Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How does relativity define time (as a constant or not?)

  1. Jul 17, 2014 #1
    Hello everyone! My question is this: Do we believe time is a constant and forces such as gravity affect our perception of time? Or do we believe that time itself is being slowed down by forces such as gravity?

    I ask this because I had an interesting thought while driving to work. If time is a requirement for change, then how would the big bang be possible if time was a property of our universe specifically (i.e gravity slowing down time)? Wouldn't time need to exist outside of our universe, and if so, how can our universe slow it down?
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 17, 2014 #2

    ghwellsjr

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Relativity defines time as what a clock measures.

    Since different clocks tick at different rates under different conditions of gravity and relative speed, time cannot be constant and is running at different rates depending on those influences.

    Since there are no clocks outside our universe, we don't have a definition of time that would be applicable outside our universe.
     
  4. Jul 17, 2014 #3
    I understand that. I guess what I was trying to get at was is it possible that time is actually a constant, but it is gravity or other forcers that are changing the clocks time, not time itself being slowed down?
     
  5. Jul 17, 2014 #4

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    How would you test this? If all clocks are affected, how could you tell that "time is actually a constant" when there is nothing physical that reflects this "constant time"?
     
  6. Jul 17, 2014 #5

    ghwellsjr

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The problem with speculating "that time is actually a constant" is in defining exactly what that means and identifying under what conditions time is not slowed down. This is exactly what was being proposed by Lorentz and others prior to Einstein's 1905 paper introducing Special Relativity.
     
  7. Jul 17, 2014 #6
    To even speculate more accurately about your question you need to define more precisely “what clock’s measure”… This I have studied quite a bit and every clock I’ve looked at from Cesium clocks to the Earth’s orbit and rotation (arguably the first clocks used by man) measure motion, or being more scientifically accurate, they measure a change of position and its energy as it relates to the position change within a distance. This is what we usually refer to as “speed”; however it is important to note that scientifically speed is defined as a change of position per time (dx/dt). Where x is distance, t is time and s is speed (d is a delta).

    In empirical reality (that includes clocks), time and speed are coincident and reciprocal, you cannot observe one without the other, we see both t = dx/ds and s = dx/dt. A unit of time measured by a clock encompasses a speed as the ratio of x/s that it was derived from. An easy physical example of this is the Earth’s rotation where one rotation is both a day of time and a ratio of x/s at any given latitude; here they (time and speed) can easily be seen as coincident and reciprocal sides of the same physical phenomena (a change of position and its magnitude within a distance).

    As far as this can relate to your question above, as best I can determine, this empirical reality is consistent with the math of SR including Lorentz transformations and Lorentz invariance; however it may be problematic with GR, yet if empirically tested, it is accurate and factual. You likely have to do a lot more research if you want to relate time as a constant, relative to both motion and gravity. Personally I think time is just the same as distance and speed in that they are all relative for a frame at rest, and time is exactly what it appears to be empirically, one way to describe the measurement of a change of position, with speed being another.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
  8. Jul 17, 2014 #7

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This is not what Cesium clocks measure. Atomic clocks in general are based on the frequencies of electron energy level transitions within atoms; such transitions are not "changes of position" in any meaningful sense.
     
  9. Jul 17, 2014 #8
    Cesium clocks count oscillations from the known frequency emitted for the hyperfine transation of cesium 133. The "frequency" unit or "oscillation" is merely a measurable increment for lights change of position, analogous to one Earth rotation (a day) being a measurable increment of its change in position. A physical process is taking place that is being measured.

    As you can see the "frequency" is a known incremental change of position of light (x per c).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  10. Jul 17, 2014 #9
    To answer the OP's question no, most people do not think of time as a constant. There's all kinds of theories and metaphysical debates you can have about the true nature of time but it isn't a constant. Because it's relative. Literally that's the opposite of a constant.
     
  11. Jul 17, 2014 #10

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    No, it isn't. This is more a question of quantum mechanics than relativity, so if you want to go into this in more detail, you should probably post a separate thread in the quantum physics forum. But the term "frequency" as applied in this case does not mean what you think it means; it has nothing to do with any "oscillation" in the ordinary sense, where the position of something changes in a periodic fashion.

    The quote you give does not say that; this is your (incorrect) interpretation of the term "frequency". It is true that one quote uses the unfortunate term "crests of a light wave"; this is what comes of trying to describe quantum phenomena in ordinary language. The photon measurements by a detector that they are talking about do *not* measure the motion of anything; they measure the energy of the photons, which is directly proportional to their frequency according to quantum mechanics.
     
