Is Time Slowing or Are Processes Slowing Near High Gravity and Speeds?

[Fredrik]

I think that you are misrepresenting their position here. The fact that the traveling twin is younger at the reunion is incompatible with your statement.

I don't think so. I'm assuming that his point is just that there's simply "less time" along the traveling twin's path through spacetime. So a clock that works the way it always does is going to display a smaller number if it takes that path through spacetime instead of the other path.

 

[phinds]

I don't think so. I'm assuming that his point is just that there's simply "less time" along the traveling twin's path through spacetime. So a clock that works the way it always does is going to display a smaller number if it takes that path through spacetime instead of the other path.

Yes, that's the way I've always understood it to work. It's very counter-intuitive that the twins can be different ages without SOMETHING having happened to one of their matabolisms, but it seems to be just the way nature works when SR comes into play. As you say, they've just taken different paths through space-time and that causes the difference.

 

[Dale]

But the fact that there is a difference means that there was an effect.

In any case, I would like to see the quote in context.

 

[nitsuj]

Taylor and Wheeler are emphatic in denying that motion causes any effect on the workings of clocks or human metabolysm.

I'm pretty sure this point was raised well before Taylor & Wheeler, and well before Einstein.

No it doesn't effect the "Workings" of metabolism, as in the physics of metabolism. Motion is relative.

Labeling this as a position of Taylor & Wheeler is a little misleading to say the least, as a number of others have denied that motion has any effect on the "workings" of physics.

Comparably though it has a remarkable effect on metabolism,errr...time/length.

 

[Dale]

No it doesn't effect the "Workings" of metabolism

OK, I can see that. With "workings" appropriately defined.

 

[Fredrik]

But the fact that there is a difference means that there was an effect.

That is one way of looking at it. I think both are valid, but it seems to me that the view that the clock is actually changing is a natural interpretation of the alternative (and indistinguishable) ether theory, while the view that there's simply less time there (e.g. along the astronaut twin's path) is a natural interpretation of SR.

 

[JM]

But the fact that there is a difference means that there was an effect.

In any case, I would like to see the quote in context.

The discussion is on page 76 of their book 'Spacetime Physics.
JM

 

[JM]

Taylor and Wheeler are emphatic in denying that motion causes any effect on the workings of clocks or human metabolysm.

I'm pretty sure this point was raised well before Taylor & Wheeler, and well before Einstein.

No it doesn't effect the "Workings" of metabolism, as in the physics of metabolism. Motion is relative.

Labeling this as a position of Taylor & Wheeler is a little misleading to say the least, as a number of others have denied that motion has any effect on the "workings" of physics.

Comparably though it has a remarkable effect on metabolism,errr...time/length.

Can you give references for the others that have denied the motion effects? I would like to see what they have to say.
JM

 

[JM]

That is one way of looking at it. I think both are valid, but it seems to me that the view that the clock is actually changing is a natural interpretation of the alternative (and indistinguishable) ether theory, while the view that there's simply less time there (e.g. along the astronaut twin's path) is a natural interpretation of SR.

May I suggest the following speculative thought? The twins analysis depends on the 'slow clock formula' given above. However, suppose we follow Einsteins method of Chapter XII of his 1916 book, and we ask 'how much time elapses on the moving clocks during the time between two consecutive ticks of the clock at rest at the origin of the stationary frame? The value t = 0 ( and x = 0 ) leads to t' = 0. The second 'tick' at t = 1 leads to t' = 1 / √ ( 1 -v²/c²). As Einstein mentioned this is a somewhat larger time. So are the moving clocks 'faster' or 'slower' than the stationary clocks?
For various reasons I think the clocks don't change, but the resolution of the 'twins' is not at all clear to me.
JM

 

[Mentz114]

May I suggest the following speculative thought? The twins analysis depends on the 'slow clock formula' given above. However, suppose we follow Einsteins method of Chapter XII of his 1916 book, and we ask 'how much time elapses on the moving clocks during the time between two consecutive ticks of the clock at rest at the origin of the stationary frame? The value t = 0 ( and x = 0 ) leads to t' = 0. The second 'tick' at t = 1 leads to t' = 1 / √ ( 1 -v²/c²). As Einstein mentioned this is a somewhat larger time. So are the moving clocks 'faster' or 'slower' than the stationary clocks?

