Comparing the time of two moving clocks

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike_bb
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
25 replies · 2K views
Mike_bb
Messages
313
Reaction score
37
Hello, PF!

I just understand that people couldn't fully understand me in my old topic because many terms in English have another senses in Russian and vice versa. Because of the language barrier I couldn't explain what I meant. Moreover, my vocab is poor and I speak English badly. Please, sorry me!

Now I'll try to explain what I want to find out but I don't know if people will understand me correctly.

I have an example on the Russian. It sounds like this:

1) If observer A will look at the clock B then he will see that clock B is running slowly. E1: clock A = 100sec, E2: clock B = 80sec
2) If observer B will look at the clock A then he will see that clock A is running slowly. E3: clock B = 100 sec, E4; clock A = 80 sec

My question is: How is it possible that the clock B can read two different values (slowed time (80sec) and proper time (100sec))?

I've thought about it and I conclude that clock B (or clock A) never read slowed time.

My explanation:

If observer A will look at the clock B then he will see that clock B is running slowly. Therefore clock B read slowed time for observers A, B, since events E1 and E2 are simultaneously. But if it so then we have 80sec on the clock B. If we'll look at the clock B at the frame B we'll see 80sec. Well, it leads us to the fact that clock B is running slowly at the frame B. It can never be because this is violates Postulate 1 and break symmetry. Then we'll see 100sec on the clock B at the frame B in accordance with Postulate 1.

If two clocks are moving we can try to compare their time but as I mentioned above we'll see that clock A read 100sec and clock B read 100sec. (I see such explanation in Russian).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess so we don't just rehash the exact same explanations as the previous thread, I'll ask some different questions.

Do you use AI to translate between English and Russian and vice versa? Have you tried asking an AI to give you some of the explanations from the previous thread in Russian?

Are you able to get some good textbooks on Special Relativity in Russian? There are many excellent Russian scientists. Landau and Lifshitz were some of my favorite authors but they might be a bit too advanced. Unfortunately I don't know more basic Russian textbooks.
 
Matterwave said:
I guess so we don't just rehash the exact same explanations as the previous thread, I'll ask some different questions.

Do you use AI to translate between English and Russian and vice versa?
No.
Matterwave said:
Have you tried asking an AI to give you some of the explanations from the previous thread in Russian?
I use Google AI that provides example with link to the sources.

Matterwave said:
Are you able to get some good textbooks on Special Relativity in Russian?
I tried to read Landau&Lifshitz.
 
There are some excellent answers to your question in the previous thread. If the English --> Russian barrier is blocking you from understanding, I think a good translation AI can help. Use the higher tier ones so they don't hallucinate.

Mike_bb said:
I tried to read Landau&Lifshitz.
This is perhaps too advanced. Landau and Lifshitz are excellent authors but they basically assume you already took some courses in those topics so they skip over a lot of steps. It would be worth while to find a more gentle introduction to the topic. Preferably one with good space time diagrams.
 
Matterwave said:
There are some excellent answers to your question in the previous thread.
Robphy gave good diagram and as I understand it corresponds to my explanation above ( He wrote that E1 and E4 are distinct).
 
Mike_bb said:
Robphy gave good diagram and as I understand it corresponds to my explanation above ( He wrote that E1 and E4 are distinct).
They are. All four of your nunbered events are distinct. Your problem is that you keep thinking of "at the same time" as if it were an absolute truth. But it isn't.

Train yourself to say "at the same time according to A's rest frame" (or B's, or the primed frame or whatever) and never exclude the italicised bit. When you've learned to do that you'll be able to see immediately what the solution to your problem is, which is:
  • E1 and E2 are simultaneous according to A's rest frame
  • E3 and E4 are simultaneous according to B's rest frame
When you stop thinking of "simultaneous" as a concept the frames must share, the apparent contradiction goes away. Relativity still has a sense of causality, but it has more flexibility than pre-relativistic physics.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: robphy and Dale
Ibix said:
They are. All four of your nunbered events are distinct. Your problem is that you keep thinking of "at the same time" as if it were an absolute truth. But it isn't.

