Max/Min Time Dilation: What is the Scale?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of time dilation, specifically the minimum and maximum rates of time as influenced by speed and gravitational fields. It establishes that at the speed of light, time effectively has no meaning, while at rest in a negligible gravitational field, time ticks normally. The conversation highlights the complexities of comparing clocks in different frames of reference, emphasizing that time dilation is relative and cannot be universally ordered. The Lorentz factor is mentioned as a critical component in understanding time dilation, reinforcing that time is not absolute but rather dependent on the observer's frame of reference.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity principles
  • Familiarity with the Lorentz factor for time dilation
  • Knowledge of gravitational time dilation concepts
  • Basic grasp of frame of reference in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Lorentz factor in time dilation scenarios
  • Explore gravitational time dilation in the context of General Relativity
  • Investigate the effects of relative motion on time perception
  • Examine case studies of time dilation in high-speed particle physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the fundamental nature of time and its measurement in different gravitational and motion contexts.

  • #31
ghwellsjr said:
I think you have me mixed up with someone else. What post # is this in?

In post 22 you said that einstein removed the infinities in section 4.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
PAllen said:
Actually, it was universally accepted from Galileo's time, except for a short, confusing period in the 1800s, before Einstein re-established Galileo's principle: you cannot distinguish a state of rest; all inertial frames are equivalent. However, this principle plus Maxwell's equations required some conceptual changes to space and time.

I was referring to the notion of two observers relative to each other both observing the other as being slower.
 
  • #33
salvestrom said:
I was referring to the notion of two observers relative to each other both observing the other as being slower.

Ah, but that's the only way to preserve the principle of relativity. If some inertial observer sees 'fast clocks run slow', and another inertial observer sees 'fast clocks run fast', we have different laws for different inertial observers. As soon as you admit time dilation at all, 'fast clocks slow' for both is the only way to make it work while preserving equivalence of inertial frames.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
PAllen said:
Traveling 22 light seconds of Anthony's distance, Cleo will experience 1 second. Traveling 22 light second of Cleo's distance, Anthony will experience 1 second.

Can you ellaborate please on "Anthoney's distance" and "Cleo's distance".
 
  • #35
salvestrom said:
Can you ellaborate please on "Anthoney's distance" and "Cleo's distance".

Mathematically, you define distance in SR as the invariant interval (geodesic length) between a pair of simultaneous events. In relativity, simultaneity differs between observers in relative motion. As a result, their notions of distance also differ.

More physically, you can define distance using some reasonable procedure, e.g. parallax, image size, radar ranging. However, the first two relate a nearby size or distance with a distant size or big distance. Thus they need a definition of distance to get started. You can use radar ranging (or light travel time) to get started, or as your main definition. Going with radar for simplicity (in SR it is provable that they are all the same, for inertial observers), consider what Anthony and Cleopatra do. If each measures distance to some third object (in some state of motion), the round trip light paths will be radically different because of the relative motion between Anthony and Cleopatra. Thus, they measure the universe completely differently.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K