If t' is longer( greater duration) than t, then the moving clock is slower. But both observers will calculate this. It is an effect of changing coordinates between frames

For various reasons I think the clocks don't change, but the resolution of the 'twins' is not at all clear to me.
JM

There is no resolution - SR just tells us that the elapsed time on a clock is the proper time between events along its worldline.

 

[1977ub]

the resolution of the 'twins' is not at all clear to me.
JM

A somewhat more straightforward scenario is if the traveling twin moves in a circle. Every time he passes his origin point, he finds that his clock has ticked fewer times than the origin clock. Since he is traveling in a circle - not in an inertial frame - we won't be tempted to create any "paradoxical" inertial frame for him in which clocks in the original frame are measured to be moving more slowly.

 

[ghwellsjr]

The discussion is on page 76 of their book 'Spacetime Physics.
JM

The issue being discussed in Box 3-4 on page 76&77 of T&W is the meanings of the words "real", "really", and "reality". They present two arguments, one that agrees that there are differences in clock rates and one that denies that a clocks tick at different rates. Note how they conclude each argument with: If that is what you mean by real (or reality) then that is "what really happens" or then "there are really no such changes".

They are not taking sides--they are merely pointing out the futility of discussing ill-defined words.

 

[Dale]

The issue being discussed in Box 3-4 on page 76&77 of T&W is the meanings of the words "real", "really", and "reality". They present two arguments, one that agrees that there are differences in clock rates and one that denies that a clocks tick at different rates. Note how they conclude each argument with: If that is what you mean by real (or reality) then that is "what really happens" or then "there are really no such changes".

They are not taking sides--they are merely pointing out the futility of discussing ill-defined words.

Thanks. I can agree heartily with that.

 

[nitsuj]

Can you give references for the others that have denied the motion effects? I would like to see what they have to say.
JM

What references? It's a postulate. It hasn't yet been shown to be wrong. It's not remarkable because it's intuitive.

Inertial motion doesn't effect mechanical physics (Laws).

 

[JM]

The issue being discussed in Box 3-4 on page 76&77 of T&W is the meanings of the words "real", "really", and "reality". They present two arguments, one that agrees that there are differences in clock rates and one that denies that a clocks tick at different rates. Note how they conclude each argument with: If that is what you mean by real (or reality) then that is "what really happens" or then "there are really no such changes".

They are not taking sides--they are merely pointing out the futility of discussing ill-defined words.

I don't agree. The operative sentence in the first topic is " Different values of the time between two events as observed in different frames?" This addresses a relation such as the 'slow clock formula' t' = t √( 1 - v²/c² ). Acceptance of this formula does not imply agreement that the clocks themselves are changing their rates.
The second topic asks "Does something about a clock really change when it moves...?" This is a separate question from the first, it is asking whether the clocks are responsible for the time differences. Their denial makes sense and fits with other considerations.
Remember when Einstein said ' ...all the clocks of the two systems , be in all respects alike." Doesn't that mean that the clocks rates are the same?
JM

 

[nitsuj]

Remember when Einstein said ' ...all the clocks of the two systems , be in all respects alike." Doesn't that mean that the clocks rates are the same?
JM

I can't remember when Einstein said anything, but if the clocks are "in all respects alike" I'd take that to mean they've been synchronized to measure the same size time interval, like seconds or something.

The spacetime interval of the rate will always be the same no matter the comparative motion between the two clocks. In all respects (physical laws) are alike.

Specifically it means the clock rates are the same interval,

 

[nitsuj]

...time and space are equivalent in a dimensional sense; they cannot be separated. I just don't agree with your interpretation of relativity.