Train yourself to say "at the same time according to A's rest frame" (or B's, or the primed frame or whatever) and never exclude the italicised bit. When you've learned to do that you'll be able to see immediately what the solution to your problem is, which is:
  • E1 and E2 are simultaneous according to A's rest frame
  • E3 and E4 are simultaneous according to B's rest frame
When you stop thinking of "simultaneous" as a concept the frames must share, the apparent contradiction goes away. Relativity still has a sense of causality, but it has more flexibility than pre-relativistic physics.
If you compare two clocks on the fly, you'll see that both clocks show 100sec.
 
Reply
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: Matterwave
Matterwave,

Let we have frame C with stationary clock C that shows some time. Compare clocks A , B on the fly at the time of clock C. We see that both clocks A , B show the same time in accordance with Postulate 1.
 
Last edited:
Mike_bb said:
I just understand that people couldn't fully understand me in my old topic because many terms in English have another senses in Russian and vice versa. Because of the language barrier I couldn't explain what I meant. Moreover, my vocab is poor and I speak English badly. Please, sorry me!
This is not the issue. We are used to dealing with language barriers. The main problem is making incomplete statements. Every time you speak about simultaneity you must include the reference frame. This is required in both Russian and English. It is not a language barrier, it is incomplete thinking in every language.

You must use complete statements.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: robphy
Mike_bb said:
1) If observer A will look at the clock B then he will see that clock B is running slowly. E1: clock A = 100sec, E2: clock B = 80sec
A more clear way to say this is:

In observer A’s frame clock B is running slowly. E1 (clock A = 100 s) is simultaneous with E2 (clock B = 80 s) in A’s frame.

Mike_bb said:
2) If observer B will look at the clock A then he will see that clock A is running slowly. E3: clock B = 100 sec, E4; clock A = 80 sec
A more clear way to say this is:

In observer B’s frame clock A is running slowly. E3 (clock B = 100 s) is simultaneous with E4 (clock A = 80 s) in B’s frame.

Mike_bb said:
How is it possible that the clock B can read two different values (slowed time (80sec) and proper time (100sec))?
Every clock reads different values at different events. That is what a functioning clock does. Why do you think it is a problem for a clock to read 80 s at one event and then to read 100 s at a later event?

Mike_bb said:
Well, it leads us to the fact that clock B is running slowly at the frame B.
This is false. Nothing that you stated leads to this conclusion. Please do not just make up your own things here.

Mike_bb said:
If two clocks are moving we can try to compare their time but as I mentioned above we'll see that clock A read 100sec and clock B read 100sec. (I see such explanation in Russian).
Russian clocks work the same as English clocks. Time dilation is an experimentally established fact of nature. You cannot just wish it away in any language.

Mike_bb said:
If you compare two clocks on the fly, you'll see that both clocks show 100sec.
This is an incomplete statement. In which frame will both clocks read 100 s? There is a frame where this is true, but it is neither A’s frame nor B’s frame.

No more incomplete statements, please. Any time you compare clocks you must state the reference frame.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Agree
Likes   Reactions: Mike_bb
Mike_bb said:
If you compare two clocks on the fly, you'll see that both clocks show 100sec.
As stated, this is not true.

A correct statement would be "according to a frame in which both clocks are moving at the same speed (possibly in different directions), if both clocks were started simultaneously according to this frame they will always read the same time, which will be lower than the time elapsed according to clocks at rest in this frame". Other frames will not describe the circumstances this way.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Ibix said:
As stated, this is not true.

A correct statement would be "according to a frame in which both clocks are moving at the same speed (possibly in different directions), if both clocks were started simultaneously according to this frame they will always read the same time, which will be lower than the time elapsed according to clocks at rest in this frame". Other frames will not describe the circumstances this way.
Ok. Each of observers think that time in another frame is running slowly. And each of observers is right.
This is proved by experiment:
"Two observers fly to each other on the rockets and send light signal to each other every 2sec. Light signal every rocket receive with delay and this explain why clock of observer B run slowly than clock of observer A and vice versa."

