Time dilation and the photon clock

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of time dilation as illustrated by the example of a photon clock compared to a hypothetical tennis ball clock. Participants explore the implications of relative motion on the ticking of these clocks and question how the example demonstrates time dilation specifically, rather than just the effects of movement on clock mechanisms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the photon clock example demonstrates time dilation, suggesting that a tennis ball clock would show similar effects without invoking time dilation.
  • Another participant emphasizes the second postulate of relativity, noting that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, unlike the speed of a tennis ball.
  • Some participants argue that all moving clocks, regardless of their mechanism, will exhibit the same time dilation effect due to relative motion.
  • There is a discussion about the complexities of analyzing a tennis ball clock compared to a photon clock, with some asserting that the latter is easier to analyze for time dilation.
  • One participant suggests that the observed differences in ticking rates are due to the design of the clock rather than actual time dilation.
  • Another participant points out that if the tennis ball's speed were constant, it would not be the same in all frames, which complicates the comparison with the photon clock.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the example of the photon clock effectively demonstrates time dilation. Some maintain that it does, while others argue that the differences in ticking rates are due to the mechanics of the clocks rather than time dilation itself. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made regarding the behavior of the tennis ball clock, particularly concerning its speed in different frames of reference. The discussion also highlights the complexity of analyzing non-light-speed clocks in the context of relativity.

  • #61
Stellar1 said:
So here's another thought:

In the perspective of the photon, it is the box itsself that is vibrating back and fourth. From the photons perspective, gamma=sqrt(0) so therefore the height of the box is 0, no? So that would mean that the clock is constantly ticking, correct?
Actually, since gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), if you plug in v=c you get gamma=1/sqrt(0), division by zero. In SR a photon does not have its own rest frame, so it isn't really meaningful to talk about the "photon's perspective".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
ahh, yes, sorry, it is 1/0 in that case. So in that case the length would be infinite and it would never tick...?

What is SR? Special relativity I take it? Why does it matter that a photon does not have its own rest frame?
 
  • #63
Stellar1 said:
ahh, yes, sorry, it is 1/0 in that case. So in that case the length would be infinite and it would never tick...?
Again, the equations for length contraction and time dilation only make sense when you are talking about length and time as measured in a given inertial frame, it is meaningless to use them outside this context, and a photon does not have an inertial rest frame.
Stellar1 said:
What is SR? Special relativity I take it? Why does it matter that a photon does not have its own rest frame?
Yes, SR = special relativity. As I said, the time dilation equation and length contraction equation are specifically derived based on the assumption that you are talking about time and length as measured by a system of rulers and clocks that are moving inertially, you can't have a ruler/clock system that's moving at the speed of light, so there is no physical meaning to plugging v=c into those equations.
 
  • #64
Why does a photon not have an inertial rest frame?
 
  • #65
Stellar1 said:
Why does a photon not have an inertial rest frame?
Because a given observer's inertial frame is based on rulers and clocks at rest relative to that observer...it's impossible to accelerate rulers and clocks up to light speed.

Another way of seeing that a photon cannot have an inertial frame is that one of the two postulates of SR is that the laws of physics must be the same in every inertial frame, but in all slower-than-light frames photons always move at c, so if there was a frame where a photon could be at rest this postulate would be violated.
 
  • #66
Stellar1 said:
So here's another thought:

In the perspective of the photon, it is the box itsself that is vibrating back and fourth. From the photons perspective, gamma=sqrt(0) so therefore the height of the box is 0, no? So that would mean that the clock is constantly ticking, correct?

It is hard to make any sense of measurements from the point of view of a photon as the answers usually involve 0/0. (Indeterminate). However, you could ponder the point of view of a ball in the Stellar ball clock ;)
 
  • #67
Riogho said:
Of course, the speed of a photon isn't constant :P It's just constant in a vacuum, and that is given as c
Sorry, this always irks me. :) The speed of a photon IS always constant. The reason light appears to slow down in a given medium is a consequence of the time it takes an electron to absorb a photon and emit a new one. The photon going in is not the same photon as the one going out.
 
  • #68
peter0302 said:
Sorry, this always irks me. :) The speed of a photon IS always constant. The reason light appears to slow down in a given medium is a consequence of the time it takes an electron to absorb a photon and emit a new one. The photon going in is not the same photon as the one going out.

well, guess what might irk some other folks (but not me, i don't really care)? it's this "photon is absorbed and re-emitted" explanation for why the apparent SOL is slower in transparent materials. i think this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index#The_speed_of_light outlines what i mean. it says

At the microscale, an electromagnetic wave's phase velocity is slowed in a material because the electric field creates a disturbance in the charges of each atom (primarily the electrons) proportional to the permittivity of the medium. The charges will, in general, oscillate slightly out of phase with respect to the driving electric field. The charges thus radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency but with a phase delay. The macroscopic sum of all such contributions in the material is a wave with the same frequency but shorter wavelength than the original, leading to a slowing of the wave's phase velocity. Most of the radiation from oscillating material charges will modify the incoming wave, changing its velocity. However, some net energy will be radiated in other directions (see scattering).
 
