Looking for 'absolute still' with time dilation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of 'absolute stillness' in the context of time dilation and relativity. Participants explore the implications of relative motion and the possibility of identifying a reference frame that could be considered 'still' compared to others, particularly in relation to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes the idea of measuring 'absolute still' by examining time dilation effects between different objects moving relative to each other.
  • Another participant asserts that there is no concept of 'absolute still' or 'absolute rest frame', emphasizing that all frames are equally valid.
  • A further contribution explains that observations of time dilation and length contraction are symmetrical, meaning that each observer sees the other's clock as running slow, depending on their relative motion.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumption of Earth's velocity without specifying a reference frame, and the misunderstanding of time contraction in special relativity is highlighted.
  • A participant acknowledges the lack of asymmetry in velocity and recognizes that identifying who is moving fast or slow is not possible without an absolute rest frame.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the existence of an 'absolute still' reference frame, with some asserting that all frames are equally valid while others explore the implications of time dilation in relative motion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility of identifying a 'still' reference frame.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of specifying reference frames when discussing velocities and time dilation. There is also a distinction made between time dilation in special relativity and time acceleration effects in general relativity, which are not directly related to motion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring concepts in relativity, particularly in relation to time dilation, reference frames, and the implications of relative motion in physics.

Labyrinth
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I looked through this thread here regarding how fast we're moving relative to the CMBR, but I wonder if it would be hypothetically possible to get an even better measurement while also looking for a decent value for 'absolute still' using the apparent asymmetry of time dilation/constriction.

A hypothetical 'still' entity would appear to be moving rapidly to us, but if we were to attach a clock to it a comparison would reveal that we're moving and it is being more 'still' since its time would appear constricted by comparison yes?

Say that we're traveling at an average direction x at our 'home' velocity (all velocities averaged together for the Earth). An object 'A' traveling in an opposite -x direction would be effectively 'slowing up', just like if you're on a freeway going 60 next to a car matching your speed and they put on their brakes they will appear to move 'backwards'.

Then another object 'B' could move in different directions and speeds around object 'A' comparing clocks to look for an even more 'still' reference frame.

Is this possible or do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of time dilation and relativity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Labyrinth said:
Is this possible or do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of time dilation and relativity?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of time dilation and relativity. There is no "absolute still" (or, as it is usually called, an "absolute rest frame"). The frame where the CMBR is isotropic is no more and no less special than any other frame.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Labyrinth
Going into more detail, all the observations of time dilation and length contraction are symmetrical: If Bob sees Alice moving w/r to Bob's rest frame, then he'll observe Alice's clocks as slowing down. At the same time, Alice sees Bob moving in her rest frame and, according to her, it's Bob's clocks that are slowing down.

In your example, the first mistake was to assume that Earth has got some velocity x without specifying with respect to what reference frame. Next, you switched to Earth's rest frame and assumed it was special - that objects A and B moving with respect to Earth are time dilated and Earth as seen from A or B isn't.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as time contraction in special relativity. Time of all moving objects passes more slowly (is dilated) than time in the observer's rest frame.

There is a time acceleration effect in general relativity (due to gravity), but that's got nothing to do with motion.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Labyrinth
Dang, so there is no asymmetry here with the velocity in the way that I was thinking, and we can't tell 'who is moving fast' and 'who is moving slow' since there is no absolute rest frame.

We could via dilation/contraction be able to tell who is in a substantial gravity well, but that's not particularly useful as this would usually be really obvious.

What's worse is I found some threads that explained this after I posted, even though I had searched the forum. Dreadful.

Thanks for your time guys.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
949
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
8K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K