Slowed time isn't showed on the clock because otherwise it violates Postulate 1.
 
Dale,

Sorry, but I can't provide complete sentence because I have no complete sentences in Russian examples.
 
Mike_bb said:
Dale,

Sorry, but I can't provide complete sentence because I have no complete sentences in Russian examples.
Yes you can. Simply state the reference frame in each sentence that you compare times on two different clocks. This is not a language issue. You have done it occasionally. You just need to do it consistently.
 
Reply
  • Agree
Likes   Reactions: Mike_bb
Thanks to all! I catch an insight and now I understand how reciprocal time dilation works!
 
Strong suggestions:
  • The position-vs-time graph of a situation (also known as a spacetime diagram)
    [like the ones I have been drawing] tells a story of the situation
    that is often more clear than a series of casually written sentences.
    - In relativity, as you have been reminded, sentences must be stated clearly and completely.
    Assumptions based on our everyday common-sense based on Galilean physics can't be assumed.
    Spell out the details, although it may seem tedious to be unambiguous.
  • Minkowski's idea of spacetime was developed by the mathematician Minkowski in 1907, a few years after Einstein's 1905 papers. I think this helped Einstein's special relativity gain more acceptance. It makes Einstein's ideas more tangible and provides a geometric framework one can use to scaffold a developing intuition.

  • I think you need to learn to express your situations using spacetime diagrams.
    I personally use spacetime diagrams more than textbook formulas for time dilation, length contraction, Lorentz transformation, etc... often because the word problem, the symbols (prime vs unprime), etc... are unclear to me until I draw a spacetime diagram. Even then, I analyze the diagram as a geometric problem in hyperbolic trigonometry. If needed, I translate into the textbook formulas (after I decode the notations used in the context of the problem).
    (For optics, I draw ray-tracing diagrams first, then translate into a textbook formula after I decode the notations.)
  • It takes practice to translate back and forth between words and spacetime-diagrams. Practice!

Possibly helpful:

"A spacetime diagram is worth a thousand words"
- robphy
 
Reply
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Dale and Mike_bb
Mike_bb said:
I've thought about it and I conclude that clock B (or clock A) never read slowed time.
This is wrong, and we can try one more time to explain why
1) If observer A will look at the clock B then he will see that clock B is running slowly. E1: clock A = 100sec, E2: clock B = 80sec
2) If observer B will look at the clock A then he will see that clock A is running slowly. E3: clock B = 100 sec, E4; clock A = 80 sec

My question is: How is it possible that the clock B can read two different values (slowed time (80sec) and proper time (100sec))?
Using the frame in which A is at rest, events E1 and E2 are simultaneous - that's what A means when they say that B is running slowly. But when we use the frame in which B is at rest, we find that E1 and E2 are not simultaneous. Instead E2 and another event E5 (A's clock reads 64) are simultaneous. That's how both can conclude that the other clock is running slow.

So far you haven't involved proper time at all, but there are some proper times: proper time between E1 and E4 is 20 seconds, proper time between E2 and E3 is 20 20 seconds, proper time between E1 and E2, E1 and E3, E3 and E4 is undefined because we're comparing different clocks.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mike_bb
Mike_bb said:
people couldn't fully understand me in my old topic
I don't think this is true. You're asking the same question here that you asked in your previous threads (of which there have been more than one), and we understood it just fine in those threads, and we understand it just fine here:

Mike_bb said:
My question is: How is it possible that the clock B can read two different values (slowed time (80sec) and proper time (100sec))?
The answer is that clock B does not read different values at the same event. There is an event where clock B reads 80 sec. There is an event where clock B reads 100 sec. These are two different events. The second event occurs after the first in any frame.

