Time dilation flashlight problem

dmarbell
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have a copy of "Relativity and Early Quantum Theory" by Robert Resnick. On page 78 there is a problem from chapter 2:

A, on earth, signals with a flashlight every six minutes. B is on a space station that is stationary with respect to the earth. C is on a rocket traveling from A to B with a constant velocity of 0.6c relative to A. (a) At what intervals does B receive the signals from A? (b) At what intervals does C receive signals from A? (c) If C flashes a light using intervals equal to those he received from A, at what intervals does B receive C's flashes?

Answers given are (a) 6 minutes, (b) 12 minutes, and (c) 6 minutes.

I have no questions about answers (a) and (c). The time dilation calculation for (b) seems to be 1.25, instead of 2. 1/((1-(v^2/c^2))^.5) = 1.25.

Yet here is a link that states the time dilation for 0.6c is 2. What am I missing?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/relativity15.htm

Danny
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dmarbell said:
I have no questions about answers (a) and (c). The time dilation calculation for (b) seems to be 1.25, instead of 2. 1/((1-(v^2/c^2))^.5) = 1.25.

Yet here is a link that states the time dilation for 0.6c is 2. What am I missing?
Don't confuse the time dilation factor (gamma) with the Doppler shift factor. Look up the relativistic Doppler effect; that's what you need for part b.
 
It appears the correct formula for the time dilation is t(1) = t/((c-v)/(c+v))^.5, where t=6 minutes. t(1) would be 12 minutes. Does that look right?

Danny
 
dmarbell said:
It appears the correct formula for the time dilation is t(1) = t/((c-v)/(c+v))^.5, where t=6 minutes. t(1) would be 12 minutes. Does that look right?
Yes, but don't refer to that as 'time dilation'. It's the relativistic Doppler shift. (Time dilation is just a part of it.) See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a part of what's causing my confusion. On page 48 of the book, Resnick says "A clock is measured to go at its fastest rate when it is at rest relative to the observer. When it moves with a velocity of v relative to the observer, its rate is measured to have slowed down by a factor of (1-(v^2/c^2))^.5.

Does this mean that if I am on earth, as in the above example, and flash a light at six minutes intervals, I would see them arrive at the ship C at 7.5 minute intervals? But the observer on the ship would see them arrive at 12 minute intervals?

I see that two observers, one at rest and the other moving very fast, would read their own clocks differently. But does that mean also that one observer reading a moving clock would read a time that did not agree with his own clock, and also did not agree with the change in time the second observer was seeing?

Danny
 
dmarbell said:
Here is a part of what's causing my confusion. On page 48 of the book, Resnick says "A clock is measured to go at its fastest rate when it is at rest relative to the observer. When it moves with a velocity of v relative to the observer, its rate is measured to have slowed down by a factor of (1-(v^2/c^2))^.5.
Right. This effect of moving clocks running slow is called time dilation. The factor by which time slows down is called the Lorentz factor, gamma, which is defined as 1/[(1-(v^2/c^2))^.5] (the inverse of what you wrote). In your example, gamma = 1.25.

Does this mean that if I am on earth, as in the above example, and flash a light at six minutes intervals, I would see them arrive at the ship C at 7.5 minute intervals?
No. The person on the ship, after making his observations, would conclude that you flashed your light every 7.5 minutes according to his clocks. (After all, your clocks run slow according to him.)
But the observer on the ship would see them arrive at 12 minute intervals?
Right. Note that there's more to the Doppler effect than just time dilation. There's also the fact that the ship is moving away from the source, which adds more time between the arrival of the flashes. While the ship would see the flashes arrive every 12 minutes, you back on Earth would conclude that the flashes arrived at the ship every 15 minutes according to your Earth clocks (due to time dilation).

I see that two observers, one at rest and the other moving very fast, would read their own clocks differently.
They each consider the other's clocks as running slow compared to their own.
But does that mean also that one observer reading a moving clock would read a time that did not agree with his own clock, and also did not agree with the change in time the second observer was seeing?
I'm not sure what you mean here. See if you can rephrase the question, or give an example of what you mean.
 
Doc Al said:
Right. Note that there's more to the Doppler effect than just time dilation. There's also the fact that the ship is moving away from the source, which adds more time between the arrival of the flashes. While the ship would see the flashes arrive every 12 minutes, you back on Earth would conclude that the flashes arrived at the ship every 15 minutes according to your Earth clocks (due to time dilation).

Can you show me how the calculation works to arrive at the 12 minutes? It appears, upon further reading, on page 66 of my book: The third of our four equations above [...] gives us directly the one remaining phenomenon we promised to discuss; the relativistic equation for the Doppler effect...

which he boils down for an angle theta = 180 degrees to be

v = v' (((c-v)/(c+v))^.5) which directly yields 2, or 12 minutes observed between flashes as seen by C.

Danny
 
dmarbell said:
Can you show me how the calculation works to arrive at the 12 minutes?
Are you asking about the calculation, or about the derivation of the Doppler shift equation? I'll address the calculation.

v = v' (((c-v)/(c+v))^.5) which directly yields 2, or 12 minutes observed between flashes as seen by C.
That equation relates the source frequency (v') to the observed frequency (v). The symbol for frequency is the Greek letter nu, but better to use f for frequency so we don't confuse it with the velocity v. In any case, plugging in the numbers gives you f = f'/2. The source frequency is (1 flash)/(6 minutes), so the observed frequency is half of that or (1 flash)/(12 minutes).

Realize that period (T) is the inverse of frequency (f): T = 1/f. So if the observed frequency is half the source frequency, the observed period (12 min) will be twice the source period (6 min).

Let me know if that's making sense.
 
I know that I am new to the Forum but i suggest a different answer for B).

This goes against most of what we know of the time dilation formula using reletivistic physics but this does hold water.

If you use Newtonian Physics you can see that C would percieve the 6 minute intervals at a rate of 15 minutes given A does not move and C is traveling at .6c directly away from A.

I say this by breaking down the event using a modified version of the Galilean Transformation.

Development:
Since we are calculating time we will start off with the basic equation:
T = D/V
If we draw the four points in time we can see how each relates to the other in time

***I do have a chart with the breakdown but it does not paste well***

The chart showed 4 different times.

Beginning of an event
End of an event
When the beginning of an event is percieved
When the end of the event is percieved

This created some timeframes that needed to be calculated

T = actual time it took for an event to take place
Ti = the time it takes from the begginning of the event to when it is perceived by reference
Te = the time it takes from the end of the event to the when it is perceived by reference
Tp = total amount of time for the event to be precieved by the reference.


Our end goal is to determine how much time an event was perceived to take place by a reference. We will to this with the following equation:
Tp = (Tt-Ti)+Te
For this experiment we will assume that we know Tt. With that said we need to find Ti and Te. We need to calculate these separately.

Ti will be easiest to start with. We will use the starting formula for this.
Ti = D/V
Where D will be the entire amount of distance the photon covered to intercept with the reference. This can be calculated by:
D = (Initial Distance between object and reference)+(Distance traveled by reference to Sop)
And V will be the rate of closure for the photon to the reference point. We can get this by subtracting the velocity of the photon and the velocity of the reference.
V = (C)
After we plug in the new values we get:
Ti = (Di+Dr)/(C)
Since we are assuming we know the initial distance and the velocities we need to break down the Distance the reference traveled until it started to perceive the event. This can be done by:
Dr = (Vr*Ti)
This gives us a slight dilemma though as if we plug this in we have Ti on both sides of the equation.
Ti = (Di+(Vr*Ti))/(C)
We now need to solve for Ti. After doing the math you come out with:
Ti = (Di)/(C-Vr)


Te will be calculated in a similar manner. However, the distance that needs to be covered is different. The base formula for Te will look like this.
Te = D/V
Where D is now the following
D = Di+Dr+(Distance traveled by reference from Eoe to Eop)-(Distance traveled by object to Eoe)
Again we need to break this down because we don’t know how far everything traveled. When we do we get this
D = Di+(Vr*Tt)+(Vr*Te)-(Vo*Tt)
The closing velocity remains the same (since it is uniform motion).
V = (C)
When we put this together we have the following:
Te = (Di+(Vr*Tt)+(Vr*Te)-(Vo*Tt))/(C)
We need to solve for Te since it is on both sides of the equation
Te = (Di+Tt(Vr-Vo))/(C-Vr)


With Ti and Te broken down into usable components we can now solve for TP
Tp = (Tt-((Di)/(C-Vr))) + ((Di+Tt(Vr-Vo))/(C-Vr))


When we plug in the numbers we have from the example we can determine that C will receive the first flash and the second flash in an interval of 15 minutes rather than 12.

This keeps the photon of light traveling (from the point of origin) at the speed of light.

