B Is Time Relative? Understanding Special Relativity

[phinds]

thats Einsteins invention. its called time dilation. In order for the speed of light to remain constant in all inertial frames of reference then time has to be able to slow down. as well as space needs to expand. hence the idea of spacetime and it curving.

"Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The higher the gravitational potential (the farther the clock is from the source of gravitation), the faster timepasses. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

when you are near a black hole's event horizon the closer you get the slower time gets.

This is part of GR.

All of this is incorrect. You are confusing time dilation with differential aging due to different paths through spacetime. Yes, if you synchronize two clocks and then move them apart, either having one go deeper into a gravity well or move at a high speed, and then you bring them back together, they will show differnt times. This is NOT "time slowing down" (or speeding up), it is differential aging. EVERYTHING see time move at one second per second, regardless of where it is in a gravity well or how fast it is moving relative to something else.

Your misconception about time changing rates is a very common one, but that doesn't make it right. Again, I suggest you study the actual physics.

 

[phinds]

I know it isn't possible but people do physics where they make assumptions that you are moving at .9c all the time. how is this different

https://worldbuilding.stackexchange...practical-problems-of-near-light-speed-travel

It's different because you have moved from the possible (.9c) to the impossible (c)

 

[ZapperZ]

Im talking about if you are moving at the speed of light, forget the light beam for a second and please don't talk down to me. I am trying to just discuss this with people in a nice way. if you disagree please say so and tell me why and let's come to a conclusion together not one where your students chuckle at me.

this is a thought experiment. and if you think logically it makes sense. if you move at the speed of light or close to the speed of light doesn't time slow down? and if time slows down around you wouldn't it make sense that things would feel colder to you?

If you travel close to the speed of light with respect to another reference frame, your clock and time is no different than what it is now! You have not understood SR! Proper time and Proper length remain no different than if you are "not moving"! So no, your time doesn't slow down!

Zz.

 

[Noah332]

If you travel close to the speed of light with respect to another reference frame, your clock and time is no different than what it is now! You have not understood SR! Proper time and Proper length remain no different than if you are "not moving"! So no, your time doesn't slow down!

Zz.

but time around me has?

 

[phinds]

but time around me has?

This is really beginning to sound like you are just trolling us. You have been told several times now that there are NO circumstances in which your time "slows down" in your own frame of reference (the time around you).

 

[Noah332]

This is really beginning to sound like you are just trolling us. You have been told several times now that there are NO circumstances in which your time "slows down" in your own frame of reference (the time around you).

I am not trolling anyone. I really appreciate peoples inputs i don't know enough about this stuff and explanation are welcome. Id like to learn more but all u have are my thoughts. If you guys would, instead of getting mad at me for not being as smart as you, help me understand where i am going wrong why it would be really helpful. Just saying NO in bold and saying my students would chuckled at you, doesn't help. I hope you don't bully everyone who isn't as smart as you.

 

[jbriggs444]

but time around me has?

Moving clocks are measured to run slow when measured against an array of stationary clocks synchronized according to your standard of rest.

Your clocks are measured to run slow when measured against an array of moving clocks synchronized according to their standard of rest.

Both moving and stationary clocks measure one second per second by definition. Time is what a clock measures.

As has been suggested, you really need to learn special relativity before speculating about it.

 

[ZapperZ]

but time around me has?

I don't know what this mean.

If you are going to invoke something, don't you think you should understand that "thing" first? We are going backward several steps here and ending up trying to teach you Special Relativity, which you should have known already if you are going to apply it to make "temperature" relative just like SR.

Now this is even before I query you if you are aware of the statistical nature of thermodynamics and the origin of the definition of this quantity called "temperature"?

It is nice and simple to make speculation and play this "What if...?" game. But that works only in the pedestrian sense, and maybe it works in other forums. But PF, if you have looked around, has a significantly higher standards than that. If we entertain all the "What ifs..." of the worlds, we won't be doing anything else on here but put out fires. This is true if the person making that kind of speculation started off not even understanding what is being used. We typically end up like this, trying to go one step forward, but ending up making 2 or 3 steps back, trying to explain our explanation. I'm sure even you can already see how frustrating that can be.

I strongly suggest you shore up your understanding of (i) Special Relativity and (ii) thermodynamics and statistical mechanics first before trying to see if you can push what you wrote in your very first post.

Zz.

 

[Drakkith]

If you slow down time do atoms hold there heat relative to you? If you are standing next to a boiling pot of water and you somehow stopped time, if you touched the boiling water would it feel hot?

You can't stop time, so the question is not answerable.