Until you grasp what I have just said, and realize that the question you keep asking is based on a false premise, we are never going to get anywhere. Many of our best PF experts on this topic have been extremely patient in trying to get across to you that your question is based on a false premise. But you still don't appear to get it.

Note that everything I've just said relates to clock B's proper time. Which is not the same as coordinate time in any frame in which clock B is not at rest. That is another point which we are not sure that you understand, and you need to.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Matterwave and robphy
Mike_bb said:
This is proved by experiment:
"Two observers fly to each other on the rockets and send light signal to each other every 2sec. Light signal every rocket receive with delay and this explain why clock of observer B run slowly than clock of observer A and vice versa."
Where is this quote taken from? Please give a reference.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Mike_bb said:
"Two observers fly to each other on the rockets and send light signal to each other every 2sec. Light signal every rocket receive with delay and this explain why clock of observer B run slowly than clock of observer A and vice versa."
No, this is not correct as a description of what each observer actually sees--the timing of the light signals they receive.

If the two observers are flying towards each other, each one sees (if they just look at the incoming light signals and don't adjust for light travel time) the other's clock running faster than theirs, not slower. The relativistic Doppler factor for motion towards each other is

$$\frac{\sqrt{1 + v / c}}{\sqrt{1 - v / c}}$$

That's the factor by which each observer sees the other's clock running faster.

If the two observers are flying away from each other, each one sees (again if they just look at the incoming light signals and don't adjust for light travel time) the other's clock running more slowly than the relativistic ##\gamma## factor would imply. The relativistic Doppler factor for motion away from each other is

$$\frac{\sqrt{1 - v / c}}{\sqrt{1 + v / c}}$$

That's the factor by which each observer sees the other's clock running slower in this case.

The relativistic ##\gamma## factor, which is what is usually referred to as "time dilation", is what each observer calculates by adjusting what they actually see in the incoming light signals for light travel time.

Failure to take proper note of these crucial facts is a common cause of confusion for people trying to understand relativity scenarios.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mike_bb
Mike_bb said:
1) If observer A will look at the clock B then he will see that clock B is running slowly. E1: clock A = 100sec, E2: clock B = 80sec
2) If observer B will look at the clock A then he will see that clock A is running slowly. E3: clock B = 100 sec, E4; clock A = 80 sec
Observers at separate locations moving relative to each other just can't look at each other's clock and decide whether they run slow or fast. The best they can do is to communicate with each other by radio at the speed of light and report to each other what their onboard clock reads.

However, if they have a basic understanding of special relativity, they can calculate where the other person is and what the other person's clock reads at that position. So let's do some sample calculations that pair positions and times using the Lorentz transformation equations $$\begin{align} & x'=\gamma\left(x-vt\right)~;~~~t'=\gamma\left(t-\frac{vx} {c^2}\right) \nonumber \\
& x=\gamma\left(x'+vt'\right)~;~~t=\gamma\left(t'+\frac{vx'}{c^2}\right) \nonumber \\
& \text{where}~~\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}. \nonumber
\end{align}$$Unprimed observer A stays on the Earth. Primed observer B, moving with velocity ##v##, passes by observer A. Each observer has a clock at rest with respect to him. Observer A's clock reads time ##t## and B's clock reads time ##t'.## Two events happen.

Event 1: Observer B passes by Observer B. Times and positions are
##t_1=0~;~~t'_1=0~## and ##~x_1=0~;~~x'_1=0.##

Event 2: Observer A looks at his clock and sees that it reads ##t_2=T##.