This keeps the Doppler Effect in the equasion.

This also keeps Newtonian Physics working even at High speeds such as large fractions of the speed of light. (as well as much slower objects).
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Physicist1231 said:
I know that I am new to the Forum but i suggest a different answer for B).

This goes against most of what we know of the time dilation formula using reletivistic physics but this does hold water.

If you use Newtonian Physics you can see that C would percieve the 6 minute intervals at a rate of 15 minutes given A does not move and C is traveling at .6c directly away from A.
Sorry, but you just ignored time dilation. That doesn't 'hold water', as it gives the wrong answer.

When we plug in the numbers we have from the example we can determine that C will receive the first flash and the second flash in an interval of 15 minutes rather than 12.
Sure, but you ignored the important factor of time dilation.
This keeps the photon of light traveling (from the point of origin) at the speed of light.

This keeps the Doppler Effect in the equasion.

This also keeps Newtonian Physics working even at High speeds such as large fractions of the speed of light. (as well as much slower objects).
No it doesn't. It just gives you the wrong answer. (Kind of silly to ignore relativistic effects, especially in this forum, don't you think?)
 
  • #11
Thank you for pointing out that I am wrong. Where in fact am I wrong though? Following the logic of the math where is it incorrect? I have been working on this for a couple years so I may be fresh to the field but. I see no area where this does not explain what we have observed in previous experiments. Rather it comes to the concusion based on Newtonian Physics (which are laws) instead of Relativistic Physics (which are theory).

Laws are laws and theories are theories. If theories do not fit your Laws then we need to rewrite the theories till we get them right.

Please help
 
  • #12
Doc Al,

This may go off on its own tangent so I created a new topic so as to not convolute this one.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=494417
 
  • #13
Physicist1231 said:
Thank you for pointing out that I am wrong. Where in fact am I wrong though? Following the logic of the math where is it incorrect? I have been working on this for a couple years so I may be fresh to the field but. I see no area where this does not explain what we have observed in previous experiments. Rather it comes to the concusion based on Newtonian Physics (which are laws) instead of Relativistic Physics (which are theory).

Laws are laws and theories are theories. If theories do not fit your Laws then we need to rewrite the theories till we get them right.

Please help
You ignore time dilation! (Among other things, but that's enough to get the wrong answer.)

And your view that Newtonian Physics is somehow more correct than Relativistic Physics is out of date by over a century. Experiments (not just 'theory') have demonstrated that special relativity is correct where Newtonian physics is inadequate. This is hardly controversial--special relativity has been thoroughly confirmed and is a standard tool used daily.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Physicist1231 said:
Doc Al,

This may go off on its own tangent so I created a new topic so as to not convolute this one.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=494417
No thanks. There's not much more to say. I'll delete that new thread.

I suggest you review the sticky at the top of this forum: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17355"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Physicist1231 said:
I know that I am new to the Forum but i suggest a different answer for B).

This goes against most of what we know of the time dilation formula using reletivistic physics but this does hold water.

If you use Newtonian Physics you can see that C would percieve the 6 minute intervals at a rate of 15 minutes given A does not move and C is traveling at .6c directly away from A.
Your comment is ambiguous in Newtonian physics, incorrect in relativity. It's easier to just use the specific numbers you gave above, rather than figure it out with abstract symbols as you did in the rest of your post. Say we are using the frame where A is at rest, and A is at fixed position coordinate x=0 in this frame. Suppose C is at position x=20 light-minutes (a "light-minute" is the distance light travels in a minute, akin to a light year) at t=0 minutes in this frame, and at that moment emits one signal traveling at 1c towards A, which reaches A at t=20 minutes in this frame. Then if we ignore time dilation, then C will emit a second signal at t=6 minutes, and moving at 0.6c, C should then be at position x=20+6*0.6=23.6 minutes. So, this signal will take 23.6 minutes to reach A, getting to A at t=6+23.6=29.6 minutes. So here we find that A sees a 9.6 minute gap between signals, not 15 minutes as you suggested.

But maybe your intent was that in Newtonian physics the light would move at 1c relative to C, not relative to A. In this case, in A's frame the light moves at 0.4c. Then if the first signal is emitted at t=0 minutes at x=20 light-minutes, it will reach A at 20/0.4 = 50 minutes. And if the second signal is emitted at t=6 minutes from position x=23.6 light-minutes, it should take a time of 23.6/0.4= 59 minutes to reach A, so it will reach A at t=6+59=65 minutes. So in this case you are correct that the delay between signals is 15 minutes for A.

In relativity though it would be wrong to assume that since the light moved at 1c relative to C, then it would move at 0.4c relative to A; in relativity light moves at 1c in all inertial frames. And in relativity you also have to take time dilation into account, so if 6 minutes is the time between signals as measured by C's clock, then the time between signals in A's frame would have to be 6/sqrt(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 6/sqrt(0.64) = 6/0.8 = 7.5 minutes. So if C sent the first signal at t=0 minutes from position x=20 light-minutes, A would receive this at t=20 minutes, then C would send the second signal at t=7.5 minutes from position x=20+(7.5*0.6)=24.5 light-minutes, and this would take an additional 24.5 minutes to reach A, so A would get it at t=7.5+24.5=32 minutes. So in this case, A does in fact see a 12 minute gap between successive signals.
 
  • #16
JesseM said:
Say we are using the frame where A is at rest, and A is at fixed position coordinate x=0 in this frame. Suppose C is at position x=20 light-minutes (a "light-minute" is the distance light travels in a minute, akin to a light year) at t=0 minutes in this frame, and at that moment emits one signal traveling at 1c towards A, which reaches A at t=20 minutes in this frame. Then if we ignore time dilation, then C will emit a second signal at t=6 minutes, and moving at 0.6c, C should then be at position x=20+6*0.6=23.6 minutes. So, this signal will take 23.6 minutes to reach A, getting to A at t=6+23.6=29.6 minutes. So here we find that A sees a 9.6 minute gap between signals, not 15 minutes as you suggested.

You have a good setup but you are kind of pointing out the wrong thing. I was not mentioning the time it takes to percieve the first setup rather the interval between the flashes. With that sad using your scenario:

At T=0:
Object is at POS (0,0,0)
Reference point is (20lm,0,0) (light minutes)
Ref starts moving directly away at (.6C,0,0) (moving only on the XAxis directly away from object
Light has been triggered but has had no time to travel

Start the timer and as the photon of light travels to the ref the ref is moving away. The photon is traveling at C (away from point of origin). Using Newtonian physics the rate of approach between the Photon of light and the ref would be:

V = C-Vr

V = C-.6C

V = .4C

Now that we know the rate of approach we need to find out how far the reference point travels till the photon intercepts it. That is where the math gets tricky. You know the velocity of the photon and the velocity of the ref and the time it takes to initialy percieve the light with be at Ti. This marks the beginning of perception.

Ti = Dr/Vr (For the reference)

Ti = Dl/C (for the light)

At this point we have two unknowns Ti and Dl (total distance the light traveled to reach the ref)

But we know that the Dl = Di +Dr (initial distance plus the gained distance by the ref)

We also know that the distance the ref made (Dr) is equal to the Vr * Ti.

you can then say that

Ti = (Di + (Vr * Ti))/C

Now we have just the one unknown. BUT it is on both sides of the equation. We need to fix that with simple math principles we learned in middle school (or sooner). We then get

Ti = (Di)/(C-Vr)

Now let's plug those numbers at T=0 to find out when the ref "sees the light"

Ti = 20lm/(C - .6c)

Converted to m/s (so long as you keep your units straight you can do it without converting)

Ti = 3.6 x 10^11/ (1.2 x 10^8)

Ti = 3000s = 50 minutes

This is a little over twice the initial time if the ref would have sat still. This result is to be expected since it would EXACTLY double if the ref was going at .5C.

So do thank you for pointing that out but the math was just a little off.

What i was originally reporting was how long between the first light hitting him and the one triggered 6 min later. Since the ref was moving directly away at .6c then the beginning wave and end wave would be perceived to be 15 minutes apart. Again a little over double but that is to be expected since it is over .5c.

This explains why the ref would percieve an event taking longer than it really did and using simple known math that does NOT break down at larger speeds.

It is true that previous attemts to do this were a fail. The Galilean Transformation was the breaking point and is faulty. Since this was faulty Science strayed away from it and substituted Relativity and the Lorentz Transformation assuming that space and time are flexible whereas Newtonian physics assumes they are not flexible however can be perceived differently by different observers.
 
