B Time Dilation: Away or Toward Observer?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of time dilation in special relativity, particularly regarding the perception of time for a traveler moving away from or toward a stationary observer. The initial confusion arises from a NOVA episode featuring an alien riding a bicycle, where it seems time behaves differently depending on the direction of travel. However, participants clarify that this observation is influenced by the Doppler effect, not a fundamental change in time dilation. They emphasize that both observers will perceive the other's clock as running slower when accounting for light travel time, which is a key aspect of relativistic time dilation. The distinction lies in how simultaneity is defined in different reference frames, not in the actual ticking of clocks.
Involute
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I thought the answer was no. I.e. the traveler's proper time always passes more slowly than a stationary observer's clock regardless of the traveler's direction with respect to the observer. I was watching Brian Greene's NOVA episode on time, however, and, at 23:15, he has a demonstration involving an alien 10 billion lightyears from Earth riding a bicycle away from, and then towards, us. When he's riding away, time slows down for him (with respect to us). When he's riding towards, it speeds up. This seems contradictory, but maybe I'm missing a detail, or misunderstood SR to begin with (or both). Thanks for any tips.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Involute said:
I thought the answer was no. I.e. the traveler's proper time always passes more slowly than a stationary observer's clock regardless of the traveler's direction with respect to the observer. I was watching Brian Greene's NOVA episode on time, however, and, at 23:15, he has a demonstration involving an alien 10 billion lightyears from Earth riding a bicycle away from, and then towards, us. When he's riding away, time slows down for him (with respect to us). When he's riding towards, it speeds up. This seems contradictory, but maybe I'm missing a detail, or misunderstood SR to begin with (or both). Thanks for any tips.
That all makes no sense. I notice the title of the video is:
The Fabric of the Cosmos: The Illusion of Time

I doubt you can learn any serious science from a video like that. It's not surprising you got some nonsense about an alien on a bicycle!
 
@Involute If A and B are moving relative to one another and watching each other’s clocks through telescopes... if they are moving towards one another they will both see the other’s clock running fast, and if they are moving away from one another they will both see the other’s clock running slow. This has nothing to do with relativity and time dilation; it’s just the Doppler effect, caused by the light travel time changing as the distance between them changes.

However, when they allow for the light travel time - that is, the light they see in their telescopes was emitted earlier and spent some time getting to them - and calculate the clock rates that would produce what they actually see then they both calculate that the other’s clock is running slower than their own. That is relativistic time dilation, and it is best understood as a manifestation of the relativity of simultaneity, not as “time slowing down”.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Motore, hmmm27 and 1 other person
You are misinterpreting that part of the video. The difference between the two cases of the alien going away versus toward Earth is not about how fast the clock ticks. It is about how the clocks at different positions are synchronized to define simultaneous time ("now") in the reference frame of the alien as he goes away versus as he goes toward the earth.
 
Last edited:
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K