Question 1
Where is Observer B according to A when A's clock reads ##t_2=T##?
Observer A says "B has been traveling with velocity ##v## from time zero to time ##T## by my clock."
Answer 1: Therefore, B's position must be ##x_2=vT~## at time ##t_2=T.##

Question 2
Observer A now asks himself, "What time must Observer B's clock show if B is looking at his clock?"
He uses the Lorentz transformation equations to find out.
##t'_2=\gamma\left(t_2-\dfrac{vx_2} {c^2}\right)=\gamma\left(T-\dfrac{v^2T} {c^2}\right)=\gamma T\left(1-\dfrac{v^2} {c^2}\right)=\gamma T\left(\dfrac{1}{\gamma^2}\right)=\dfrac{T}{\gamma}.##
Answer 2: Therefore, A's calculation shows that when ##t_2=T## by his clock, B's clock must read ##t'_2=\dfrac{T}{\gamma}.##

The final conclusion of A is that B's clock must be running slower than his by a factor of ##\dfrac{1}{\gamma.}##

Question 3
Where is Observer A according to B when B's clock reads ##t'_2=\dfrac{T}{\gamma}##?
Observer B says "A has been traveling with velocity ##-v## from time zero to time ##\dfrac{T}{\gamma}## by my clock."
Answer 3: Therefore, A's position must be ##x'_2=-\dfrac{vT}{\gamma}~## at time ##t'_2=\dfrac{T}{\gamma}.##

Question 4
Observer B now asks himself, "What time must Observer A's clock show if A is looking at his clock?"
He uses the Lorentz transformation equations to find out.
##t_2=\gamma\left(t'_2+\dfrac{vx'_2} {c^2}\right)=\cancel{\gamma}\left(\dfrac{T}{\cancel{\gamma}}-\dfrac{v^2T} {\cancel{\gamma} c^2}\right)= T\left(1-\dfrac{v^2} {c^2}\right)=\dfrac{T}{\gamma^2}.##
Answer 4: Therefore, B's calculation shows that when ##t'_2=\dfrac{T}{\gamma}## by his clock, A's clock must read ##t_2=\dfrac{T}{\gamma^2}.##

The final conclusion of B is that A's clock must be running slower than his by a factor of ##\dfrac{1}{\gamma.}##

Bottom line: Based on their calculations, both observers conclude that the other observer's clock is running slower by the same factor ##1/\gamma.##
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Mike_bb
Mike_bb said:
Ok. Each of observers think that time in another frame is running slowly. And each of observers is right.
This is proved by experiment:
"Two observers fly to each other on the rockets and send light signal to each other every 2sec. Light signal every rocket receive with delay and this explain why clock of observer B run slowly than clock of observer A and vice versa."

Slowed time isn't showed on the clock because otherwise it violates Postulate 1.
That's not correct. Each rocket sees the relativistic Doppler effect. The formula for it can be written as a product of the time-dilation-factor and the non-relativistic Doppler formula for the receiver at rest:

##f_r = {f_s \over \gamma (1-v/c)}##

From ##f_r/f_s##, the time-dilation factor for the sender in the receiver's frame can be calculated for the usual definition, that the one-way-speed of light is ##c##.

Relativistic Doppler effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

Non-relativistic Dopper effect, receiver at rest (signal source moving):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler-Effekt#Beobachter_in_Ruhe,_Signalquelle_bewegt

The Ives–Stilwell experiment (1938) was a confirmation of the time-dilation factor, based on the relativistic Doppler effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Mike_bb
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mike_bb
Mike_bb said:
.1) If observer A will look at the clock B then he will see that clock B is running slowly. E1: clock A = 100sec, E2: clock B = 80sec
2) If observer B will look at the clock A then he will see that clock A is running slowly. E3: clock B = 100 sec, E4; clock A = 80 sec

My question is: How is it possible that the clock B can read two different values (slowed time (80sec) and proper time (100sec))?

E2 and E3 are different events. Of course the clock readings are different. Would you expect leaving for home and arriving at an event to occur at the same clock reading?
 
Reply
  • Agree
Likes   Reactions: Mike_bb
Mike_bb said:
Hello, PF!

I just understand that people couldn't fully understand me in my old topic because many terms in English have another senses in Russian and vice versa. Because of the language barrier I couldn't explain what I meant. Moreover, my vocab is poor and I speak English badly. Please, sorry me!
There's a paper that suggest an approach to explaining this problem using space-time diagrams. I like the approach a lot, but I haven't seen it actually work because - so far, at least - nobody on PF who has had an interest in the problem has gone so far as to do the work to draw said diagrams.