  • #17
Physicist1231 said:
You have a good setup but you are kind of pointing out the wrong thing. I was not mentioning the time it takes to percieve the first setup rather the interval between the flashes.
I was calculating the "interval between the flashes" too, for example in the first paragraph using Newtonian assumptions and light traveling at 1c relative to A, I showed that if C sent out flashes at t=0 and t=6 in A's frame, A would receive them at t=20 and t=29.6, so the interval between flashes for A is 9.6 minutes. Similarly in the second paragraph with Newtonian assumptions but light moving at 1c relative to C rather than A, I showed the interval between A receiving two signals from C is 15 minutes. Finally in the third paragraph using relativity's assumptions (that light moves at 1c in A's frame, and C's clock is dilated in A's frame so 6 minutes for him is 7.5 minutes for A), the interval between A receiving signals from C is 12 minutes.

Do you disagree with any of the numbers in my analysis?
 
Last edited:
  • #18
JesseM,

I did miss that sorry... Actually looking at your math it is a little off. You have the Ti calculated as X=20+6*.6c. This is not quite it as this will calculate where teh photon of light will be after that amount of time. That is NOT where the moving reference will be at that point in time. You need to find the point in space and time where both meet.

Using the old T=D/V

We know the Photon is traveling at the speed of light. So V=C

Now we need to find out how far that photon has to travel to reach the moving object.

You have the initial distance Di =20 and then you need to add the distance covered by the object (this is the point of error). You should have the following

Ti= (Di + (Vo*Ti))/C

You will notice that the object travels much longer than what you predicted by the previous post.

Yes you do have Ti on both sides of the equation so you need to solve for Ti (good old middle school math)

You will get the following

Ti = (Di)/(C-Vr)

Plug in the numbers since we know all but Ti (point in time that Object is perceived by reference)

Ti = 20lm/(C - .6c)

Converted to m/s (so long as you keep your units straight you can do it without converting)

Ti = 3.6 x 10^11/ (1.2 x 10^8)

Ti = 3000s = 50 minutes

If you do this again for the second wave (released at T=6) then we need to do the following

Te = (Di + (Vr*T) + (Vr*Te))/C

You need the extra part (Vr*T) because the object was moving for 6 min before the wave was let out so it was not at X=20lm.

Again you have Te on both sides. Solve for Te again.

Te = (Di+Tt(Vr))/(C-Vr)

Then you find out how long it took for the second wave of light released at T=6 to be pervcieved from release:

Te = (20lm + 6m(.6C))/(.4C)

Te = (3.6 x 10^11 + 6.48 x 10^10)/(1.2 x 10^8)

Te = 3540s = 59min

Since there was a 6 min delay between the waves you can calculate the inteval this way

Interval = (Te+T) -Ti

Interval = (59m +6min) - 50 = 15 minutes

(ps sorry did not see this post for a while...)
 
  • #19
Physicist1231 said:
JesseM,

I did miss that sorry... Actually looking at your math it is a little off. You have the Ti calculated as X=20+6*.6c. This is not quite it as this will calculate where teh photon of light will be after that amount of time. That is NOT where the moving reference will be at that point in time.
Huh? By "moving reference" do you mean C, and are you assuming as I do that we are calculating things from the perspective of the inertial frame where A is at rest at position x=0, while C starts at position x=20 at time t=0, and is moving in the +x direction at 0.6c? If you are not using these assumptions you need to clarify your own assumptions about what frame we are using and what you assume about initial positions and times in this frame. But if you are using these assumptions, of course it must be true that at t=6, C must be at position x=20+6*0.6c, if you don't agree with that then you must be misunderstanding something basic about how kinematics works.
 
  • #20
JesseM said:
Huh? By "moving reference" do you mean C, and are you assuming as I do that we are calculating things from the perspective of the inertial frame where A is at rest at position x=0, while C starts at position x=20 at time t=0, and is moving in the +x direction at 0.6c? If you are not using these assumptions you need to clarify your own assumptions about what frame we are using and what you assume about initial positions and times in this frame. But if you are using these assumptions, of course it must be true that at t=6, C must be at position x=20+6*0.6c, if you don't agree with that then you must be misunderstanding something basic about how kinematics works.

I am making those assumptions. the moving reference is the body moving at .6C away from the object. At T=6 then X for the Reference is 20+6*0.6c however X for the photon of light at T=6 is 6*C. You will notice that these two measurements are not the same (yet) so in this moment T=6 the light has NOT reached the reference.
 
  • #21
Physicist1231 said:
I am making those assumptions. the moving reference is the body moving at .6C away from the object. At T=6 then X for the Reference is 20+6*0.6c however X for the photon of light at T=6 is 6*C.
Which photon of light? I mentioned two, the first emitted at T=0 and the second emitted at T=6 (if we ignore time dilation), and I assumed they were emitted by C towards A, are you instead assuming the photons were emitted by A towards C? (and if you don't mind too much, please use the terminology of A and C, not "the reference" which is confusing because it sounds like the term "reference frame", but here we are using a reference frame where A is at rest, not C)

If you want to talk about light emitted by A towards C, then here are some altered calculations. If we assume the light moves at 1c in A's frame, then the first photon has position as a function of time given by x(t) = 1c*t, while the second has position as a function of time given by x(t)=1c*(t-6) = 1c*t - 6. Meanwhile C itself has position as a function of time given by x(t) = 0.6c*t + 20. So the first photon catches up with C when 1c*t = 0.6c*t + 20, at t=20/0.4c=50 minutes, when both C and the first photon are at position x=50 light-minutes. Then the second photon catches up with C when 1c*t - 6 = 0.6c*t + 20, or t=26/0.4=65 minutes, when both C and the second photon are at position x=59 light-minutes.

Since the first photon reaches C at t=50 minutes while the second reaches C at t=65 minutes, then the two photons hit C 15 minutes apart in this frame. If we assume no time dilation as in Newtonian physics, that means they also hit C 15 minutes apart according to C's own clock. But if we do take into account time dilation, then in 15 minutes of time in this frame, C's own clock only ticks forward by 15*sqrt(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 15*sqrt(1-0.36) = 15*sqrt(0.64) = 15*0.8 = 12 minutes. So in relativity, C should receive the two signals 12 minutes apart according to his own clock. Agreed?

Finally, if we are using Newtonian physics, there is actually no reason to assume that light moves at 1c relative to the emitter A, we could also assume that light moves at 1c relative to the receiver C (perhaps C is the one who's at rest relative to the luminiferous aether). Since in A's frame the photon is moving in the same direction as C, and C is moving at 0.6c in A's frame, this would mean that in A's frame the photons actually move at 1.6c. So in this case the first photon would have position as a function of time given by x(t) = 1.6c*t, the second would have position as a function of time given by x(t) = 1.6c*(t - 6) = 16.c*t - 9.6. So the first would catch up with C when 1.6c*t = 0.6c*t + 20, at t=20 minutes, while the second would catch up with C when 1.6c*t - 9.6 = 0.6c*t + 20, at t=29.6 minutes. So in A's frame we now calculate that the light signals reach C 9.6 minutes apart, and since this is a Newtonian scenario (it must be, if light did not move at 1c in A's frame) then there is no time dilation equation, so C also receives them 9.6 minutes apart according to his own clock.

To sum up, if we have two signals which were sent out by A, 6 minutes apart according to A's clock, we get the following conclusions about the time C observes between two signals:

--Newtonian scenario with no time dilation, light moves at 1c relative to C: 9.6 minutes apart on C's clock

--Newtonian scenario with no time dilation, light moves at 1c relative to A: 15 minutes apart on C's clock

--Relativistic scenario with time dilation and light moving at 1c in A's frame (as it must in every inertial frame in relativity): 12 minutes apart on C's clock

Do you disagree with any of these?
 
  • #22
You are correct we need to keep things standardized. I was avoiding using C as an object since C can also represent the Speed of light. But we will continue using A and C where A is at complete rest and photons are emitted from A towards C and C is in motion .6c directly away from A.

You should not mix Newtonian physics and Relativistic Physics. They are built on two separate ideas. NP assumes that Space and Time are rigid structures and remain the same even though can be percieve differently. Relativity though assumes that space and time are flexible and can be bent thus leading to different perceptions.

The second scenario if the corret on (as far as Newtonian physics go). The math is not really from the point of view of A or C.

A photon of light is emitted from its source in space and time at the speed of light. That source (no matter the reference point) will always have the same corrdinates for that photon of light. If the object emitting light (in this case A) were in motion then the second photon of light would have a different 3d coord source and be receeding away from that point instead of teh same 3d coord of the first point. This shows that it does not matter the reference point light is traveling at the speed of light always away from its 3d source point in space. Should A be in motion and emit two photons of light at T=0 and T=6 then you will notice a doppler shift effect. In our setup A remained in the same 3d point in space so we did not have to calculate his movement.

in short:

If you are using NP then the first scenario is incorrect but the second is correct.

If you are using RP then the third is correct.
 
