Does Relativistic Motion Affect Time Perception on Moving Trains and Platforms?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JVNY
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Platform Train
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of relativistic motion on time perception, specifically in the context of observers on a moving train and a platform. Participants explore various scenarios involving time dilation, length contraction, and the implications of different reference frames as they relate to the synchronization of clocks and the perception of time by observers in relative motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario where Far, an observer on the platform, experiences conflicting time signals from Near, who is on the train. This is attributed to relativistic effects and the nature of their relative motion.
  • Another participant questions the meaning of "according to Far," emphasizing that the interpretation of events depends on the choice of coordinate chart, which is not uniquely defined in non-inertial frames.
  • There is a proposal that Far receives only forward-ticking signals from Near after a certain point, suggesting a gap in the time signals observed, which is contested by another participant who argues that there is no actual gap, but rather a Doppler shift affecting the signals received.
  • Participants discuss the implications of accelerated frames and how they affect the perception of time, with references to the potential for clocks to run slower or backwards under certain conditions.
  • There is mention of differential aging between Near and Far, with some participants suggesting that this is frame-dependent and not invariant across different observers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of time signals and the effects of relativistic motion. There is no consensus on how to best describe the experiences of Far and Near, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of their observations and the nature of time in this context.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the choice of coordinate charts for observers in non-inertial frames, and the unresolved nature of how time dilation and length contraction manifest in the specific scenario discussed.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
It seems to me that what's really going on here is bad pedagogy: trying to teach concepts like relativity of simultaneity while still attempting to preserve ordinary intuitions about concepts like "now". This leads to either an inconsistent interpretation--sometimes talking as if "now" is real and sometimes talking as if it's just a convention--or issues like the ones you raise, where it seems like single events happen "now" twice for an observer that changes his state of motion.

I think that it is an issue of pedagogy. The citations do not give the answer, but the complete question posted on another site implies the answer. The complete question is here, http://www.physast.uga.edu/files/phys4102_fertig/HW%20Chapter%2015.pdf , and includes the following about the brother's age "right now" before and after the frame jump:

If the traveling twin is asked the question, "How old is your brother right now, and which of you is younger?", what is the correct reply (i) just before she makes the jump, (ii) just after she makes the jump? (Nothing dramatic happens to her brother during the split second between (i) and (ii) of course -- what does change radically is his sister's notion of what "right now" means.)​

The Dolby and Gull article points out similar issues at page 1257, using "Barbara" as the traveler:

Bohm goes on to say that ‘‘after the acceleration at E an event such as N is ascribed a smaller time coordinate than it had before!’’ . . .

Also, if Barbara’s hypersurfaces of simultaneity at a certain time depend so sensitively on her instantaneous velocity as these diagrams suggest, then she would be forced to conclude that the distant planets swept backwards and forwards in time whenever she went dancing!​

So Dolby and Gull draw the hypersurfaces of simultaneity using the radar method instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
This drawing reduces the example to Greens perception of Reds motion.
The left part is essentially the same as drawn by George in post 5 using radar methods.
The transfer for each from the platform to the train occurs at t=0 instead of 60.
The original red path is retained (black dashed) for comparison of before and
after positions (magenta) of clock ticks.
The right part is refined to replace the instantaneous changes with
continuous paths for 40 time units, thus rounding all the corners.
When compared the all inertial version is a good first approximation.

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/66109
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 136 ·
5
Replies
136
Views
15K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K