I will only very briefly discuss drawing a space-time diagram in case the term isn't familiar. It's basically a plot or graph, with time running vertically, increasing time moving up the page. Left and right represent distance, up and down represent time.

Events that happen in the real world have their time and location represented by a point on the space-time diagram, which can be marked with a symbol such as an "x" or a dot.

Objects on the space-time diagram are represented by lines on the space-time diagram. The line is a set of events, each event showing the location of that object at one specific time. This line is usually called the "world line" of the object. So, on a space-time diagram, events are represented by points, and objects are represented by lines, called world-lines.

Here is the relevant question. It's a slightly modified one proposed by Scherr, who wrote his disseration and a couple of papers discussing the concepts of special relativity and how to teach them to students.

Mt Rainer and Mt. Hood are 300 km apart in their rest frame, and there is a sesimologist at rest in the same frame equadistant from both volcanoes. Both volcanoes suddenly errupt, and the sesimologist observes both the light flashes and the sesmic signals from the erruptions. The light flashes arrive first, the flashes from both volcanoes arriving at the laboratory at the exact same time. The sesmic signals arrive a bit later, but also at the same time. We will focus on the light signals from the erruption from now on.

There is a spaceship flying at .8c which happens to be directly above the laboratory at the instant the two light flashes arrive at the laboratory.

Draw a space-time diagram in the sesimologist's frame, showing both volcanoes, the spaceship. Add to this diagram three events - both erruption events, and the event where both light signals arrive at the laboratory. We can regard the space-ship as being at the same location as the laboratory for this diagram, because the height is small and we are not including it on the diagram. Thus there will be a total of three lines on the diagram (each mountain and the spaceship are represented by a worldline on the space-time diagram), and three events - the two erruptions, and the event where the light signals from the erruptoin arrive at the sesimologgist and the spaceship.

Optionally, you may add the light signals of the flashes from the errupting volcanoes to the diagram.

Draw a space-time diagram for the same situation , but in the reference frame of the spaceship. Note that from the point of view of the ground, the space-ship is moving at .8c from left to right. From the point of view of the space-ship, the ground is moving from right to left.

If you happen to be familiar with the Lorentz transform, it would be a great tool for getting a correct space-time diagram for the reference frame of the space-ship. At this point though, the focus is on replacing words with diagrams to elliminate ambiguities associated with the written language. We formulate the problem as drawing a pair of diagrams, one for the reference frame of the sesimologist, one for the reference frame of the space-ship.

Drawing a sloppy diagram with pencil and paper and scanning it to post is just fine, and probably the easiest solution. Add labels to show the time and space axes, and choose a scale so that light on the diagram is at 45 degrees to the space and time axes.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mike_bb and Dale
(For historical purposes, this thread is preceded by (in reverse chronological order)
)

In the SE question, the OP drew some clock-faces to go along with "events", which inspired me to draw (near the end of the thread) a spacetime diagram in Geogebra with those events and the associated clock faces pasted on the diagram. This prompted me to modify my Desmos spacetime-diagrammer to also show associated clock-faces. And so, here we are....

But, for completeness, some definitions first.

A "spacetime diagram" is essentially a "PHY 101 position-vs-time graph" (when and where stuff happens)​
that one draws on a blackboard or sheet of paper.​
(The following statements in this paragraph arebased on Geroch's General Relativity from A to B.)​
A "point" on the graph is called an "event",​
which physically represents (e.g.) "the snapping of one's fingers",​
idealizing a very-short-lived occurrence in a very-small-volume.​
Two such occurrences mark "the same event" if they occur "at the same space at the same time",​
regardless of what caused the marking.​
When "clock faces that reads 1 second emits a light flash", that is one event.​