  • #23
Physicist1231 said:
You should not mix Newtonian physics and Relativistic Physics.
I didn't, I gave separate calculations for relativity and Newtonian physics. However it is true in both relativity and Newtonian physics that if in some inertial frame a signal has position as a function of time given by x(t) = 1c*t, and an object has position as a function of time given by x(t) = 0.6c*t + 20, then we can find the time coordinate where the signal reaches the object by setting the two equations equal and solving for t, i.e. solving for t in 1c*t = 0.6c*t + 20. This is just some basic kinematics which holds in both Newtonian physics and relativity, do you disagree?
Physicist1231 said:
The second scenario if the corret on (as far as Newtonian physics go). The math is not really from the point of view of A or C.
In Newtonian physics, if you say the speed of light is 1c, you have to define what frame you're defining speed in reference to, since a signal that moves at 1c in one frame will not move at 1c in other frames according to the Newtonian rule for velocity addition. Again, tell me if you disagree with this.

The traditional assumption before relativity was that light was a vibration in the lumineferous aether just like sound waves in air are vibrations in the atmosphere, and just as sound waves always travel at the same speed relative to the rest frame of the atmosphere regardless of the velocity of the emitter, it was similarly assumed that all light waves would travel at the speed of 1c in the rest frame of the aether, regardless of the speed of the emitter. So that's why I did two Newtonian analyses, one assuming that light moved at 1c in the frame of A (assuming A was at rest relative to the aether), and another assuming the light moved at 1c in the frame of C (assuming C was at rest relative to the aether). Both assumptions are consistent with Newtonian physics.
Physicist1231 said:
A photon of light is emitted from its source in space and time at the speed of light.
"Speed of light" in what frame? Again, in Newtonian physics if it moved at the speed of light in one frame, it would not move at the speed of light in others. Perhaps you are imagining a ballistic theory where light always travels at c relative to the emitter? The advantage of the aether theory over the ballistic theory is that in the aether theory Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism can hold in the aether frame even if they don't hold in other frames, while a ballistic theory would violate Maxwell's laws in every frame (since Maxwell's laws always predict that electromagnetic waves move at c, regardless of the speed of the emitter).
Physicist1231 said:
That source (no matter the reference point) will always have the same corrdinates for that photon of light.
What does "reference point" mean? Are you talking about a reference frame, which is a coordinate system covering all of space and time, not something located at a single "point"? If not you need to define your terms. And I don't understand what you mean when you say the source will "always have the same coordinates", coordinates in what coordinate system? Does "for that photon of light" mean you are imagining the light has its "own" coordinate system in which the source is at rest? This is definitely not a standard idea in either relativity or Newtonian physics, so again you need to explain in more detail if you're suggesting something like this.
Physicist1231 said:
If the object emitting light (in this case A) were in motion then the second photon of light would have a different 3d coord source and be receeding away from that point instead of teh same 3d coord of the first point. This shows that it does not matter the reference point light is traveling at the speed of light always away from its 3d source point in space.
Are you using "reference point" to mean the position coordinate where the light was originally emitted, regardless of whether the emitter remains at that position or not? And if so are you talking about relativity or Newtonian physics? In relativity it doesn't matter if you use a coordinate system where the emitter remains at the position of emission or whether you use a coordinate system where the emitter moves away from the position of emission, in both cases the light will have a coordinate speed of 1c, so the distance between the photon and the position of emission is always growing at a rate of 1 light-second per second.
Physicist1231 said:
in short:

If you are using NP then the first scenario is incorrect but the second is correct.
Can you be specific about what number you are referring to? Are you saying the first Newtonian scenario where C waits 15 minutes between receiving photons is incorrect, while the second Newtonian scenario where C waits 9.6 minutes is correct? Or vice versa? Either way, both scenarios are correct given the assumptions I listed about which observer's frame the light was moving at 1c relative to.
 
  • #24
Wow i guess things got a little jumbled. I will try better:

First point you made:I didn't, I gave separate calculations for relativity and Newtonian physics. However it is true in both relativity and Newtonian physics that if in some inertial frame a signal has position as a function of time given by x(t) = 1c*t, and an object has position as a function of time given by x(t) = 0.6c*t + 20, then we can find the time coordinate where the signal reaches the object by setting the two equations equal and solving for t, i.e. solving for t in 1c*t = 0.6c*t + 20. This is just some basic kinematics which holds in both Newtonian physics and relativity, do you disagree?

You are correct in the formula for Newtonian Physics. This does not really work for Relativity (if it did we would have the same results as the distance). In Reletivity Distance or space is also flexible). I believe you had the correct formula for relativity when you came to the results of 12 min.

Second Point: In Newtonian physics, if you say the speed of light is 1c, you have to define what frame you're defining speed in reference to, since a signal that moves at 1c in one frame will not move at 1c in other frames according to the Newtonian rule for velocity addition. Again, tell me if you disagree with this.

The speed 1C for the photon is always from its point of origin. This may be perceived differently by an outside source or even the emitting object (if it were in motion and no longer shares the same 3d Point of Origin as the photon itself). but no matter where you stand. If you know the 3d point of origin you can calculate the 3d point in space where that photon will be at T=X. You can put 0,0,0 anywhere as your reference point and so long as you keep it there and calculate velocities according to just that one point you will always get the same results. That point 0,0,0 needs to remain motionless during all calculations. This also covers the thrid point regarding "reference point".

As far as the scenarios i was referring to the order in which you listed the results before:

--Newtonian scenario with no time dilation, light moves at 1c relative to C: 9.6 minutes apart on C's clock

--Newtonian scenario with no time dilation, light moves at 1c relative to A: 15 minutes apart on C's clock

--Relativistic scenario with time dilation and light moving at 1c in A's frame (as it must in every inertial frame in relativity): 12 minutes apart on C's clock

Hope that helps to straighten it out!
 
  • #25
Physicist1231 said:
Wow i guess things got a little jumbled. I will try better:

First point you made:I didn't, I gave separate calculations for relativity and Newtonian physics. However it is true in both relativity and Newtonian physics that if in some inertial frame a signal has position as a function of time given by x(t) = 1c*t, and an object has position as a function of time given by x(t) = 0.6c*t + 20, then we can find the time coordinate where the signal reaches the object by setting the two equations equal and solving for t, i.e. solving for t in 1c*t = 0.6c*t + 20. This is just some basic kinematics which holds in both Newtonian physics and relativity, do you disagree?

You are correct in the formula for Newtonian Physics. This does not really work for Relativity (if it did we would have the same results as the distance). In Reletivity Distance or space is also flexible). I believe you had the correct formula for relativity when you came to the results of 12 min.
You misunderstand relativity here, contraction of distance/length only comes into play when you want to compare distances/lengths in different frames, but here I am just talking about coordinate position as a function of coordinate time in a single frame. And you say my 12 minute result was correct, but I derived that simply by solving for t in 1c*t = 0.6c*t + 20 for the first pulse and 1c*t - 6 = 0.6c*t + 20 for the second, concluding that in this frame the coordinate time the pulses reached C was t=50 and t=65, so the coordinate time between C receiving them was 15 minutes. Then I just applied the time dilation equation, which says that in 15 minutes of coordinate time, C's own clock time will only advance by 15*sqrt(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 15*0.8 = 12 minutes.
Physicist1231 said:
The speed 1C for the photon is always from its point of origin. This may be perceived differently by an outside source or even the emitting object (if it were in motion and no longer shares the same 3d Point of Origin as the photon itself).
I don't understand what "point of origin" means. Do you understand that even in Newtonian physics, different inertial frames disagree about what point in space now is at the "same position" as some event in the past? Are you assuming some notion of absolute space in which there would be some objective frame-independent truth about whether a given object is "at rest" in absolute space (so remaining at the same "point" in absolute space) or "moving" in absolute space? Even if you are assuming that, and also assuming that light always moves at 1c relative to absolute space, then your thought-experiment doesn't seem to specify whether A or C is the one at rest relative to absolute space (if either are). And hopefully you understand that in relativity there is no notion of absolute space, and it would also be good to understand that even in Newtonian physics, as long as the laws of physics were the same in different inertial frames (respecting the "Galilean principle of relativity"), there would be absolutely no way to determine experimentally which object was at rest in absolute space and which wasn't (see the discussion here).
Physicist1231 said:
As far as the scenarios i was referring to the order in which you listed the results before:
OK, but when I listed them originally I was talking about a situation where C sent the signal towards A, I didn't realize you wanted a situation where A sent a signal to C, which is why I gave revised calculations in post #21.
Physicist1231 said:
--Newtonian scenario with no time dilation, light moves at 1c relative to C: 9.6 minutes apart on C's clock

--Newtonian scenario with no time dilation, light moves at 1c relative to A: 15 minutes apart on C's clock

--Relativistic scenario with time dilation and light moving at 1c in A's frame (as it must in every inertial frame in relativity): 12 minutes apart on C's clock
So you disagree with the first answer, even if we assume light moves at 1c relative to C? (or if you prefer, that C is the one at rest in absolute space, remaining at the "same point" in space at all times, while A is moving relative to absolute space) If you do disagree even with those conditions in place, can you tell me which part of my calculation you think was in error?
 