Must have missed this, I have the same view of spacial/temporal dimensions that you stated. (as of now, view spacetime as a "Unity of Opposites")

If you were saying in that specific sense Length is Time dependent I'd agree; the two are "dependent" on each other. However the two are also mutually exclusive. A black 'n white thing.

I never stated an interpretation of relativity, so am unsure what you disagree with.

 

[ghwellsjr]

The issue being discussed in Box 3-4 on page 76&77 of T&W is the meanings of the words "real", "really", and "reality". They present two arguments, one that agrees that there are differences in clock rates and one that denies that a clocks tick at different rates. Note how they conclude each argument with: If that is what you mean by real (or reality) then that is "what really happens" or then "there are really no such changes".

They are not taking sides--they are merely pointing out the futility of discussing ill-defined words.

I don't agree. The operative sentence in the first topic is " Different values of the time between two events as observed in different frames?" This addresses a relation such as the 'slow clock formula' t' = t √( 1 - v²/c² ). Acceptance of this formula does not imply agreement that the clocks themselves are changing their rates.
The second topic asks "Does something about a clock really change when it moves...?" This is a separate question from the first, it is asking whether the clocks are responsible for the time differences. Their denial makes sense and fits with other considerations.

There aren't two topics. The topic is expressed in the heading in large bold black type:

DOES A MOVING CLOCK REALLY "RUN SLOWLY"?

Notice the italicized word, "REALLY", above and several times below.

First comes the questioner depicted as an icon thinker:

You keep saying, "The time between clock-ticks is shorter as MEASURED in the rest frame of the clock than as MEASURED in a frame in which the clock is moving." I am interested in reality, not someone's measurements. Tell me what really happens!

Next comes the commentator depicted as a talking bird:

What is reality? You will have your own opinion and speculations. Here we pose two related scientific questions whose answers may help you in forming your opinion.

Now we have the affirmative argument:

Are differences in clock rates really verified by experiment?
Different values of the time between two events as observed in different frames? Absolutely! Energetic particles slam into solid targets in accelerators all over the world, spraying forward newly created particles, some of which decay in very short times as measured in their rest frames. But these "short-lived" particles survive much longer in the laboratory frame as they streak from target to detector. In consequence, the detector receives a much larger fraction of the undecayed fast-moving particles than would be predicted from their decay times measured at rest. This result has been tested thousands of times with many different kinds of particles. Such experiments carried out over decades lead to dependable, consistent, repeatable results. As far as we can tell, they are correct, true, and reliable and cannot effectively be denied. If that is what you personally mean by "real," then these results are "what really happens."

And the negative argument:

Does something about a clock really change when it moves, resulting in the observed change in tick rate?
Absolutely not! Here is why: Whether a free-float clock is at rest or in motion in the frame of the observer is controlled by the observer. You want the clock to be at rest? Move along with it! Now do you want the clock to move? Simply change your own velocity! This is true even when you and the clock are separated by the diameter of the solar system. The magnitude of the clock's steady velocity is entirely under your control. Therefore the time between its ticks as measured in your frame is determined by your actions. How can your change of motion affect the inner mechanism of a distant clock? It cannot and does not.

Every time you change your motion on Earth — and even when you sit down, letting the direction of your velocity change as Earth rotates — you change the rate at which the planets revolve around Sun, as measured in your frame. (You also change the shape of planetary orbits, contracting them along the direction of your motion relative to Sun.) Do you think this change on your velocity really affects the workings of the "clock" we call the solar system? If so, what about a person who sits down on the other side of Earth? That person moves in the opposite direction around the center of Earth, so the results are different from yours. Are each of you having a different effect on the solar system? And are there still different effects — different solar-system clocks — for observers who could in principle be scattered on other planets?

We conclude that free-float motion does not affect the structure or operation of clocks (or rods). If this is what you mean by reality, then there are really no such changes due to uniform motion.


And a final commentary:

Is there some unity behind these conflicting measurements of time and space? Yes! The interval: the proper time (wristwatch time) between ticks of a clock as measured in a frame in which ticks occur at the same place, in which the clock is at rest. Proper time can also be calculated by all free-float observers, whatever their state of motion, and all agree on its value. Behind the confusing clutter of conflicting measurements stands the simple, consistent, powerful view provided by spacetime.

