Undergrad Leading and lagging clock times in Lorentz Transforms

  • Thread starter Thread starter exmarine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Clock Lorentz
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of leading and lagging clock times in Lorentz Transforms, specifically addressing a paper that presents a potential error in the sign of relative velocity. The participant argues that the author incorrectly concludes that "leading clocks lag," suggesting instead that trailing clocks lag based on the Lorentz transformation equation t' = γ(t - vx/c²). The confusion arises from the interpretation of clock synchronization in different frames, ultimately clarifying that the relative velocity should be positive, which alters the conclusion regarding clock offsets.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz Transformations in special relativity
  • Familiarity with the concept of time dilation and clock synchronization
  • Knowledge of the Galilean Transform for low-velocity approximations
  • Basic grasp of the physics of reference frames and relative motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and implications of the Lorentz transformation equations
  • Explore the concept of time dilation and its effects on moving clocks
  • Investigate the differences between Lorentz and Galilean transformations
  • Review examples of clock synchronization in different inertial frames
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the nuances of time measurement in relativistic contexts will benefit from this discussion.

exmarine
Messages
241
Reaction score
11
Someone posted this link to a paper I really appreciated.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/physri/2015/895134/

But doesn’t the author have the wrong sign on the relative velocity in his Lorentz Transform associated with his figure 2b? And if so, doesn’t that reverse his conclusion that “leading clocks lag”? His leading clock is #3 in the figure, and its time would then be LARGER than that of the trailing clock #1? So wouldn’t the correct rule be “trailing clocks lag”?

He never really shows the time phase LT calculation, but he does show a negative relative velocity in the first column on page 3. But the particle is moving to the right along the observer’s positive x’-axis. So it seems to me that the relative velocity should be positive in the LT from the particle’s x-axis frame to the observer’s x’-axis. The LT must approach the Galilean Transform for very small velocities, and that would be (x’=x + vt). This produces a later time in clock #3 than in clock #1, not the earlier time indicated in his figure 2b.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it's correct. There are two frames: F (as shown in figure 2b), in which the particle is moving at velocity \vec{v} (to the right, in the picture), and F' (as shown in figure 2a), in which the particle is at rest. The clocks in both figures are (I assume) clocks that are synchronized to show t', the time as measured in frame F'.

From the point of view of frame F', the clocks are synchronized; they all show the same time. From the point of view of frame F, the clocks are offset, according to the Lorentz transformation:

t' = \gamma (t - \frac{vx}{c^2})

So clocks with a larger value of x show a smaller value for t'.
 
Thank you very much for looking at this. But you think for very large time (1≪t), the observer’s coordinate (x’) for the location of the particle at (x=0) will be very large NEGATIVE? Don’t think so. It is moving to the right as indicated in his figure 2b, so it will be very large positive (1≪x’). The relative velocity must be positive in the LT, and that switches the conclusion about which clock is lagging.
 
I think I see my error. I was looking at the wrong clock. Sorry...
 
In an inertial frame of reference (IFR), there are two fixed points, A and B, which share an entangled state $$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0>_A|1>_B+|1>_A|0>_B) $$ At point A, a measurement is made. The state then collapses to $$ |a>_A|b>_B, \{a,b\}=\{0,1\} $$ We assume that A has the state ##|a>_A## and B has ##|b>_B## simultaneously, i.e., when their synchronized clocks both read time T However, in other inertial frames, due to the relativity of simultaneity, the moment when B has ##|b>_B##...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
884
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K