Last edited:
  • #26
JesseM said:
I don't understand what "point of origin" means. Do you understand that even in Newtonian physics, different inertial frames disagree about what point in space now is at the "same position" as some event in the past? Are you assuming some notion of absolute space in which there would be some objective frame-independent truth about whether a given object is "at rest" in absolute space (so remaining at the same "point" in absolute space) or "moving" in absolute space? Even if you are assuming that, and also assuming that light always moves at 1c relative to absolute space, then your thought-experiment doesn't seem to specify whether A or C is the one at rest relative to absolute space (if either are). And hopefully you understand that in relativity there is no notion of absolute space, and it would also be good to understand that even in Newtonian physics, as long as the laws of physics were the same in different inertial frames (respecting the "Galilean principle of relativity"), there would be absolutely no way to determine experimentally which object was at rest in absolute space and which wasn't (see the discussion here).

Actually, using the properties we KNOW of light we can determine if something is at absolute rest.

Imaging an apparatus that is perfectly spherical. In the exact center of this sphere there is a much smaller sphere. For our scenario we will call them Sphere A (large) and Sphere B (smaller). Sphere B is an emitter of light across its entire surface in all directions (like a very advanced lightbulb). Sphere A has an is lined with numerous light receptors. Since we know that the emittion of light is in a doppler effect pattern if the entire apperatus is at rest then an emission of light will reach ALL points on Sphere A at the same time. However, if the entire apparatus is in motion (Sphere A and B are relatively motionless to each other) in ANY 3D direction there will be a time delay in the reception of light. The very LAST point on Sphere A to receive light will point out the Direction of travel. Also if you calculate the difference in time from that point to the very Opposite side of the sphere you can then calculate the Speed. Now that you have the Speed and Direction you now have Velocity.

Just because objects are motionless relative to each other does not mean they have no motion.

JesseM said:
So you disagree with the first answer, even if we assume light moves at 1c relative to C? (or if you prefer, that C is the one at rest in absolute space, remaining at the "same point" in space at all times, while A is moving relative to absolute space) If you do disagree even with those conditions in place, can you tell me which part of my calculation you think was in error?

If we did assume that the photon was approaching C at 1C then that would be the case. I do not think that the math would be worth doing though because using that thought process would put the individual photon of light in different actual coordinates depending on the reference point. IE if light is approaching everything at the speed of light then it would not matter if an object (originally standing at 20lm away) was moving or not, It would still reach him in 20lm. With that same assumption put two people at 20lm distance and shoot off a single photon of light. If one person is receeding at .Xc but the approaching speed of the photon is still 1c then it will hit both people at T=20min even though they are in physicaly different places. so yes the math for that point is correct... but the logic behind it may result in way too many questions and downfalls.
 
  • #27
Physicist1231 said:
Actually, using the properties we KNOW of light we can determine if something is at absolute rest.
Not in relativity you can't! And in Newtonian physics it would depend if light always had a speed of 1c in absolute space, or if you used some other theory where it didn't necessarily, like a ballistic theory of light emission. And if light always has a speed of 1c relative to absolute space this means the laws of physics don't respect the principle of Galilean relativity, so this doesn't contradict my earlier statement that there is no way to determine absolute motion if the laws of physics all obey Galilean relativity.
Physicist1231 said:
Imaging an apparatus that is perfectly spherical. In the exact center of this sphere there is a much smaller sphere. For our scenario we will call them Sphere A (large) and Sphere B (smaller). Sphere B is an emitter of light across its entire surface in all directions (like a very advanced lightbulb). Sphere A has an is lined with numerous light receptors. Since we know that the emittion of light is in a doppler effect pattern if the entire apperatus is at rest then an emission of light will reach ALL points on Sphere A at the same time. However, if the entire apparatus is in motion (Sphere A and B are relatively motionless to each other) in ANY 3D direction there will be a time delay in the reception of light.
Not true in relativity! In relativity the light moves at 1c in all frames including the rest frame of the sphere, so it will always be true that the light hits every point on the larger sphere simultaneously in the sphere's own rest frame. To understand this you need to be familiar with the relativity of simultaneity which says that different frames define "simultaneity" differently, so if there are clocks at the front and back of the sphere which are "synchronized" in the sphere's rest frame, and the light hits each one when they show the same reading, then in the frame of an observer who sees the sphere in motion, the two clocks are out-of-sync so the fact that both showed the same reading when the light hit them is consistent with the fact that the light actually hit them at different times in this observer's frame. Analyzing a full sphere would be difficult but if you like I can show how, if light is emitted from the center of a + sign that has clocks at all four ends that are synchronized in its own frame, then although the light will hit different ends at different times in the frame of an observer who sees the plus sign in motion, the clocks at each end will all show the same time and thus the light hits each end simultaneously in the rest frame of the plus sign.
Physicist1231 said:
Just because objects are motionless relative to each other does not mean they have no motion.
If the laws of physics are all Lorentz-symmetric as required by relativity, then no possible experiment can determine absolute motion, and thus I think it makes sense to do away with this concept altogether.
Physicist1231 said:
If we did assume that the photon was approaching C at 1C then that would be the case.
OK, so you do agree with all three of my calculations then, given the assumptions I made in each one?
Physicist1231 said:
I do not think that the math would be worth doing though because using that thought process would put the individual photon of light in different actual coordinates depending on the reference point. IE if light is approaching everything at the speed of light then it would not matter if an object (originally standing at 20lm away) was moving or not, It would still reach him in 20lm.
That would only be true if you were calculating things in a frame where the light has a coordinate speed of 1c and C has a coordinate velocity of zero! Even if absolute space exists, you are still free to calculate things from the perspective of a frame that is in motion relative to absolute space, like the rest frame of A. In this frame, C is moving while the light has a coordinate velocity of 1.6c. You may think it's weird to use a frame where coordinate velocities are totally different from "true" absolute velocities, but Newton was fine with doing so even though he believed in absolute space, and you'll still get the correct answer to any question about local events like what time C's clock read at the moment he was struck be each photon.

Anyway, if you calculate things from the perspective of the frame at rest relative to absolute space, then assuming light has a coordinate velocity of 1c in this frame and that C is at rest in this frame, you're right that if C is 20 light-minutes away from A when the first signal is emitted by A, it will take 20 minutes for the signal to reach C. But since we're talking about the Doppler effect we need to consider two different signals from A, so A's motion is important because it means that C will no longer be 20 light-minutes from A at the time the second signal is emitted.
 
  • #28
Hi JesseM (Hi to others as well :) )

I have been a silent reader of physics forum for quite some time now and I have read many of your posts. I really appreciate the way you look at things.

Lately I have been reading about time dilation, and one thing, invariably, is boggling me - the reason for time dilation or the mechanism of time dilation

I know it is something more than just an illusion (as some people say it is just the delay caused by the light waves to reach the observer ... but it's false for the simple reason that time dilation is something real)

Would also like to ask an extension of the same question - Why does a mechanical clock has to tick slower when it is moving at a high speed, say 0.9c ... or for that matter why does a biological clock has to get slow (the twin paradox) ?

Is there any established reason/mechanism for time dilation to happen ?

Thanks


** This is my fisrt post on PF, expecting a positive reply **
 
  • #29
SMRN said:
Hi JesseM (Hi to others as well :) )

I have been a silent reader of physics forum for quite some time now and I have read many of your posts. I really appreciate the way you look at things.

Lately I have been reading about time dilation, and one thing, invariably, is boggling me - the reason for time dilation or the mechanism of time dilation

I know it is something more than just an illusion (as some people say it is just the delay caused by the light waves to reach the observer ... but it's false for the simple reason that time dilation is something real)

Would also like to ask an extension of the same question - Why does a mechanical clock has to tick slower when it is moving at a high speed, say 0.9c ... or for that matter why does a biological clock has to get slow (the twin paradox) ?

Is there any established reason/mechanism for time dilation to happen ?