  • #69
One might also want to take a look at ZapperZ's physics forum FAQ on this topic at https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=899393&postcount=4 .

The photon is emitted and absorbed, but the absorption can be regarded as an absorption by the lattice to create a phonon.

I've seen explanations similar to the Wiki one posted above in Feynman's popularizations (i.e. QED).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
rbj said:
well, guess what might irk some other folks (but not me, i don't really care)? it's this "photon is absorbed and re-emitted" explanation for why the apparent SOL is slower in transparent materials. i think this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index#The_speed_of_light outlines what i mean. it says

I think that's saying the same thing. The bottom line is that the photon going in is not the same photon as the one going out. The only reason for the apparent delay is due to the interaction with the atoms in the media. But inbetween atoms the speed is always c. And as soon as the light leaves the medium, its speed is likewise c. No?
 
  • #71
Does the photon actually travel at light speed? When your on a flatbed truck traveling down the highway at 70mph with a photon clock in hand, does the photon for you on the truck still travel at the speed of light and count your seconds accurately? To an observer on the ground does the photon look as if it's going slower? Has this ever been tested and proven?

Please answer my questions shortly and staying on track completely with what I'm asking; do not diverge from my question into other explanations.
 
  • #72
NtroPunDfeetd said:
Does the photon actually travel at light speed?
Yes. According to everyone.
When your on a flatbed truck traveling down the highway at 70mph with a photon clock in hand, does the photon for you on the truck still travel at the speed of light and count your seconds accurately?
Sure.
To an observer on the ground does the photon look as if it's going slower?
No. The photon travels at light speed. The clock ticks slower, since for the ground observer the photon travels a greater distance.
Has this ever been tested and proven?
No one has ever done experiments with photon clocks, but the effect it illustrates--time dilation--has been tested.
 
  • #73
Doc Al is Offline:
Posts: 23,346
Blog Entries: 1 Re: Time dilation and the photon clock

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by NtroPunDfeetd
Does the photon actually travel at light speed?

Yes. According to everyone.
.

To an observer on the ground does the photon look as if it's going slower?

No. The photon travels at light speed. The clock ticks slower, since for the ground observer the photon travels a greater distance.

What is the interpretation in the case of a photon clock at a location of low gravitational potential?
Is it traveling slower or traveling a greater distance due to the geometry at a small Scwarzschild radius?
Thanks
 
  • #74
Austin0 said:
What is the interpretation in the case of a photon clock at a location of low gravitational potential?
Is it traveling slower or traveling a greater distance due to the geometry at a small Scwarzschild radius?
Thanks

To keep it simple take the case of a short horizontal light clock. (Horizontal rulers are not length contracted by gravity.) To an observer higher up, the clock lower down is running slow and the speed of light lower down is slower than the speed of light higher up. These two effects conspire in such a way, that to a local observer co-located with the light clock at a small Schwarzschild radius, the speed of light appears normal. This slowing down of clocks and light, deep in a gravitational well is not an optical illusion, because by lowering a clock down and bringing it back up again, it can be demonstrated that the lowered clock really does run slower than a clock that remained higher up.

It follows that if the clock lower down is really running slower than the clock higher up, then the speed of light lower down must really be slower than the speed of light higher up, in order for a local observer lower down to measure the local speed of light as c.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
kev said:
To keep it simple take the case of a short horizontal light clock. (Horizontal rulers are not length contracted by gravity.) To an observer higher up, the clock lower down is running slow and the speed of light lower down is slower than the speed of light higher up. These two effects conspire in such a way, that to a local observer co-located with the light clock at a small Schwarzschild radius, the speed of light appears normal. This slowing down of clocks and light, deep in a gravitational well is not an optical illusion, because by lowering a clock down and bringing it back up again, it can be demonstrated that the lowered clock really does run slower than a clock that remained higher up.

It follows that if the clock lower down is really running slower than the clock higher up, then the speed of light lower down must really be slower than the speed of light higher up, in order for a local observer lower down to measure the local speed of light as c.

Thanks for your very clear explanation. It was pretty much what my own logic arrived at but I no longer have the implicit faith in "logic" I once had.
 

Similar threads

High School Intuition for time dilation in a cesium clock
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Undergrad Regarding centrifugal effects on the time dilation of a moving clock
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
High School What does symmetry of time dilation really mean?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Is time dilation a real effect?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Undergrad Confused about time dilation -- motion vs energy
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
High School Is velocity the reason for the time dilation effect?
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
Undergrad Time Dilation for Photons: Explained
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Undergrad The paradox of symmetrical time dilation
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
644
Undergrad Question about the reciprocity of time dilation
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
8K
Undergrad Is Time Dilation Just a Misunderstanding of Clock Errors?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K