Is the perception of backwards time possible in relativity during deceleration?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ookke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relativity of simultaneity and the implications of a rocket's deceleration on perceived time at a distant space station. When the rocket R, traveling at high speed, decelerates to synchronize its clock with station A, it does not experience time at station B moving backwards; rather, it transitions into a different inertial frame. The concept of time being perceived as "backwards" is dismissed, emphasizing that the synchronization of clocks is a convention rather than an observation. The discussion references Dolby and Gull's radar time as a method for constructing non-inertial coordinates.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relativity of simultaneity
  • Familiarity with inertial and non-inertial frames of reference
  • Knowledge of clock synchronization conventions
  • Basic grasp of relativistic effects on time perception
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Dolby and Gull's radar time for non-inertial coordinates
  • Explore the implications of time dilation in special relativity
  • Investigate the effects of acceleration on time perception in relativity
  • Learn about the synchronization of clocks in different inertial frames
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the nuances of time perception in relativistic contexts.

Ookke
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Hi. A short question regarding relativity of simultaneity, its interpretation and maybe some terminology.

Suppose A and B are distant space stations, at rest with each other, clocks synchronized. A rocket R travels with high speed passing A at time t=0, heading towards B. Not going into details, from R's perspective the clock reading at B could be couple of years ahead.

If the rocket suddenly stops at A, it enters the frame of A and B, where the clocks are synchronized. After stop R will agree with A that the time at B is t=0.

Should we say that from R's perspective time went backwards at B during the deceleration? Of course R could not really watch the event because of distance and finite light speed, but nevertheless R "observed" it (in the sense commonly used in relativity, involving calculations). Or should we think this only a coordinate system change, not an observation at all?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ookke said:
If the rocket suddenly stops at A, it enters the frame of A and B, where the clocks are synchronized. After stop R will agree with A that the time at B is t=0.
Setting of clocks is a convention. If, when the rocket stops, it wants its clocks to match those of B, it will need to set them manually. It's like clocks changing in winter (in countries where that happens!) - you simply change your clock to match the "official" time.

The point is that the rocket does not "enter the frame of A and B". It can always be described in any frame - just like anything else. It's motion change means that its clocks now tick at the same rate as A's and B's clocks, but it doesn't mean that they must show the same time.
Ookke said:
Should we say that from R's perspective time went backwards at B during the deceleration?
No. If you want a single coherent perspective for R, it cannot be two inertial frames naively stitched together, precisely because doing that would cause some events to have two coordinates assigned to them and some none. My favourite way of constructing non-inertial coordinates is Dolby and Gull's radar time - see https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104077.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
9K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K