Thanks


** This is my fisrt post on PF, expecting a positive reply **
Hi SMRN, welcome to the exciting world of physicsforums posting ;) Ultimately I think physics can't really give answers to questions about "why" the laws of physics work the way they do, the only real answer I can give is that all the fundamental laws of physics are invariant under the Lorentz transformation (which relates the coordinates of events in one inertial frame to the events' coordinates in other inertial frames in relativity). This means that if you write down the equations that correctly describe the dynamics of particles and fields in the coordinates of one frame, and then apply the Lorentz transformation to find the correct equations in the coordinates of a different frame, you end up with exactly the same equations. So this means for example that if you build a clock at rest in one frame whose ticking keeps pace with coordinate time in that frame, then as long as the laws governing the constituents of this clock are Lorentz-symmetric, if you built exactly the same type of clock at rest in a different frame, its ticking would keep pace with coordinate time in that frame. And it's not hard to show from the Lorentz transformation that this implies the time dilation equation, since two events which occur at the same position but separated by a time interval of T in one frame (like different ticks of a clock at rest in that frame) will have a dilated time interval of T * \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} in a different frame moving at v relative to the first, according to the Lorentz transformation.

This answer is probably a little abstract, but I also find it helpful to think in terms of an analogy to ordinary 2D Euclidean geometry. If you have two points on a 2D plane, then a straight-line path will always have a shorter distance than a non-straight path between the same two points. Similarly in spacetime, a "straight" worldline between two points in space and time (the worldline of an inertial observer) always has a greater proper time (time as measured by a clock which has that worldline) than a non-straight worldline (the worldline of an observer who accelerates). And if you draw a Cartesian x-y coordinate system on the plane, and have cars driving along different paths with their odometers running, then paths with different angles relative to the x-axis will have different values for the rate that the odometer reading is increasing relative to increases in the x-coordinate of the car as it traverses different points on the path. This is analogous to how in an inertial frame in spacetime, clocks with different velocities will have different values for the rate that the clock reading is increasing relative to increase in t-coordinate in that frame. Note that in both cases, these rates depend on how you choose your coordinate axes--at any given point on one clock's worldline, there is no objective answer to whether its rate of ticking is faster or slower than some other clock at that moment, this depends on what frame's t-coordinate you use, just like the rate of odometer increase relative to x-coordinate depends on how the x-axis is oriented in the plane. But there is an objective answer to which of two clocks elapses more time in total between two meetings, ust like there is an objective answer to the length of two paths (as measured by an odometer) between the points where they cross. If you're interested, I developed this geometric analogy at greater length in [post=2972720]this post[/post].
 
  • #30
JesseM said:
Hi SMRN, welcome to the exciting world of physicsforums posting ;) Ultimately I think physics can't really give answers to questions about "why" the laws of physics work the way they do, the only real answer I can give is that all the fundamental laws of physics are invariant under the Lorentz transformation (which relates the coordinates of events in one inertial frame to the events' coordinates in other inertial frames in relativity). This means that if you write down the equations that correctly describe the dynamics of particles and fields in the coordinates of one frame, and then apply the Lorentz transformation to find the correct equations in the coordinates of a different frame, you end up with exactly the same equations. So this means for example that if you build a clock at rest in one frame whose ticking keeps pace with coordinate time in that frame, then as long as the laws governing the constituents of this clock are Lorentz-symmetric, if you built exactly the same type of clock at rest in a different frame, its ticking would keep pace with coordinate time in that frame. And it's not hard to show from the Lorentz transformation that this implies the time dilation equation, since two events which occur at the same position but separated by a time interval of T in one frame (like different ticks of a clock at rest in that frame) will have a dilated time interval of T * \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} in a different frame moving at v relative to the first, according to the Lorentz transformation.

This answer is probably a little abstract, but I also find it helpful to think in terms of an analogy to ordinary 2D Euclidean geometry. If you have two points on a 2D plane, then a straight-line path will always have a shorter distance than a non-straight path between the same two points. Similarly in spacetime, a "straight" worldline between two points in space and time (the worldline of an inertial observer) always has a greater proper time (time as measured by a clock which has that worldline) than a non-straight worldline (the worldline of an observer who accelerates). And if you draw a Cartesian x-y coordinate system on the plane, and have cars driving along different paths with their odometers running, then paths with different angles relative to the x-axis will have different values for the rate that the odometer reading is increasing relative to increases in the x-coordinate of the car as it traverses different points on the path. This is analogous to how in an inertial frame in spacetime, clocks with different velocities will have different values for the rate that the clock reading is increasing relative to increase in t-coordinate in that frame. Note that in both cases, these rates depend on how you choose your coordinate axes--at any given point on one clock's worldline, there is no objective answer to whether its rate of ticking is faster or slower than some other clock at that moment, this depends on what frame's t-coordinate you use, just like the rate of odometer increase relative to x-coordinate depends on how the x-axis is oriented in the plane. But there is an objective answer to which of two clocks elapses more time in total between two meetings, ust like there is an objective answer to the length of two paths (as measured by an odometer) between the points where they cross. If you're interested, I developed this geometric analogy at greater length in [post=2972720]this post[/post].


Firstly thanks for the reply :)

So you mean to say that nothing happens inside the mechanical clock (probably at atomic level) that makes it to tick slower ?
or nothing happens inside the atoms that makes the biological clock move slow ?

Einstein told us about Relativity and he also told us that if you can't explain a theory to a child then probably it's of no use.

The answer has too much physics in it.

How do you explain a layman the same thing ?
 
  • #31
SMRN said:
I have been a silent reader of physics forum for quite some time now and I have read many of your posts. I really appreciate the way you look at things.

Lately I have been reading about time dilation, and one thing, invariably, is boggling me - the reason for time dilation or the mechanism of time dilation

If you have been lurking for while, you should already know the non-answer from physics to questions about reasons: The job physics is to tell you "how much" not "why".

To tell you "how much" physics can employ a mathematical model, that answers the "why" question within that model. But that is a reason made up by humans and based on other assumptions that have no known reasons.

Within relativity time dilation and length contraction are related in a way that can be interpreted geometrically, which is sort of a more "intuitive mechanism" shown in this animation:

http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/relativity.swf
 
  • #32
A.T. said:
If you have been lurking for while, you should already know the non-answer from physics to questions about reasons: The job physics is to tell you "how much" not "why".

To tell you "how much" physics can employ a mathematical model, that answers the "why" question within that model. But that is a reason made up by humans and based on other assumptions that have no known reasons.

Within relativity time dilation and length contraction are related in a way that can be interpreted geometrically, which is sort of a more "intuitive mechanism" shown in this animation:

http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/relativity.swf


Thanks for the link :)

I guess it's not wrong to be curious, physics does not hold you back from asking questions irrespective of the ability of physics to answer the questions.

The whole idea was to understand the rationale behind time dilation to understand it in a better way ...

I would still appreciate some insights into the mechanism of time dilation (if physics has it)
 
  • #33
SMRN said:
Firstly thanks for the reply :)

So you mean to say that nothing happens inside the mechanical clock (probably at atomic level) that makes it to tick slower ?
or nothing happens inside the atoms that makes the biological clock move slow ?
They don't move slowly in any objective sense. In the frame where that clock is at rest, it ticks at a normal rate while your clock and your biological processes move slow. It just depends on what coordinate system you use, how position and time coordinates are assigned by that system. From the perspective of your frame, the fact that a clock moving slow relative to you slows down can in some sense be "explained" by the fact that the interactions between atoms are electromagnetic, so all interactions slow down for the same reason a light clock seems to run slower when moving relative to you. But again, in the other frame they will say the same thing about you and your clock!
SMRN said:
Einstein told us about Relativity and he also told us that if you can't explain a theory to a child then probably it's of no use.
Well, according to the "misattributed" section of the Einstein wikiquote page, his colleague de Broglie once remembered that Einstein had said "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' " The part about "their mathematical expressions apart" is important, I think Einstein was saying there should be some basic concepts of a theory that could be explainable to anyone, but a real understanding would still require some mathematical detail.
SMRN said:
The answer has too much physics in it.
The geometric analogy has no physics in it, you just have to be able to visualize paths in space and how they are described in Cartesian coordinate systems, which only requires some knowledge of algebra. If you don't remember how to graph functions in algebra just say so and I can point you to some basic introductions, but if you do remember it I think you could follow the analogy if you made the effort...
 
Last edited:
  • #34
JesseM said:
They don't move slowly in any objective sense. In the frame where that clock is at rest, it ticks at a normal rate while your clock and your biological processes move slow. It just depends on what coordinate system you use, how position and time coordinates are assigned by that system. From the perspective of your frame, the fact that a clock moving slow relative to you can in some sense be "explained" by the fact that the interactions between atoms are electromagnetic, so all interactions slow down for the same reason a light clock seems to run slower when moving relative to you. But again, in the other frame they will say the same thing about you and your clock!

