Does Time Dilation Occur in a Perfectly Circular Orbit at Near-Light Speed?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Steeve Leaf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Speed Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of time dilation in the context of a spaceship orbiting Earth in a perfectly circular orbit at near-light speed (0.5c). Participants explore the implications of relativistic effects on clock readings between the spaceship and an observer on Earth, considering factors such as distance, speed, and acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the clock difference between the spaceship and Earth remains constant at 1 second due to light propagation delay and relativistic effects.
  • Another participant calculates that for every second on Earth, the observer sees only 0.866 seconds of images from the ship, leading to a cumulative time difference over multiple seconds.
  • There is a discussion about whether acceleration plays a role in the observed time difference, with some suggesting that the acceleration due to the circular path must be considered.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the effects of the Doppler shift and time dilation when the ship is moving towards or away from the observer.
  • A later reply asserts that the time difference is solely due to speed, while the radius of the orbit and acceleration do not contribute to the time difference as measured by the observer on Earth.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of the light clock to explain time dilation and emphasizes the invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames.
  • There is a mention of how acceleration affects the ship's perception of time, suggesting that it causes the ship to measure the Earth clock running fast.
  • One participant describes the phenomenon as an optical illusion, asserting that the clock difference will remain constant at 1 second when broadcasting images from the ship.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of acceleration and the interpretation of time dilation effects. There is no consensus on whether the observed time difference is purely due to speed or if other factors, such as acceleration and distance, play a significant role.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the importance of understanding gravitational time dilation and the effects of acceleration in relativistic scenarios, indicating that these factors may complicate the analysis of time differences.

  • #91
Steeve Leaf said:
Can you give an example of faster than light signaling that will create reference frame in which the signal arrived before it was sent ?
Let's say I'm here on Earth you're on your ship about a light year away traveling away from Earth with some speed. I send you an instantaneous signal when my clock says it's 1100. At this instant for me, your clock says, say 1340. You get this signal at 1340 your time. However, due to the fact that you're moving relative to me, and the relativity of simultaneity, for you at the instant your clock says 1340, my clock says it's 0300. So, you send an instantaneous signal back to me, and it arrives to me before I ever sent one to you. Of course, for me, when the time was 0300, your time was something like 0600, so I can respond back asking about this bizarre message I receive from you, and then you're confused because that comes before you ever replied to my first one, and this keeps going.

Keep in mind here the numbers are just arbitrary, but the effect they're pointing to is real. The concept of "now" is relative. There is no universal instant that everyone shares.

This effect can still happen with non-instantaneous signals that travel faster than light, but this puts a lower bound on the speed at which the target of the signal must be traveling away from you for it to happen. The faster the signal, the less this lower bound is. That bound basically uses the velocity addition formula for doubling the velocity. So the lower bound for velocity ##v## a frame must be traveling away from you for a signal that moves at faster than light velocity ##k## such that it could repeat that signal back to you so that it arrives before it was sent is given by ##v = \frac {2k} {1 + k^2}##

So, if you could send signals at twice the speed of light, the target has to be moving away from you faster than 0.8c to send it back to you before you sent it. If you can send it at 10x the speed of light, the target only has to be moving away faster than about 0.198c. You'll see that as ##k## approaches infinity (instant communication), ##v## approaches 0.

How much further in the past the return signal will go depends both on how much faster than the lower bound the target is moving and how far from you they are.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Ibix said:
Decent article. The comments might be subtitled "fifty ways to miss the point", though.
Some of the comments are from Rich the writer himself and some others are interesting and informative I didn't go through all of them( did you ? ) so maybe fifty is the right figure , ☺
 
  • #93
Arkalius said:
Let's say I'm here on Earth you're on your ship about a light year away traveling away from Earth with some speed. I send you an instantaneous signal when my clock says it's 1100. At this instant for me, your clock says, say 1340. You get this signal at 1340 your time. However, due to the fact that you're moving relative to me, and the relativity of simultaneity, for you at the instant your clock says 1340, my clock says it's 0300. So, you send an instantaneous signal back to me, and it arrives to me before I ever sent one to you. Of course, for me, when the time was 0300, your time was something like 0600, so I can respond back asking about this bizarre message I receive from you, and then you're confused because that comes before you ever replied to my first one, and this keeps going.

Keep in mind here the numbers are just arbitrary, but the effect they're pointing to is real. The concept of "now" is relative. There is no universal instant that everyone shares.

This effect can still happen with non-instantaneous signals that travel faster than light, but this puts a lower bound on the speed at which the target of the signal must be traveling away from you for it to happen. The faster the signal, the less this lower bound is. That bound basically uses the velocity addition formula for doubling the velocity. So the lower bound for velocity ##v## a frame must be traveling away from you for a signal that moves at faster than light velocity ##k## such that it could repeat that signal back to you so that it arrives before it was sent is given by ##v = \frac {2k} {1 + k^2}##

So, if you could send signals at twice the speed of light, the target has to be moving away from you faster than 0.8c to send it back to you before you sent it. If you can send it at 10x the speed of light, the target only has to be moving away faster than about 0.198c. You'll see that as ##k## approaches infinity (instant communication), ##v## approaches 0.

How much further in the past the return signal will go depends both on how much faster than the lower bound the target is moving and how far from you they are.
I don't have to be there physically do I ? We can replace me with a device that just return the information back to us at Earth, don't tell nobody about it and make a lot of money. We tried to get patent on it but every time at appears that it already patented .
I think that the problem here is first to receive the signal of FTL radiation/interaction than work on not breaking causality if it is in danger. Suddenly causality becomes a FORCE a fifth one.
 
Last edited:
  • #94
Steeve Leaf said:
Some of the comments are from Rich the writer himself and some others are interesting and informative I didn't go through all of them( did you ? ) so maybe fifty is the right figure , ☺
I didn't go through them all. The author's were good, but a lot of the time he was replying to say "no, you've missed the point". And note the comment he added at the top of the article. Maybe there are insightful comments, but they seem to be a bit lost in the noise.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K