Time dilation explaination with mechanical clock instead of light clock

[Saw]

I wouldn't throw in anything about beta decay, since it is mediated by the weak interaction instead of EM interactions. Also, the beta decay comment seems to not be essential to the rest.

It is true that, if the approach is "let us talk about the practical details of how the mechanical clock works", there is little to say about, for instance, weak interaction (who knows how a muon decays, for instance). I just wanted to make it clear that here we do not put into question the PoR: ALL periodic processes follow the same pattern, not only EM ones. Once this is clear, we can concentrate on the latter.

 

[Dale]

I just wanted to make it clear that here we do not put into question the PoR: ALL periodic processes follow the same pattern, not only EM ones.

I thought that the whole point was to avoid the PoR discussion. If you are going to make this point then you may as well use the PoR in the usual manner.

 

[harrylin]

I thought that the whole point was to avoid the PoR discussion. If you are going to make this point then you may as well use the PoR in the usual manner.

Saw probably tries to analyse how the PoR is achieved in practice by means of a detailed analysis, just as one may explain how the gas law is achieved by means of the dynamics of gas particles, or how energy is conserved in a mechanical system according to a detailed analysis. Is that correct Saw?

It's really nothing new... perhaps a number of old (very old?) publications could be dug up that do something similar. And of course, that also corresponds to the way Bell taught SR - but I don't know if he discussed mechanical clocks.

 

[Saw]

Saw probably tries to analyse how the PoR is achieved in practice by means of a detailed analysis, just as one may explain how the gas law is achieved by means of the dynamics of gas particles, or how energy is conserved in a mechanical system according to a detailed analysis. Is that correct Saw?

Exactly.

It's really nothing new... perhaps a number of old (very old?) publications could be dug up that do something similar. And of course, that also corresponds to the way Bell taught SR - but I don't know if he discussed mechanical clocks.

Any reference of studies in the same line would be appreciated.

 

[harrylin]

Exactly.

Any reference of studies in the same line would be appreciated.

I found several books and papers that follow the Lorentzian approach as favoured by Bell, as well as several other papers that discuss clocks; but regretfully I didn't see a detailed discussion of mechanical clocks - except for one paper that theorized about mechanical clocks without time dilation.

One book I should check out in the library, but I doubt that it has the example that we are looking for. So, it looks like one of us should write a paper on that topic...

 

[Saw]

So, it looks like one of us should write a paper on that topic...

Hmm. We may not have enough substance for that yet, but we might as well gather it as soon as we dig up a little. As Dalespam said, looking at the details is rewarding in that it may reveal hidden connections. Not in vain the devil dwells amongs them...

I was thinking in this sense about another FAQ that was recently raised again: the question of why the light pulse hits the target (the mid-point of the top mirror) in the light clock experiment. One could also answer the question by resorting to the PoR, which is perfectly legitimate. But one can also enquire about the mechanics of the process. I think we all mentioned those mechanics in that recent thread: basically, photons are produced omnidirectionally inside an apparatus but only those with the right direction, those moving in parallel with the "tube" are let out.

I said then: what if we extrapolate the same question to mechanical clocks? If a ball clock is to work, it needs to hit the mid-point of the upper wall, bounce back and return to its origin. We assume that if we shoot it upwards, it will. But that requires aiming and ultimately this means the same as you do with the photons. You need a tube. If you shoot with your hand or foot (transfer of kinetic energy), you must make the latter traverse, before the collision, a path in the line of the trajectory you want the ball to follow. If you make an explosion (release and transfer of potential energy), you need a barrel where the bullet "learns" the right path, otherwise it would take any random direction.

Well, this, I think, is an argument in favor of the idea that the acceleration of the moving thing inside the clock is the key for explaining why the mechanical clock time-dilates. In the classical view, the ball of the ball clock was accelerated with the right direction, by the sheer will of the shooter, and instantaneously. In the relativistic view, the ball has to learn the right direction inside a tube, just like the photon, and the ball takes time to start, the time that the EM force takes to do its job.