Well, according to the "misattributed" section of the Einstein wikiquote page, his colleague de Broglie once remembered that Einstein had said "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' " The part about "their mathematical expressions apart is important, I think Einstein was saying there should be some basic concepts of a theory that could be explainable to anyone, but a real understanding would still require some mathematical detail.

The geometric analogy has no physics in it, you just have to be able to visualize paths in space and how they are described in Cartesian coordinate systems, which only requires some knowledge of algebra. If you don't remember how to graph functions in algebra just say so and I can point you to some basic introductions, but if you do remember it I think you could follow the analogy if you made the effort...


Thanks a lot for the reply Jesse. I will definitely ponder over what you said and will try to learn these things, if I stumble I'll get back to you.

I actually loved physics since the childhood but I somehow got stuck into the field of management, trying to again pursue my love in the free time.
 
  • #35
SMRN said:
Thanks for the link :)
I would still appreciate some insights into the mechanism of time dilation (if physics has it)
Play around with the speed slider in the animation. You will get the idea of how relative movement affects the moving clock and the length along the movement direction.

The idea is that everything advances at a constant rate in spacetime, only the direction and orientation in spacetime changes. The direction affects the rate of the moving clock, as you move more in space or more in time. The orientation affects the length in space as the projection of the object onto the spatial dimensions changes.

Thats the "mechanism".
 
  • #36
A.T. said:
Play around with the speed slider in the animation. You will get the idea of how relative movement affects the moving clock and the length along the movement direction.

The idea is that everything advances at a constant rate in spacetime, only the direction and orientation in spacetime changes. The direction affects the rate of the moving clock, as you move more in space or more in time. The orientation affects the length in space as the projection of the object onto the spatial dimensions changes.

Thats the "mechanism".


Hmm... Will probably take some time to get hold of the spacetime thing.
Anyways, thanks :)
 
  • #37
Hi A.T. Another lay person will bother you. I have doubt about change of dimension only in the direction of movement in velocity near the C. Let say a proton that move with 0.9C has a shape of spageti.But i think that any elementary particle is spining in itself axis allways, isn't this true? After above assertion the particle must change its dimension allways. How is it be posible do not been sociated with other physics phenomena?
 
  • #38
As another note to add to this setup. We may want to assume that Time and space are NOT flexible.

Jesse I like your phrase about Coordinate speed... I think i will use that more often. :)

I have a conumdrum for you. In all the scenarios we have mentioned we have used the terms at rest and in motion relative to X. We have also given objects certian speeds. We are in fact (at least to start a scenario) using these Coord systems of speed and time and distance.

Take for instance two objects that have an approaching coord spped of .5c. What are the observances of the other object from itself? You either cannot correctly determine this becuse you don't know if A is "moving" or B is "moving" or they both are at some combined speed. Even in relativity you cannot do the math correctly because you have no known speeds. If an object is in motion (without prior knowledge such as feeling acceleration) and is trying to find out when he will see the light directly ahead of him he will need to be able to calculate his speed as well as the speed of the light source. to do that you need to define and have a way to determine actual and complete rest. You can determine this with something similar to the apparatus i mentioned earlier. In the case of some relativity setups the math in physical space does not add up and we can see is not true by observances.

For instance you have a light source in one location and two bodies in a second location (and you are in teh stadium and can see all of it at once). That light emits a single photon... just ONE at T=0. At that point one the bodies in the second location has motion to the other body (no matter the direction no matter the speed).

According to Reletivity that photon of light will reach both bodies at the same time. We will say this time is T=100 (good for percentages)

You as the person in the stadium would have to have seen that photon of light moving at two separate speeds in two possibly different directions becaues of the movement of a completely unrelated object. This is a physical impossibility (denying the laws of physics).

You can make this even more unbelieveable using relative physics by adding more bodies at the second location then they head off all in separate directions and speeds. You will wind up with a different location (but same time) for the photon for each body. You can even claim that you are creating more energy (photons) from a single photon just because you have multiple reference points. (granted i understand that this is not true but pointing out the implications).

Now if we took the NPs into consideration with the same scenario. We can see how that one photon of light will hit only objects in its path and will hit them with a time varying based on the distance between the 3d point in space where the photon originated and where the body wound up being when the photon intercepted it. Also that photon of light would keep its path of travel in a straght line so only the bodies along that pat would percieve the photon. Makes complete sense. And everything (including the results we would see in other experiments is in harmony.
 
  • #39
Physicist1231 said:
Take for instance two objects that have an approaching coord spped of .5c.
Can you clarify what you mean by that? Do you mean for example that in my reference frame ('my reference frame' just means the inertial coordinate system where I am at rest, in case you're not clear on that) one object is moving at 0.5c in the +x direction, and the other is moving at 0.5c in the -x direction? Or do you mean that the coordinate distance between them is shrinking at a rate of 0.5 light-seconds per second in my frame, which would be true for example if one of them was moving at 0.25c in the +x direction and the other was moving at 0.25c in the -x direction?
Physicist1231 said:
What are the observances of the other object from itself?
Do you mean, what coordinate speed does one object have in the reference frame of the other object (the coordinate system where the other is at rest)? If that's what you're asking, this would be given by the velocity addition formula, which says if ship A and C are approaching each other at speeds v and u in the frame of a middle observer B, then the speed of ship A in ship C's own frame is (v+u)/(1 + v*u/c^2). So for example if I am B and ships A and C are moving at 0.5c in opposite directions in my frame, then in ship C's frame, ship A is moving at (0.5c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5*0.5) = 1c/1.25 = 0.8c.
Physicist1231 said:
You either cannot correctly determine this becuse you don't know if A is "moving" or B is "moving" or they both are at some combined speed.
No, that's not true, there is no need to know if either ship is "moving" in an absolute sense, or what absolute speed either has. You really must rid yourself of these absolute notions, they are totally irrelevant in relativity!
Physicist1231 said:
Even in relativity you cannot do the math correctly because you have no known speeds. If an object is in motion (without prior knowledge such as feeling acceleration) and is trying to find out when he will see the light directly ahead of him he will need to be able to calculate his speed as well as the speed of the light source. to do that you need to define and have a way to determine actual and complete rest. You can determine this with something similar to the apparatus i mentioned earlier.
No, I already explained why, even if there is such a thing as absolute velocity, because of the way each frame synchronizes their clocks, it is guaranteed that clocks on the inside of the large sphere (or at the ends of the + sign in my example) will all show the same time when the light from the center hits them, regardless of whether the sphere (or +) is at rest relative to absolute space or moving relative to absolute space. I offered to give you a numerical example if you need to see how this works, but please don't just repeating the same false claim and ignoring the response I gave you.
Physicist1231 said:
For instance you have a light source in one location and two bodies in a second location (and you are in teh stadium and can see all of it at once). That light emits a single photon... just ONE at T=0. At that point one the bodies in the second location has motion to the other body (no matter the direction no matter the speed).

According to Reletivity that photon of light will reach both bodies at the same time.
No, relativity doesn't say that. Certainly they shouldn't reach it at the same time in the stadium frame, since one of the bodies will have changed position in this frame by the time the photon reaches the body which is at rest in this frame. I suspect you're talking about what would be true in each body's own frame, but here you are again neglecting the relativity of simultaneity, which says that if the event of the photon being emitted is simultaneous with the two bodies being next to each other in one body's frame, these events are not simultaneous in the other body's frame, meaning in that body's frame the photon was actually emitted some time before or after the two bodies passed each other. Also you are neglecting length contraction, which says that the distance between the position of both bodies when they are next to each other and the position of the emitter is different in each body's frame. If you take these effects into account, you find that even if each body's clock showed the same time at the moment they passed one another, and even though the photon moves at 1c in each body's rest frame, then even if you use each body's rest frame to calculate the time on that body's clock when the photon passes it, you will still predict that clocks of the two bodies will show different times at the moment the photon passes each of them. Again, I can give a numerical example of this if you want, just ask.
Physicist1231 said:
Now if we took the NPs into consideration with the same scenario.
What are "the NPs"?
 
  • #40
mquirce said:
Hi A.T. Another lay person will bother you. I have doubt about change of dimension only in the direction of movement in velocity near the C. Let say a proton that move with 0.9C has a shape of spageti.
Spaghetti? If you assume it is a sphere at rest, it would be a pancake at 0.9c. But such assumptions about the shape of elementary particles can be misleading.

mquirce said:
But i think that any elementary particle is spining in itself axis allways, isn't this true?
I don't think so. I think you take the spin-property too literally. Your question is more about quantum mechanics.
 
  • #41
Jesse,

You need to have rigid space and time to properly calculate any movement ever. I will create a scenario and ask a few questions about the results. You solve for me using Relativity. Then I will solve using NPs.

Case in point.

