Hey ,if we need to calculate time dilation with an accelerating frame

anantchowdhary
Messages
372
Reaction score
0
Hey ,if we need to calculate time dilation with an accelerating frame of reference,cant we simply use the lorentz trasnformations and use instataneous velocity in place of relative velocity?

Alsousing einsteins derivation of the lorentz transformations we get 2ct=0

Now how do we explain this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
time dilation+acceleration

anantchowdhary said:
Hey ,if we need to calculate time dilation with an accelerating frame of reference,cant we simply use the lorentz trasnformations and use instataneous velocity in place of relative velocity?

Alsousing einsteins derivation of the lorentz transformations we get 2ct=0

Now how do we explain this?
IMHO the time dilation can be derived without using the LT. It relates a proper time interval in one of the reference frames to a coordinate time interval measured in the moving reference frame. In the case when the moving clock performs an accelerated motion (usually the hyperbolic motion) we should take into account that during the reception of two successive light signals the velocity of the receiver and the angle under which he receives the light signals could change. The best way to solve the problem is to use a relativistic space time and to intersect the world line of the accelerating observer with the world lines of the light signals.
the best thing a physicist can offer to another one are information and constructive criticism.
 
anantchowdhary said:
Hey ,if we need to calculate time dilation with an accelerating frame of reference,cant we simply use the lorentz trasnformations and use instataneous velocity in place of relative velocity?

Alsousing einsteins derivation of the lorentz transformations we get 2ct=0

Now how do we explain this?

Wouldn't that violate the principle of equivalence?
 
wich situation the first or the 2ct=0 one?
 
Citation for standard treatment of uniformly accelerated observers

Hi, anant,

anantchowdhary said:
Hey ,if we need to calculate time dilation with an accelerating frame of reference,cant we simply use the lorentz transformations and use instantaneous velocity in place of relative velocity?

This doesn't quite make sense as stated ("time dilation" always refers to some specific pair of observers in a specific spacetime, in this case Minkowski spacetime).

I feel that I must caution you to make sure you study mainstream sources before investigating more idiosyncratic approaches. For the simplest mainstream treatment of accelerated observers (known as the Rindler chart for Minkowski spacetime), see the classic textbook Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, Freeman, 1973.

It is easy to write down a generalized Rindler chart which will handle an arbitrarily accelerating congruence of observers. If, after reading MTW, you need some help finding that, ask a followup question.
 
Last edited:
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
88
Views
7K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
5K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top