Now everyone can have their own opinion about what T&W are presenting.

Remember when Einstein said ' ...all the clocks of the two systems , be in all respects alike." Doesn't that mean that the clocks rates are the same?
JM

Einstein makes that remark at the beginning of section 3 of his 1905 paper introducing Special Relativity. He answers your question in the middle of section 4:

it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the stationary system) is slow by

seconds per second...

 

[dayalanand roy]

Dear ghwellsir, and all the other learned participants
Many thanks for participating in the discussion. The quote from T and W is specially helpful in understanding what is reality. However, it still throws liitle light on two clocks-one placed on Earth and one on a water tank, or one stationary and the other in a moving plane, ticking off differently, because these two are not that far apart. One more thing. They say that how can change in your velocity on Earth can alter the mechanism of distant clock in space- the solar system. But a change in our velocity can at least make a change in our clock, and this can in turn create the difference between the two.
Anyhow, things are now becoming much clearer. Thanks to all.

 

[D English]

Howdy Folks, I'm brand new, and really glad I found this place. I hope I'm not out of line by jumping in.

As a layman, can't I say: Nothing "slows down" as a result of being somewhere else, or as a funtion of being at a different speed, it is just that the perception of the slowing down is dependent on the point of view?

 

[1977ub]

Person A stays at home. They find that clock ticks away normally. Person B travels in a circle and comes back. B also finds their clock ticked normally. However they find that A's clock made more ticks than B's. You can pick your definition of "really" to decide if B's clock "really" slowed or didn't.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF!

As a layman, can't I say: Nothing "slows down" as a result of being somewhere else, or as a funtion of being at a different speed, it is just that the perception of the slowing down is dependent on the point of view?

Well, what would you say if you have two clocks sitting next to each other, synchronized, then you send one on a trip around the world, bring it back together with the other clock and find that they are no longer synchronized?

 

[bobc2]

Person A stays at home. They find that clock ticks away normally. Person B travels in a circle and comes back. B also finds their clock ticked normally. However they find that A's clock made more ticks than B's. You can pick your definition of "really" to decide if B's clock "really" slowed or didn't.

Both clocks continued to tick at the same rates as each proceeded at the speed of light along their respective worldlines (tick marks along the respective worldlines marked off equal proper time increments). However, B took a shorter path through the 4-dimensional space-time, so there were not as many tick marks along B's worldline from start event to reunite event.

 

[1977ub]

Both clocks continued to tick at the same rates as each proceeded at the speed of light along their respective worldlines (tick marks along the respective worldlines marked off equal proper time increments). However, B took a shorter path through the 4-dimensional space-time, so there were not as many tick marks along B's worldline from start event to reunite event.

Sure. In this case we don't need to bother to set each observer up with an inertial frame, so we don't have to answer questions such as how fast each observer find's the other observer's clock to be ticking "at a particular time."

 

[D English]

Welcome to PF! Well, what would you say if you have two clocks sitting next to each other, synchronized, then you send one on a trip around the world, bring it back together with the other clock and find that they are no longer synchronized?

First, I would say..."I knew I would have been better off being a lurker in these forums" :)

Intuitively, I would say that there must have been some physical change in one of the clocks as a result of motion or lack thereof.

However, this is possibility is removed by 1977's statement that both clocks are operating normally.

So, I would say that from the perspective of each person, their clocks continue to operate at the same rate, but due to the motion of one, their points of perception have changed significantly enough to show a difference between the two.

The problem with that is when the moving clock comes back to its original position, it is not synched anymore, indicating either a physical or dimensional change during the movement.

Ok, you can kick me out now. :)

 

[bobc2]

First, I would say..."I knew I would have been better off being a lurker in these forums" :)

Intuitively, I would say that there must have been some physical change in one of the clocks as a result of motion or lack thereof.

However, this is possibility is removed by 1977's statement that both clocks are operating normally.

