How does the energy and time dilation of objects moving at high speeds work?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of energy and time dilation for objects moving at high speeds, particularly in the context of special relativity. Participants explore the implications of relative motion, the calculation of speeds, and the effects of kinetic energy on time dilation from different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how two objects moving at 51% of the speed of light can appear to move away from each other at a combined speed exceeding the speed of light, suggesting a need for clarification on relative speeds.
  • Another participant emphasizes that all movement is relative and prompts consideration of the reference frame when discussing speeds.
  • There is a discussion about calculating relative speeds using a formula provided by a participant named Starthaus, which is referenced multiple times.
  • Participants mention that energy is frame variant and differs depending on the observer's reference frame, indicating that there is no single value for energy in this context.
  • One participant discusses the concept of proper time and how it is a coordinate-independent property, while also noting that observers must account for the clock's speed in their own coordinate system to calculate ticking rates.
  • Another participant raises a point about the relationship between energy and the curvature of spacetime, suggesting that energy levels can affect the observed time dilation depending on the observer.
  • There is a mention of the Lorentz factor and its role in determining the ticking rate of moving clocks, with specific calculations provided for clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the interpretation of energy and time dilation, particularly in relation to reference frames and the implications of relative motion. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached on several key points.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of reference frames in discussions of speed and energy, indicating that assumptions about absolute speed may lead to confusion. The calculations and interpretations presented are contingent on the specific frames of reference chosen by the observers.

Aeodyn
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Assume you have two objects, with nothing else, moving directly away from one another, each at 51% of the speed of light. But, from the frame of reference of one object, the other is going 102% of c, an impossibility. How does this work?

And: Those same two objects, which has more energy, and, thus greater time dilation? If you use ether of them as a reference point, the other seems to have more energy, thus greater time dilation. How does this work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aeodyn said:
Assume you have two objects, with nothing else, moving directly away from one another, each at 51% of the speed of light. But, from the frame of reference of one object, the other is going 102% of c,


No: [tex]w=\frac{v_1+v_2}{1+v_1v_2/c^2}=\frac{2v}{1+v^2/c^2}<c[/tex]
 
Aeodyn said:
Assume you have two objects, with nothing else, moving directly away from one another
Ok.

Aeodyn said:
each at 51% of the speed of light.
Each?

Remember all movement is relative, you express speed in terms of absolute speed. Ask yourself: 51% with respect to what?
 
:-p
But what about the second scenario?
 
Last edited:
Passionflower said:
Ok.Each?

Remember all movement is relative, you express speed in terms of absolute speed. Ask yourself: 51% with respect to what?

Say an object between each, in the middle.
 
Aeodyn said:
Say an object between each, in the middle.
In that case the relative speed between the moving objects is calculated by the formula that Starthaus provided.
 
Aeodyn said:
Say an object between each, in the middle.
Then the speed of one one of them relative to the other is what Starthaus said.

Aeodyn said:
:-p
But what about the second scenario?
In the rest frame of (either of) the objects, the other one has a large speed and therefore a large kinetic energy. Therefore, they would both describe each other's clocks as ticking slower than normal, by a factor of

[tex]\gamma_w=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{w^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

where w is the result of Starthaus's calculation.
 
Last edited:
Fredrik said:
Then the speed of one one of them relative to the other is what Starthaus said.


In the rest frame of (either of) the objects, the other one has a large speed and therefore a large kinetic energy. Therefore, they would both describe each other's clocks as ticking slower than normal, by a factor of

[tex]\gamma_w=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{w^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

where w is the result of Starthaus's calculation.

Ah...:smile:
But if you have another object, in between the other two, then is one of the objects energy determined by using both of the other 2 as a reference frame, or just one, and which?
 
The energy is frame variant, just like the speed is. It is different in each frame, there is no one number.
 
  • #10
DaleSpam said:
The energy is frame variant, just like the speed is. It is different in each frame, there is no one number.

What if the observed object had a clock on it? It would measure time depending on it's observed energy level, observed by which observing object?
 
  • #11
Aeodyn said:
What if the observed object had a clock on it? It would measure time depending on it's observed energy level, observed by which observing object?
What it measures is the proper time of the curve in spacetime that represents its motion. That's a coordinate independent property of the curve, so it doesn't depend on who's observing it. However, if an observer wants to calculate that clock's ticking rate in the coordinate system associated with his own motion, he would have to use the clock's speed in that coordinate system, i.e. the clock's speed relative to him.

Edit: Oops. Thank yossell.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Fredrik said:
That's a coordinate dependent property of the curve,

err... coordinate independent?
 
  • #13
Fredrik said:
In the rest frame of (either of) the objects, the other one has a large speed and therefore a large kinetic energy. Therefore, they would both describe each other's clocks as ticking slower than normal, by a factor of

[tex]\gamma_w=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{w^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

where w is the result of Starthaus's calculation.
I realize this is a little of a nitpick but just to avoid confusion a time interval observed in the moving frame must be multiplied by the Lorentz factor, that implies that to get the ticking rate one uses [itex]1/\gamma[/itex]

In the above mentioned scenario [itex]\gamma = 1.703069715[/itex] so the moving clock rate is 0.587175024 times the local clock rate.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Fredrik said:
What it measures is the proper time of the curve in spacetime that represents its motion. That's a coordinate independent property of the curve, so it doesn't depend on who's observing it. However, if an observer wants to calculate that clock's ticking rate in the coordinate system associated with his own motion, he would have to use the clock's speed in that coordinate system, i.e. the clock's speed relative to him.

Edit: Oops. Thank yossell.

It actually DOES matter what is observing it, as of energy = matter = curve-of-spacetime.
the reason an object cannot move past the speed of light, why it takes more and more energy to speed it up the faster it goes, why A = F/M is wrong, is that the more energy something has, the heavier it is. Matter has high concentration of energy, and so warps the fabric of space time more than a laser. Depending on what is observing it, it has more, or less, energy, thus different magnitude curves, thus different speeds of time.
I think...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
6K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
8K