel times to see what my time dilation would be relativistically with the same amount of KE?

No. The equations are different.
 
AndromedaRXJ said:
if I travel 5 light years in roughly 5 years, will I only experience 1 year due to time dilation?
Only for one particular speed.

Say you are traveling to a star at rest relative to the Earth and five light-years away according to an observer at rest relative to the Earth and the star. Whether you travel at .999c, .999999c, or .999999999c you will cover the distance in roughly five years according to that observer... but the elapsed time that you measure will be very different in the three cases.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
No. The equations are different.

I know this. The kinetic energy is already given in both situations though. Let my try to ask the question differently since I think I asked it poorly.

Say a particle in a classical universe crosses 5 light years in 1 year, there for it also observes it self as traveling for 1 year. It's kinetic energy and mass are known.

Now say in a universe where relativity applies. The particle has the same mass and kinetic energy. Is the time it measures for it self 1 year? I know that's not what stationary observers will observe, but is that what it measures for it self?
 
Nugatory said:
Only for one particular speed.

Say you are traveling to a star at rest relative to the Earth and five light-years away according to an observer at rest relative to the Earth and the star. Whether you travel at .999c, .999999c, or .999999999c you will cover the distance in roughly five years according to that observer... but the elapsed time that you measure will be very different in the three cases.

I know this. The mass and kinetic energy are already given, so the speed is already known. I'm wondering if the travel time it measures for it self is the same in both situations. I'm not concerned with stationary observers.
 
AndromedaRXJ said:
The particle has the same mass and kinetic energy. Is the time it measures for it self 1 year?

The answer is still no, for the same reason.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
The answer is still no, for the same reason.

Is the time it observes for it self less or more than what it would observe classically? Or does that vary?
 
AndromedaRXJ said:
if I travel 5 light years in roughly 5 years, will I only experience 1 year due to time dilation?

No; you will experience significantly less than 1 year. The math is simple for this, but it's not the simple math you appear to be hoping for.

You have a rest mass of 1000 kg, which is a rest energy of ##9 \times 10^{19}## Joules (rest mass times ##c^2##, which is about ##9 \times 10^{16}##). You have a kinetic energy of ##1.125 \times 10^{21}## Joules. Your total energy is the sum of the two, which is ##1.215 \times 10^{21}## Joules. Your relativistic gamma factor, which is your time dilation factor, is the ratio of your total energy to your rest energy, which is ##121.5 / 9 = 13.5##. So you will experience ##5 / 13.5 = 0.37## years of elapsed time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AndromedaRXJ
PeterDonis said:
No; you will experience significantly less than 1 year. The math is simple for this, but it's not the simple math you appear to be hoping for.

You have a rest mass of 1000 kg, which is a rest energy of ##9 \times 10^{19}## Joules (rest mass times ##c^2##, which is about ##9 \times 10^{16}##). You have a kinetic energy of ##1.125 \times 10^{21}## Joules. Your total energy is the sum of the two, which is ##1.215 \times 10^{21}## Joules. Your relativistic gamma factor, which is your time dilation factor, is the ratio of your total energy to your rest energy, which is ##121.5 / 9 = 13.5##. So you will experience ##5 / 13.5 = 0.37## years of elapsed time.

Wow that is really helpful, thanks! But you're right though. I was hoping for observed times for classical and relativistic travelers to correspond for a given mass and kinetic energy. I thought that would have been interesting if true, and would have been a neat math trick.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K