Just as one can place a sheet of graph paper in various orientations on the Euclidean plane​
and then use that graph paper to assign coordinates (x,y) to describe events,​
the use of a differently-oriented sheet of graph paper would assign a different set of coordinates (x',y') to the describe the same events.​
In spite of these different descriptions, there are certain quantities called "invariants" (like the square-distance between two points using the Pythagorean theorem ) that have the same numerical value regardless of the orientation of the graph paper: That is, ##{(x_B-x_A)^2+(y_B-y_A)^2} = {(x'_B-x'_A)^2+(y'_B-y'_A)^2}##, which is an example of an invariant in Euclidean Geometry. This invariant reveals the importance of "the circle" in Euclidean geometry.​
Similarly, on a spacetime diagram in special relativity, (t,x)-coordinate descriptions of events by different inertial observers lead to different coordinate-assignments of various events. However, the quantity called the square-interval ##{(t-B-t_A)^2-((x_B-x_A)/c)^2} = {(t'_B-t'_A)^2-((x'_B-x'_A)/c)^2}## is an example of an invariant in special relativity (developed by Minkowski in 1907 who realized that one can "do geometry" on a position-vs-time graph that encodes Einstein's results from 1905, in analogy to ordinary geometry done on a Euclidean plane). This invariant reveals the importance of "the hyperbola" in Minkowski spacetime-geometry. (Later, in retrospect, it was realized by some that one can consistently do suitably developed "Galilean geometry" on the PHY 101 position-vs-time graph. Had Galileo worked with Descartes on studying Euclid, they may have developed a flat nonEuclidean geometry that is now called Galilean-spacetime-geometry. )​

We can represent "the history of a point-particle" (when and where it was)​
by a continuous curve in the position-vs-time (spacetime) diagram called its worldline
(although timeline might be a better, more-descriptive term).​
"When" is determined by the particle's wristwatch [in the spirit of Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics], which always flows steadily increasing.​
"Where" is determined by wherever the particle is.​
In Galilean relativity and in special relativity, this curve never intersects itself​
and is subject to the associated causal structure. For special relativity,​
at each event on the worldline, the tangent-vector to the worldline must always point​
into the interior of the future lightcone of that event.​
So, an important fact is that​
at each event on the particle worldline, the wristwatch reads a unique time.
The wristwatch is never stuck, never reading two values at the same event, never changing its direction and rate (as read by the particle, its owner), never jumping around.
If you specify a time-reading, there is exactly one event on the particle worldline corresponding to that time-reading.
Analogously, on a highway, the milemarker-values change, never two differently-valued milemarkers at the same place on that highway, never changing its direction and rate (as read by the odometer of a car following the highway), never jumping around.​



One puzzling but experimentally-verified feature of special relativity is that​
the actual wristwatch-reading is not necessarily equal to the t-coordinate assigned by other observers.
Minkowski would call the wristwatch-reading the particle's "proper-time"​
(eigenzeit meaning "own time", "proper time" as in "property"--not "proper" as in proper-vs-improper).​
Bondi would call the wristwatch-reading the particle's "private-time" (as opposed to "public time").​


So, here are some diagrams from the Desmos script,
drawn by inertial-observer Alice, with inertial-observer Bob traveling with (3/5)c with respect to Alice.

  • FIG 1 (Using the event labeling from an earlier thread)
    The event E1 "Alice's wristwatch reads 1 second" is simultaneous-according-to-Alice with
    the event E2 "Bob's clock reads 0.8 seconds".

    The event E3 "Bob's clock reads 1 second" is simultaneous-according-to-Bob with
    the event E4 "Alice's clock reads 0.8 seconds".

    Although the results "the other clock reads 0.8 when mine reads 1.0" are the same,
    we have four distinct events:
    a pair simultaneous-according-to-Alice (E1 and E2) and another pair simultaneous-according-to Bob (E3 and E4).

    These distinct have four different clock-faces: 0.8 and 1 on Alice's red clock and 0.8 and 1 on Bob's blue clock.

    On a spacetime diagram, following Minkowski definition of "normal" or "perpendicular",
    simultaneity is determined by the tangent to the "circle" where the radius (the inertial-observer's worldline) meets the "circle".

