Why is t' not equal to t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in relativity of time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myoho.renge.kyo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
myoho.renge.kyo
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
"on the relativity of times"

tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)

"The Principle of Relativity", p 42, by A. Einstein.

consequently,

c = [rAB / (tB - tA)] + v and c = [rAB / (t'A - tB) - v

let rAB = x' and (tB - tA) = t' so that

c = (x' / t') + v

since x' = x - v*t

c = [(x - v*t) / t'] + v so that

x = t'*(c - v) + v*t

and let rAB = x and (t'A - tB) = t so that

c = (x / t) - v so that

x = t*(c + v)

consequently,

t'*(c - v) + v*t = t*(c + v)

t'*(c - v) = t*(c + v) - v*t

t'*(c - v) = t*c

t' = t*c / (c - v)

t' = t / (1 - v / c)

t' is not t / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2). why? thanks! (6:00 pm thru 7:00 pm, 9/21/2006)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Unfortunately I don't have that book, and even if I had it, wouldn't it be better if you explained the problem you are considering? What are A, B, tB, tA, v, x ecc.?

Why do you call rAB = x and then, rAB = x' ? You have already written that x'=x-v*t, so they are not the same thing! How can you find a correct solution if you do it? It's impossible!

Maybe you should read better what you write!
 
Last edited:
myoho.renge.kyo said:
tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)

"The Principle of Relativity", p 42, by A. Einstein.

consequently,

c = [rAB / (tB - tA)] + v and c = [rAB / (t'A - tB) - v

let rAB = x' and (tB - tA) = t' so that

c = (x' / t') + v

since x' = x - v*t

c = [(x - v*t) / t'] + v so that

x = t'*(c - v) + v*t

and let rAB = x and (t'A - tB) = t so that

c = (x / t) - v so that

x = t*(c + v)

consequently,

t'*(c - v) + v*t = t*(c + v)

t'*(c - v) = t*(c + v) - v*t

t'*(c - v) = t*c

t' = t*c / (c - v)

t' = t / (1 - v / c)

t' is not t / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2). why? thanks! (6:00 pm thru 7:00 pm, 9/21/2006)
a look at Leo Karlov "Paul Kard and Lorentz free special relativity" Phyhs.Educ. 24 165 1989" and at Asher Peres "Relativistic telemetry" Am.J.Phys. 55 516 1987 could be illuminating.

the best things a physicist can offer to another one are information and criticism
 
myoho.renge.kyo said:
tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)​

"The Principle of Relativity", p 42, by A. Einstein. consequently,

c = [rAB / (tB - tA)] + v and c = [rAB / (t'A - tB) - v​

let rAB = x' and (tB - tA) = t' so that c = (x' / t') + v, and
let rAB = x and (t'A - tB) = t so that c = (x / t) - v, so that x = t*(c + v)

Generally, when we say x,t and x',t', we imagine 2 sets of spacetime variables, one set for each of 2 observing perspectives, say frame k & frame K.

Your derivation leadin (above here) defines x',t' for the outbound segment of the ray, and x,t for the reflection segment of the same ray. However, it's all from a single observer vantage. Hence there is nothing in your derivation which relates one frame to the other.

So, when you obtained this ...

myoho.renge.kyo said:
consequently, ... t' = t / (1 - v / c)

You are not relating one frame wrt the other. You are instead relating the outbound duration to the return leg duration per a single frame vantage.

The equation in your question ...

myoho.renge.kyo said:
t' is not t / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2). why?​

is the Fitgerald Contraction, which requires the comparison of 2 frame perspectives against the backdrop of light.
 
thank you so much. i really appreciate your help. i am having so much dificulty with this. i think i need to understand multivariable calculus and differential equations in order to at least understand p. 44 in The Principle of Relativity. but i would like to understand what you mean.

for example, how can i relate one frame of reference, say K (the stationary system) with K' the moving system using the following:

tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)

A. Einstein on p. 42 in The Principle of Relativity, states, "observers moving with [K'] would thus find that [tB - tA is not equal to t'A - tB], while obsevers in [K] would declare that [tB - tA = t'A - tB]." thanks again. in the mean time i am going to read Fitzgerald Contraction.
 
Last edited:
myoho.renge.kyo said:
how can i relate one frame of reference, say K (the stationary system) with K' the moving system using the following:

tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)

A. Einstein on p. 42 in The Principle of Relativity, states, "observers moving with [K'] would thus find that [tB - tA is not equal to t'A - tB], while obsevers in [K] would declare that [tB - tA = t'A - tB]." thanks again. in the mean time i am going to read Fitzgerald Contraction.

You'd need to relate these ...

outbound path ...

tB-tA = rAB/(c-v) proportional_to TB-TA = rAB/c​

return path ...

t'A-tB = rAB/(c+v) proportional_to T'A-TB = rAB/c​

The proportionality for both legs are identical, and assumed linear.

One observer records t & r, while the other observer records T & r.

Note that ...

One should not assume going in that r=r.

TB-TA = TA'-TB, but tB-tA <> t'A-tB.​

Einstein recognized that all inertial observers experience equal times for the outbound & return light path lengths, given the emitter & refector are at rest with that observer. So the linear constant of proportionality which relates the frames must relate a reflection point which is not at the center of your observed round trip interval, to the center of his round trip interval ... since the emitter & reflector are at rest with him and not you. You see them in motion!

pess5
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top