Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Time dilation again, Einstein or Resnick?

  1. Nov 11, 2017 #1
    I continue to see references to time dilation that I don’t understand. Maybe the bluntest one is in a textbook by Resnick. Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 93: “Indeed we find that the phenomena are reciprocal. That is, just as A’s clock seems to B to run slow, so does B’s clock seem to run slow to A;”

    Here is Einstein’s much more plausible version from his 1905 paper, in my opinion anyway.

    “From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher orders), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.”

    Notice that he carefully gives the initial conditions; (1) the clocks were synchronized, (2) in a common stationary reference frame; (3) which clock was set in relative motion, clock A; and finally which clock lost some time, clock A. I cannot read that paragraph and think the effects are reciprocal. I do not think that an observer riding along with clock A could claim that it was actually clock B that was running slow and losing some time.

    Resnick’s version does not seem logically possible, that somehow both clocks could “seem to be running slow” relative to each other. Any help understanding this would be appreciated.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 11, 2017 #2

    PeroK

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Resnick is, of course, correct. Time dilation is reciprocal. How far have you got with studying SR? Time dilation of a clock moving in your reference frame would normally be one of the first things covered.
     
  4. Nov 11, 2017 #3

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The ingredient you are clearly missing is relativity of simultaneity. This is crucial in order to understand why time dilation is reciprocal.

    Also, see my PF Insight on time dilation and the twin paradox.
     
  5. Nov 11, 2017 #4

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Both Einstein and Resnick are correct. They do not contradict each other. What do you think would happen in Einstein’s scenario if the same arrangement was made in frame K’
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
  6. Nov 11, 2017 #5

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

  7. Nov 11, 2017 #6

    Erland

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Both Einstein and Resnick are right, of course. Notice that Resnick's and Einsteins scenario's are somewhat different. In Einstein's scenario, one clock is first at rest relative to the other, then it moves towards the other clock. So the two clocks do not move with constant velocity relative to each other. This is somewhat unfortunate from a pedagogical point of view, it would have been better to say that both clocks all the time move with a constant velocity relative to each other, which, as I understand it, is Resnick's scenario.

    As has been pointed out, it is the relativity of simultaneity which is the crux of the matter, and using that, the paradox dissolves.
    An easy way to see this is to consider a train, which contains one of the clocks, while the other clock is at rest relative to a platform which the train passes. In addition to the nice links in earlier posts, I would like to refer to an old post of my own, where I develop this scenario:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...multaneity-easier-to-see-with-a-train.468826/
     
  8. Nov 11, 2017 #7

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Imagine driving at 30mph along a straight road. Another car drives at 30mph along another straight road that makes an angle ##\theta## with yours. The other car will fall behind because it's speed in your direction is only ##30\cos\theta##. Of course, the other driver will say it's you who is falling behind, and for the exact same reason. There's no logical problem with both of you saying the other falls behind - it's just that you have slightly different definitions of going forwards.

    This is very closely analogous to the difference of opinion over time in relativity. You have different notions of what "not moving in space, only time" means, so disagreeing over clock rates is like observing that mile markers on the other road don't measure miles on your road. The relevant factor is the hyperbolic cosine of the velocity rather than the trigonometric cosine of the angle, though, because spacetime is Minkowski, not Euclidean.
     
  9. Nov 11, 2017 #8

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    It is, however, very easy since you can formulate everything in a manifest covariant way, and the time an ideal clock shows is its proper time, which is a Lorentz scalar. If you have a clock moving on a trajectory ##x^{\mu}(\lambda)## (where ##\lambda## is an arbitrary parameter for the world line) then the time difference between two points (given by the values ##\lambda_1## and ##\lambda_2## of the worldline parameter) on its trajectory it will show, is given by
    $$\Delta \tau=\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2} \mathrm{d} \lambda \sqrt{\eta_{\mu \nu} \dot{x}^{\mu}(\lambda) \dot{x}^{\nu}(\lambda)},$$
    where the dot denotes the derivative with respect to the world-line parameter ##\lambda##. Note that this is both Lorentz invariant (i.e., it doesn't matter in which inertial reference frame you define the space-time components ##x^{\mu}## of the trajectory) and parameterization invariant (i.e., it doesn't depend on the used parameter ##\lambda## of the world line).

    It's much easier to use covariant or even invariant quantities to understand a problem than struggling with cumbersome explicit transformations from one frame of reference to another!
     
  10. Nov 11, 2017 #9
    Wow, lots of good answers already. Thanks! I need to study them and then respond later.

    But I can answer Dale in #4 now: If by "K' viewpoint", you mean that A is still the clock set in relative motion, then I get the exact same answer. A matrix (Lorentz Transform) and its inverse is not a big deal, even with possible origin offsets.

    If by "same arrangement" you mean that clock B is the one set in relative motion, then I would get that clock B was running slower and losing time.

    Maybe this is related to an earlier question I posted some time ago, and got no serious responses: Is it possible to synchronize two clocks already in relative motion? If so, exactly how? And I am referring to their running rates, not some trivial possible origin offsets. If I remember correctly, Einstein was always careful to specify that the clocks were "good" or some such word, meaning to me at least, that at some time in the past they had occupied a common reference frame and had their running rates synchronized...