  12. Jul 17, 2014 #11
    Thank you to everyone for the replies!

    I believe the root of my confusion comes from our definition of a constant (such as the speed of light, for example). If time is NOT constant, then how can the speed of light be constant? A black hole, for example, would change the speed at which light is traveling because it is changing time. If time was constant, however, then the speed of light would remain a constant, as its speed is unaffected by time changing. What would be affected is space by gravity. I would think that it is the extension or compression of space by forces such as gravity that causes the illusion of time changing speed, because it takes a longer or shorter period to get from point A to point B. Light approaching a black hole would always be traveling at the speed of light, but its destination (the center of the black hole) would be an enormous distance away because of the stretching of space.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
  13. Jul 17, 2014 #12
    There are many credible references all over, such as this NIST publication showing the direct measurement of wavelength as a property for a frequency of light. http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf
     
  14. Jul 17, 2014 #13

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This does not describe how they actually "directly measure" the wavelength. Do you have a source that does? And does that source say they actually measure the distance between wave crests? My understanding is that these "direct" wavelength measurements are really indirect, because they are not direct measurements of the light wave crests, they are measurements of something like the length of the cavity in which the waves are created. Once again, you can't go by ordinary language descriptions of something like this; the words don't always mean what you think they mean.
     
  15. Jul 17, 2014 #14

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Because saying "the speed of light is constant" is a bad way to describe the actual underlying physics. A better way is: "all objects move on or within the local light cones", where the "light cones" at each event in spacetime are the set of null rays passing through that event. Since locally, any spacetime looks like the flat spacetime of special relativity, the speed of light is constant in any spacetime for the same reason it's constant in SR. In other words, "the speed of light" (and indeed "speed" in general) is a local concept.

    Thinking in terms of light cones also gives a better way of thinking about what gravity does: gravity tilts the light cones at a given event, relative to the light cones at other events. For example, in the empty space surrounding a black hole, far away from the hole, the light cones look pretty much the same as they do in flat spacetime: light rays in a spacetime diagram are 45-degree lines. But as you get closer to the hole, the outgoing sides of the light cones tilt inwards: outgoing light rays on a spacetime diagram get more and more vertical. At the black hole's horizon, the outgoing sides of the light cones are exactly vertical: outgoing light rays stay at the same radius (the horizon radius) forever.

    This means that the effect of gravity on light is not due to "changing time" *or* "changing space"; it's due to changing the light cones. I would recommend rethinking your views in that light (pun intended :wink:); I think it will help to make things clearer.
     
  16. Jul 17, 2014 #15
    That's not what a constant means. Constant doesn't mean "unchangeable". If you are on the surface of a planet and I am traveling in a ship at 99% the speed of light away from you if I shine a beam of light out of the front of my ship I will observe it moving away form me at velocity c. (c being the speed of light in a vacuum) On the planet you will also observe it moving away from you at c. We will both observe it traveling at the same velocity c regardless of how fast we are moving relative to each other.

    That is why it is a constant. It has a invariable value: 299 792 458 m / s. No matter what your particular frame of reference is relative to another you will both always observe light traveling at 299 792 458 m / s in a vacuum. Unless some outside force is acting on it there is no possible way to ever observe light traveling at any velocity other than c. Time has no constant value, there is no baseline. Light that is traveling at any velocity other than c has been influenced by some outside force. There is no corresponding value of time that you can say that about. Which is why it isn't a constant.
     
  17. Jul 17, 2014 #16
    That makes perfect sense MFPunch and PeterDonis, Thanks for your time:).
     
  18. Jul 18, 2014 #17

    ghwellsjr

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm always fascinated by statements like this saying that it is possible to observe light traveling at c out the front of a ship. Could you please elaborate on exactly what you mean? How do you observe the speed of light?
     
  19. Jul 18, 2014 #18
    It doesn't matter, unless you are willing to claim light does not change position, then just as every clock in the past has done the Cesium clock uses an increment of motion (light) to derive time. The arguments you brought up obfuscate that simple truth; even the technologies that are being developed to create even more accurate clocks are mostly trying to measure smaller increments and shorter wavelengths of c. However light is the underlying change of position used and broken down into these small increments of time (this basic mechanic has been unchanged in every timekeeping device). The consistency of c and the ability to accurately measure small increments of it are what make these clocks so much more accurate than clocks of the past.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  20. Jul 18, 2014 #19

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This does not follow. The fact that light changes position does not mean that changing position is the only thing it does, or that position is the only change that can be used as a time reference.

    No, they are trying to measure smaller increments of *energy*. Once again, do you have any specific reference that explicitly describes a measurement of "the position of light" used in a clock? I'm guessing the answer is "no" since you haven't given one up to now.
     
  21. Jul 18, 2014 #20
    Is not the true constant "space-time"? a relative combination of motion and mass?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: How does relativity define time (as a constant or not?)
Loading...