So, I would say that from the perspective of each person, their clocks continue to operate at the same rate, but due to the motion of one, their points of perception have changed significantly enough to show a difference between the two.

The problem with that is when the moving clock comes back to its original position, it is not synched anymore, indicating either a physical or dimensional change during the movement.

Ok, you can kick me out now. :)

Not necessary. You can still find redemption if you will look into the Minkowski space-time diagram topic. Then you will see what I meant in the previous post about B taking a shorter path through space-time. The clock rates are not affected at all. B just simply took a shorter path that had fewer tick marks along his worldline in 4-dimensional space-time.

 

[petm1]

The clock rates are not affected at all. B just simply took a shorter path that had fewer tick marks along his worldline in 4-dimensional space-time.

Why a shorter path? I would think a longer duration between the changes counted by B's clock or the longer path of B's world line accounts for fewer tick marks when reunited with A's clock that keeps a steady duration or the shorter world line.

 

[barbacamanitu]

Does that mean time slowed down? Yes it does, does it mean the processes merely slowed down? No, they haven't the spacetime interval is the same. The geometry is comparatively "different".

How can you say that the processes didn't just slow down? The spacetime interval could be viewed the same because every conceivable time measuring device would slow down too. This really makes "processes" and "time" seem like the same thing.

 

[bobc2]

How can you say that the processes didn't just slow down? The spacetime interval could be viewed the same because every conceivable time measuring device would slow down too. This really makes "processes" and "time" seem like the same thing.

Here is why I think the slowing of the clock cannot be caused by some mechanism that affects the physical operation of the clock. That might be the case if it was just one of the clocks that is seen to be ticking more slowly. But, actually each observer sees the other’s clock as ticking more slowly. If red was at rest in aether, for example, and it was just the mechanism of the blue clock being affected (due to blue's absolute velocity in reference to aether), then both observers would always agree that it was the blue clock ticking more slowly. However, you can see in the sketch below that each observer sees the other’s clock displaying an earlier time (each sees the other’s clock ticking more slowly). This could not be the case if some mechanism of just the blue clock was affected. And if you wish to claim that both clocks were affected, then they would see no discrepancy, since both clocks would be affected the same way (assuming both moved with the same absolute speed with respect to the aether).

I personally have not been able to find in the literature a full account of any mechanism that predicts the results of Einstein's special relativity. It is recognized that there is disagreement with my position, so I don't want to claim expertise that establishes this view with some kind of finality--I would not want to deny others their views on this. I may be wrong here and would be very open to enlightenment on this point.

At one of the famous Solvay conferences, it is said that Poincare’ asked Einstein, “What is the mechanism accounting for time dilation and length contraction?” Einstein’s reply was simply, “There is no mechanism.”

petm1 quote: "Why a shorter path? I would think a longer duration between the changes counted by B's clock or the longer path
of B's world line accounts for fewer tick marks when reunited with A's clock that keeps a steady duration or the shorter world line."

The sketch below might be a little more difficult to interpret. Ask a question if it is not clear. This goes to the point that it is the path through space-time that accounts for differences in clock readings for two observers who have been separated for a while, then reunite (it has nothing to do with clock mechanisms). What may look like the longer path on the computer screen is actually the shorter path through the 4-dimensional space-time. The hyperbolic calibration curves are used to determine proper time spans from the origin of the black orthogonal coordinates (consistent with the Minkowski metric).

 

[1977ub]

It strikes me that the simplest and most paradoxical case in SR is the two-ships-passing-in-the-night version where A measures B's clock as slower and B measures A's clock as slower. This could easily be chalked up the relativity of simultaneity - an artifact of deciding to measure the world through the mechanism of an inertial reference frame. This is not simple "seeing" in the sense of A & B "seeing" the other's clock to run slower. In all cases where A & B are brought back together and their clocks differ, it is the one which experienced acceleration which had some "objective" slowing which both observers can agree upon and take to the bank. And so the non-paradoxical 'mechanism' needs to apply to the accelerated observer only, and that 'mechanism' would appear to be an interaction with the mysterious "Source of Inertia."