    Thanks.
     
  11. Nov 11, 2017 #10

    jbriggs444

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No. Each will be time dilated as viewed from a frame of reference in which the other is at rest.

    The acceleration of gravity is negligible for this scenario. SR applies. GR is irrelevant.
     
  12. Nov 11, 2017 #11

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What was not serious about my answer? Apart from the spelling of "pass"?
     
  13. Nov 11, 2017 #12
    Bad choice of words on my part, sorry. What I was looking for was HOW operationally to do it if it was possible. For example, how could you even tell what the other guy’s running rate was on the fly so to speak? You would have to know that in order to set one running 1/gamma slower like you said. Which one would you set slower, or would it matter? Would you get into an infinite recursion if not careful? Then which one would you accelerate in order to set the relative velocity back to zero? Would it matter? According to the answers in this thread, it sounds like it wouldn’t. Maybe modern Doppler radar could be used?

    Thanks.

    PS. Actually wouldn’t one set his own clock to run gamma faster than the other’s apparent rate??
     
  14. Nov 11, 2017 #13

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The thread exmarine and I are referring to:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/synchronize-clocks-in-relative-motion.930548/
    First you need to work out what you mean by "synchronised". Einstein defines clocks at rest as synchronised if both agree how behind the other appears to be (i.e. if we both look at our the other's clock when our own reads 12.00 and see the other's reading 11.59) and if that relationship is maintained. He never even defines "synchronised" for clocks in relative motion.

    What I assumed you meant was this. I fill spacetime with a set of mutually at rest clocks, then let you move through this field. You adjust your clock's rate so that it always shows the same time as the nearest of my clocks. That way, your clock is showing my frame's time. This is pretty much what the GPS clocks do, although for other reasons.

    You are correct that you want your clock to tick fast, and that's what I said (a shorter pendulum to tick once every ##1/\gamma## seconds).

    I'm sure there are other ways to define synchronisation between moving clocks. I'm not aware of any obvious standard for what it would mean - but I haven't thought about it particularly hard or looked for one.
     
  15. Nov 11, 2017 #14

    Erland

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    About synchronization of clocks, at least the following holds:

    Given two clocks moving with constant nonzero velocity relative to each other. Each clock is assumed to be at rest relative to some inertial frame. Then there is no inertial observer moving with constant velocity relative to each one of the clocks for which the two clocks can be set to show the same time for more than an instant.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
  16. Nov 11, 2017 #15

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I don't think that's true - there's a frame where the clocks have equal and opposite velocities, for instance. And anyway, we were considering adjusting one clock's tick rate to match another frame. The clock is broken as far as Einstein synchronisation is concerned, but it's a simple linear adjustment to the rate.
     
  17. Nov 11, 2017 #16

    Erland

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    OK, you are right. So, for the conclusion to hold, we need to add that relative to the observer, the clocks should have unequal speeds.
     
  18. Nov 12, 2017 #17
    That cosine trip analogy is really nice. Thanks!

    So it is DURING the trip that A thinks clock B is running slower than his own? Then when he reaches B (and stops I assume) he realizes it is his own clock that was really running slower? But I really need to see the math for that. I’ll show you what I think I understand about the math. I don’t see how to get your result.

    I don’t feel like messing with the equation editor on here – can I attach a file? I’ll type it up in Word, make a pdf, and see if I can attach it.

    Thanks!
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Nov 12, 2017 #18

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The ”running slower” part really is a red herring as it depends on how you decide to compare clocks that are not colocated due to the relativity of simultaneity. Again, I suggest reading the PF Insight I linked to in #3. It is essentially making the same comparison to Euclidean space as presented by Ibix.
     
  20. Nov 12, 2017 #19

    PeroK

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    During the inertial phase of the trip, both clocks are time dilated relative to the other. In the same way that both are moving relative to the other and neither is in absolute motion. Neither clock is "really" running faster than the other. It's all relative.

    Consider the following:

    In some inertial reference frame both A and B are moving to the left at some speed (##c/2##, say). A accelerates instantaneously to the right until it is not moving in the original frame. A and B now converge with A at rest and B still moving to the left. When they meet A accelerates to the left so that they are both moving at their original speed.

    Now, if A and B's clocks are observed from the original reference frame (in which A was at rest for the journey and B was moving at ##c/2##), whose clock will appear to run slower during the experiment?
     
  21. Nov 12, 2017 #20

    PeroK

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I would not discourage you from reading what Einstein had to say, but you need to be careful. In this case, you could get the impression (as I think you have) that time dilation is not symmetrical. But, in fact, it takes more than time dilation to explain what Einstein describes. To be precise, this is actually a case of "differential aging". There are, in fact, three factors involved:

    Time dilation
    Relativity of simultaneity
    That A twice changes its inertial reference frame

    There is nothing wrong with what Einstein says, of course. But, this experiment he describes is perhaps not the best place to start understanding time dilation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Time dilation again, Einstein or Resnick?
  1. Time dilation reasoning (Replies: 77)

Loading...