As for temperature being relative, well, it's not. It's a measure of the internal energy of a system (such as a collection of gas particles). This internal energy does not change if you or the system is accelerated since the kinetic energy of the system is not part of the internal energy. The fact that objects can be at different temperatures does not mean that temperature is relative, it only means that there isn't a single temperature that an object can have. (using 'relative' in the context it is used in SR and GR)

For something to be relative, it requires that there be no discernible difference in the laws of physics at the different values that something can take. For example, no matter how much you accelerate an object, no experiment you can do on that object from its reference frame will tell you how fast you are going. You must reference an outside object. And, depending on what that outside object is doing, you can very easily measure different values for your velocity.

Temperature is not like this. There is absolutely a difference as you heat up an object, and all observers, no matter how they are moving or what their own temperature is, will agree on what will happen. For example, all observers will see water boil and evaporate as it is heated up to and beyond its boiling point. The person who put the kettle on the stove doesn't need to reference another kettle nearby and compare it their own kettle to know the temperature increased. He can simply observe what happens to the water in the kettle.

Another example of a non-relative effect is acceleration. You can very easily measure the acceleration using an accelerometer. You don't need to look to another object and compare what it's doing to what your doing. No matter how other objects are moving and accelerating, all would agree that you are accelerating, they would agree on the magnitude of the acceleration, and they would agree on the direction of the acceleration.

 

[phinds]

I am not trolling anyone. I really appreciate peoples inputs i don't know enough about this stuff and explanation are welcome. Id like to learn more but all u have are my thoughts. If you guys would, instead of getting mad at me for not being as smart as you, help me understand where i am going wrong why it would be really helpful. Just saying NO in bold and saying my students would chuckled at you, doesn't help. I hope you don't bully everyone who isn't as smart as you.

No one has suggest that you are not as smart as anyone here, we have simply stated, with good reason, that you are less educated and that you are asking questions that require an understanding of the very basic physics involved and that you clearly do not have that understanding. For the third or forth time in this thread, I suggest that you stop posting and go back and study the basics.

 

[nasu]

Even your assumption that "temperature is relative" needs some explanation. Maybe you can explain what do you think "relative temperature" means. The sensations of cold and hot are "relative" in the sense that what one person calls cold may be hot for another or what we call warm weather in winter may be different than a warm summer day. But the sensation being relative does not mean that the temperature is relative. If you measure the temperature, everybody gets the same value no matter how good is his peripheral circulation or the season of the measurement. Before speculating about what new physics will emerge from the relativity of temperature we need to make sure there is such a thing (relative temperature) and what does it mean.

 

[Drakkith]

I am not trolling anyone. I really appreciate peoples inputs i don't know enough about this stuff and explanation are welcome. Id like to learn more but all u have are my thoughts. If you guys would, instead of getting mad at me for not being as smart as you, help me understand where i am going wrong why it would be really helpful. Just saying NO in bold and saying my students would chuckled at you, doesn't help. I hope you don't bully everyone who isn't as smart as you.

Forgive us, we get a lot of people who start off their time here at PF with posts similar to yours and then proceed to ignore everything that they're told about physics. So we've already started off on the wrong foot. Just bear with us and continue to show that you're willing to learn and I assure you that no one will accuse you of trolling.

 

[Noah332]

Forgive us, we get a lot of people who start off their time here at PF with posts similar to yours and then proceed to ignore everything that they're told about physics. So we've already started off on the wrong foot. Just bear with us and continue to show that you're willing to learn and I assure you that no one will accuse you of trolling.

Thank you for this. I hope I am not coming off as ignoring what I am told. I am willing to learn. but it seems like everyone here doesn't want to explain they just want to tell me I am wrong. and need to learn more and shut up.

 

[Noah332]

Even your assumption that "temperature is relative" needs some explanation. Maybe you can explain what do you think "relative temperature" means. The sensations of cold and hot are "relative" in the sense that what one person calls cold may be hot for another or what we call warm weather in winter may be different than a warm summer day. But the sensation being relative does not mean that the temperature is relative. If you measure the temperature, everybody gets the same value no matter how good is his peripheral circulation or the season of the measurement. Before speculating about what new physics will emerge from the relativity of temperature we need to make sure there is such a thing (relative temperature) and what does it mean.

fair enough, i will have to think about this thank you

 

[ZapperZ]

Thank you for this. I hope I am not coming off as ignoring what I am told. I am willing to learn. but it seems like everyone here doesn't want to explain they just want to tell me I am wrong. and need to learn more and shut up.

EVERYONE?

I told you why and what was wrong with what you wrote. I didn't just tell you it was wrong. Otherwise, my replies to you will be just one sentence!

Zz.

 

[Nugatory]

This thread is closed, as the entire discussion has been based on a misunderstanding of what special relativity says about time what temperature is.

The original poster may want to find a good introductory textbook on SR (my personal favorite is Taylor and Wheeler, but there are other good ones that other members will be able to recommend). We can help you over the inevitable hard spots.