    On a spacetime diagram decorated with light-clock-diamonds, simultaneity-according-to-an-inertial-observer is along the direction of that inertial-observer's light-clock-diamond's spacelike diagonal.

    1787081993328.webp


  • FIG 2: "the exercise" from my last posts in https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-does-reciprocal-time-dilation-work.1085952/page-3

    What event on Bob's worldline does Alice regard as simultaneous with E?
    What event on Bob's worldline does Bob regard as simultaneous with E?

    The event "Bob's clock reads 0.80" is simultaneous-according-to-Alice with
    the event "Alice's clock reads 1".

    The event "Bob's clock reads 1.25" is simultaneous-according-to-Bob with
    the event "Alice's clock reads 1".
    (Drag the T_Bob event from T_Bob=1 to T_Bob=1.25.)

    1787082864040.webp


  • FIG 3:
    Although we had (from FIG 1)
    the event E1 "Alice's wristwatch reads 1 second" is simultaneous-according-to-Alice with
    the event E2 "Bob's clock reads 0.8 seconds"---by a calculation (e.g. radar, as shown below in FIG 4),
    what Alice [optically] sees (views) is
    the image [signal] of
    the event "Bob's clock when it read 0.5 seconds".
    (This is essentially the Doppler effect,
    ##k=\frac{T_{\rm reception\ period}}{T_{\rm emission\ period}}=\frac{1.0}{0.5}=2##,
    which is expected for ##v=(3/5)c## used in ##k=\sqrt{\frac{1+(v/c)}{1-(v/c)}}##.)
    • This is why, when referring to simultaneity or the assignment of (t,x)-coordinates,
      "views" or "sees" is possibly ambiguous.



      1787090121605.webp

  • FIG 4:
    The event E1 "Alice's wristwatch reads 1 second" is simultaneous-according-to-Alice with
    the event E2 "Bob's clock reads 0.8 seconds"---by a calculation
    by a radar measurement of E2.

    For Alice to measure (assign coordinates) to event E2,
    she must send a signal at ##t_{send}=0.4## and
    wait for its echo to be received at ##t_{receive}=1.6##.
    So Alice assigns to E2:
    ##\Delta t=\frac{1}{2}\left( t_{receive}+ t_{send} \right)=1.0## and
    ##\frac{\Delta x}{c}=\frac{1}{2}\left(t_{receive}-t_{send} \right)=0.6##.

    1787094000844.webp



  • FIG 5: Of course, by the Relativity Principle,
    Bob will have the same measurements of Alice.

    1787095703571.webp


  • I think FIGS 1-5 exhaust what we can do with two inertial observers.

  • FIGS 6 and 7: It may be enlightening to introduce Carol, an inertial-observer in the median frame
    (akin to the direction along the angle-bisector).
    ##v_{Carol}/c=\tanh\left( \frac{{\rm arctanh}(v_{Alice}/c) + {\rm arctanh}(v_{Bob}/c)}{2} \right)##.

    In Carol's frame, Alice and Bob are traveling in opposite directions with the same speed.
    In Carol's frame, Alice and Bob clocks read the same time,
    although this time is smaller than Carol's clock time.
    • According to Carol,
      the event when "Carol's clock reads 0.2828s" is simultaneous-according-to-Carol
      with the event "Alice's clock reads 0.2667" and with the event "Bob's clock reads 0.2667",
      as these events are on a line parallel to the spacelike diagonal of Carol's light-clock-diamonds.
    • According to Carol,
      the event when "Carol's clock reads 1.0606" is simultaneous-according-to-Carol
      with the event "Alice's clock reads 1" and with the event "Bob's clock reads 1",
      as these events are on a line parallel to the spacelike diagonal of Carol's light-clock-diamonds.


      1787096077597.webp


      1787108473228.webp
Admittedly, the graphics are constrained by what can be done easily in Desmos.
But I think there is enough interactivity to help further develop intuition and "spacetime thinking".