Time dilation derivations - help me out just looking for references

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around seeking alternative derivations of time dilation that do not rely on the concepts of moving clocks or mirrors. Participants explore historical contexts and propose different experimental setups to understand time dilation better.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire for a derivation of time dilation that avoids the use of moving clocks or mirrors, finding those explanations unclear.
  • Another participant suggests using the Lorentz Transformation with the condition Δx=0 as a straightforward derivation.
  • A participant provides historical context, discussing the pre-Einstein belief in an absolute ether and the implications of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) on the understanding of time dilation.
  • This participant proposes an experimental thought experiment involving a laser and relative motion through the ether, questioning the applicability of the Doppler Effect to light compared to sound.
  • Questions are posed regarding the validity of the Doppler Effect equation in the context of light and whether perceived discrepancies are merely optical illusions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are differing views on the clarity of existing derivations and the interpretation of the Doppler Effect in relation to time dilation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the ether and its role in the derivation of time dilation, as well as unresolved questions regarding the applicability of classical physics concepts to relativistic scenarios.

elegysix
Messages
404
Reaction score
15
I'm looking for another derivation of time dilation which does not involve moving clocks or mirrors...

I feel like those aren't very clear - is there any other way time dilation has been derived?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How good is your math or physics background?
 
The obvious one is the case where Δx=0 between two events in the Lorentz Transformation.
 
elegysix said:
I'm looking for another derivation of time dilation which does not involve moving clocks or mirrors...

I feel like those aren't very clear - is there any other way time dilation has been derived?

thanks
Time dilation was proposed prior to Einstein's relativity at a time when scientists believed in an absolute ether rest state and they believed motion through it would result in a detectable ether wind, as they called it. The Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) was designed to detect this ether wind but no matter how fast the apparatus was traveling through the ether (as a result of the Earth's motion), it always appeared as if they were stationary in the ether because they could never detect any ether wind. Not willing to give up on the idea of a fixed ether, the scientists explained it away by proposing that motion through the ether would cause objects to contract along the direction of motion and this would also result in the appearance of clocks running slower (time dilaiton). But although MMX did not have clocks, it did have mirrors.

So let's think of another kind of experiment that we could perform today that would also produce the effects that are independent of our motion through the presumed ether. Let's imagine that we are looking at a laser that is shining at us and that we and the laser are moving with respect to the ether, maybe towards each other, maybe away. We want to cover all the situations. If we didn't know anything about relativity, we would use the normal Doppler Effect to predict what frequency we would see the laser light compared to the frequency that it was emitting.

So here's an assignment for you: look up Doppler Effect in wikipedia and study the equation that shows how the frequency is modified. Convince yourself that it is dependent on both our speed through the ether and the laser's speed through the ether. In other words it is not independent of our relative motions through the ether like MMX showed. In other words, that equation doesn't work for light like it does for sound in air or water.

When you've done that, I need to ask you a couple questions:

Do you believe that equation is wrong?

If so, do you believe that it is not just an optical illusion that makes it wrong?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
8K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K