Is it time to "retire" time dilation and length contraction?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of time dilation and length contraction in the context of special relativity, questioning their utility and proposing alternative approaches to teaching these ideas. Participants explore the implications of these concepts on students' understanding of relativity and suggest methods for improving educational frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that time dilation and length contraction are fundamentally flawed and unobservable, suggesting that they are often misrepresented in popular science.
  • Alternative approaches proposed include a formal derivation of the Lorentz Transform, introduction of four-vectors, and a focus on observable phenomena like aberration and Doppler effects.
  • There is a suggestion that understanding proper time may provide a more intuitive grasp of relativity, especially after students let go of absolute time and simultaneity.
  • Some participants express concern that beginners may struggle with complex concepts and prefer simpler explanations, indicating a need for guidance rather than overwhelming them with formal derivations.
  • Participants note that misconceptions about time dilation and length contraction often stem from deeper misunderstandings of absolute time.
  • There is a recognition that despite proposed changes, beginners will continue to ask the same questions, highlighting the ongoing challenge of teaching these concepts effectively.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for improved teaching methods and the challenges posed by misconceptions. However, there is no consensus on the best approach to take or whether time dilation and length contraction should be "retired" from discussions.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations noted include the dependence on students' prior understanding of absolute time and simultaneity, as well as the potential for confusion stemming from traditional teaching methods. The discussion reflects a variety of perspectives on how to effectively convey complex concepts in relativity.

  • #121
valentin mano said:
Flat Spacetime does not mean "inertial frame of reference",which is the initial frame of Special Relativity.

SR was originally formulated in terms of inertial frames, yes, but as DaleSpam pointed out in post #116, in the modern view SR is defined by flat spacetime, including the use of non-inertial frames in flat spacetime.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
[Moderator's note: edited to fix quote tags.]

PeterDonis said:
Third, why is the lack of tidal forces important in analyzing the twin paradox?

The tidal forces are not important,just the acceleration,that one of the clocks expiriences.It accelerates to near the speed of light,than returns
back to the one,that has not been moved.In SR there are two inertial frames,passing by each other and each frame sees its clock ticking
faster than the other.The same way EPR paradox is not solved in SR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
Did you have something to say here, or did you like what Peter said so much that you decided to re-emphasize it?

But seriously, though, Chapter 6 of MTW is entitled Accelerated Observers. The first section in this chapter is entitled "Accelerated Observers can be Analyzed Using Special Relativity"

I think that says it all.

Chet
 
Last edited:
  • #124
Sorry,I thought I was talking to a layman.English is not my native.
 
  • #125
valentin mano said:
The same way EPR paradox is not solved in SR.

I don't understand what any of this has to do with the EPR paradox. But this whole subthread is getting way off topic.
 
  • #126
The subject has been discussed thoroughly. Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
892
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K