Time:
T=0

Positions: Units in light seconds
A light source at 0,0,0
Body A, B and C are at coord 20ls,0,0

Velocities:
Body A remains at 20ls,0,0
Body B has a speed of .5c,0,0
Body C has a speed of 0,.5c,0

Light is emitted from the source at T=0 and at this time Body B and C start their motion.

Questions:

At what point in time does do each body percieve that light? Please have separate answers for all three and explain the math.

At what coordinates is each body when it perceives the light? Again please have separate answers and the math.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Physicist1231 said:
Jesse,

You need to have rigid space and time to properly calculate any movement ever.
No you don't, you can just calculate everything from the perspective of an inertial frame, without having to say anything about whether that frame is in absolute motion or is at absolute rest.
Physicist1231 said:
I will create a scenario and ask a few questions about the results. You solve for me using Relativity. Then I will solve using NPs.
Sure, but you didn't answer my question, what does "NPs" mean? Presumably the "N" and "P" stand for something?
Physicist1231 said:
Case in point.

Time:
T=0

Positions:
A light source at 0,0,0
Body A, B and C are at coord 20,0,0

Velocities:
Body A remains at 20,0,0
Body B has a speed of .5c,0,0
Body C has a speed of 0,.5c,0

Light is emitted from the source at T=0 and at this time Body B and C start their motion.

Questions:

At what point in time does do each body percieve that light? Please have separate answers for all three and explain the math.

At what coordinates is each body when it perceives the light? Again please have separate answers and the math.
The math is easier if we put the origin at the point where all three coincide (the Lorentz transformation assumes that the spatial origins of each frame coincide at t=0 in each frame, if you drop this assumption you need the Poincaré transformation), and hopefully you agree that where we put the origin is just a matter of convention, so let's assume that in A's rest frame, A is at x=y=z=0, and at t=0 we assume B and C are also at that position (and let's assume the clocks of all three are set to read 0 at that moment), while the light source is at x=-20, y=0, z=0, and at t=0 in this frame the source sends out a flash. And as you said before, in this frame B has a velocity of 0.5c in the x-direction, and C has a velocity of 0.5c in the y-direction. OK so far?

Let's first find the answer just using A's frame, which is pretty easy. Here a ray of light traveling along the x-axis (which will first pass A, then B) has position as a function of time given by x(t)=1c*t - 20, so it will obviously pass A 20 seconds later at t=20, while B has position as a function of time given by x(t)=0.5c*t, so the light will reach B when 1c*t - 20 = 0.5c*t, or when t=20/0.5=40. Finally, the path of the ray of light that meets C after some time t will be the hypotenuse of a right triangle whose horizontal side has length 20 and whose vertical side has length 0.5c*t, with the hypotenuse itself having length 1c*t since this ray must move at 1c as well. So we have (20)2 + (0.5c*t)2 = (1c*t)2, solving for t gives t=\sqrt{400/0.75} = 23.094010767585. So now we know that the coordinate time of the light reaching B is t=40 and the coordinate time of the light reaching C is t=23.094010767585, but to find the actual times on the clocks of B and C we have to consider the fact that both clocks are running slow by a factor of \sqrt{1 - 0.5c^2/c^2} = 0.866025403784439 in this frame, so when the light reaches B its clock reads 40*0.866025403784439 = 34.6410161513776, and when the light reaches C its clock reads 23.094010767585*0.866025403784439 = 20. And of course A is at rest in this frame, so when the light reaches it at t=20 it reads a time of 20 as well. So, to sum up, when we calculate everything in A's frame we find the following:

--A's clock reads 20 when the light reaches it
--B's clock reads 34.6410161513776 when the light reaches it
--C's clock reads 20 when the light reaches it

Now we can double-check that everything is consistent by analyzing things from the perspective of B's frame, and from C's frame. To save some time I'll just figure out the time on B's clock using B's frame, and the time on C's clock using C's frame, though I could also figure out the time on A and C's clock using B's frame or figure out the time on A and B's clock using C's frame if you really need to see those calculations.

Let's start with B's frame. If we denote the coordinates in B's frame using symbols x',y',z',t', then according to the Lorentz transformation the relation between these coordinates and the coordinates of A's frame (x,y,z,t) is given by:

x' = gamma*(x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = gamma*(t - vx/c^2)

where v=0.5c, and gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = 1.15470053837925. We know that in A's frame the coordinates of the emitter sending out the flash were x=-20, y=0, z=0, t=0, so in B's frame the coordinates of the flash being sent out are:

x' = 1.15470053837925*(-20) = -23.094010767585
y' = 0
z' = 0
t' = 1.15470053837925*(-0.5*-20/c) = 11.547005383792

B is at rest at the origin in this frame, so naturally if the flash was sent out from position x'=-23.094010767585 and a ray moves towards the origin at 1c, it takes a time of 23.094010767585 for the light to reach B. But the flash wasn't sent out until a time of t'=11.547005383792 in this frame, so naturally it won't reach B until a time of t'=11.547005383792+23.094010767585=34.641016151377. And since B is at rest in this frame, its clock will also read 34.641016151377 when the light reaches it, which is the same (aside from a difference in the last decimal place due to roundoff error) as what we predicted when we calculated things in A's frame.

Now let's figure out what C's clock should read when the light hits it, using C's frame. In A's frame C is moving along the y-axis, so if C uses coordinates x'',y'',z'',t'' then according to the Lorentz transformation these coordinates are related to A's x,y,z,t coordinates by:

x'' = x
y'' = gamma*(y - vt)
z'' = z
t'' = gamma*(t - vy/c^2)

And again we have v=0.5c, and gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = 1.15470053837925. So if we want to know the coordinates of the source sending the flash in C's frame, we take the coordinates in A's frame, x=-20, y=0, z=0, t=0, and plug them into the transformation:

x'' = -20
y'' = 0
z'' = 0
t'' = 0

Very simple in this case! And if light is sent from position x''=-20 at t''=0, while C is at rest at the origin, then obviously if the light moves at 1c in C's frame we will conclude the light hits C at t''=20, and C's clock is keeping pace with coordinate time in this frame so we conclude that C's clock reads 20 at the time the light hits it. Again, this is exactly the same as what was calculated using A's frame.
 
  • #43
Sorry for the delay guys... network difficulties at work...

Also sorry about the NP thing. That means Newtonian Physics.

I see the math you used and personally was agreeing with you up to the point where you started adjusting the times for a "slow factor" This is where you started inserting relativity. (not complaining just noting).

It is interesting that you did not calculate light approaching each object at the speed of light rather you calculated the light speed from teh point at which it was emitted. If relatively all bodies (regardless of velocity) percieve a photon of light approaching them at C then if all objects start their clocks at the same time and are in the same place (such as the beginning of this experiment) then according to that theory all three bodies would percieve the light (according to their own clock) at T=20ls. You math did not reflect that.

Both parts (relative closing speed of light and the formulas you used) are part of relativity theory but have not contradicted each other.

Regardless of that.

We were able to calculate the relative times when each body perceived the light. Let's take the experiment a bit further. Let's say that these photons were completely awesome and they stopped the body from moving upon impact. So at the time and place that they met the body stopped at that point in space (this is just for the thought exp not saying it is possible). All three bodies now form a triangle in a 2d plane.

If you as a person decided to walk (at no dramatic speed) from body A sitting at 0,0,0 (since you changed it) what coords would he reach when he hit B and C? I am not asking how far is B perceived to be from A but how far would one have to go (with their eyes closed) till they hit B from A? Then from B to C and from C to A?
 
  • #44
Physicist1231 said:
Sorry for the delay guys... network difficulties at work...

Also sorry about the NP thing. That means Newtonian Physics.

I see the math you used and personally was agreeing with you up to the point where you started adjusting the times for a "slow factor" This is where you started inserting relativity. (not complaining just noting).
That's what you asked me for, though--you said "I will create a scenario and ask a few questions about the results. You solve for me using Relativity."
Physicist1231 said:
It is interesting that you did not calculate light approaching each object at the speed of light rather you calculated the light speed from teh point at which it was emitted.
No, I first calculated when it would reach each object by assuming light moved at 1c in A's inertial rest frame, but I then showed that if you instead calculated when it would reach B using B's inertial rest frame, assuming the light moved at 1c in B's frame, you get the same answer, and likewise for when it would reach C using C's inertial rest frame. Did you miss the part where I said "Now we can double-check that everything is consistent by analyzing things from the perspective of B's frame, and from C's frame"? Everything after that line was analyzing the scenario in either B's frame or C's frame, not A's frame. And in each case I did explicitly assume that light was moving at a speed of 1c in whatever frame I was using.
Physicist1231 said:
If relatively all bodies (regardless of velocity) percieve a photon of light approaching them at C then if all objects start their clocks at the same time and are in the same place (such as the beginning of this experiment) then according to that theory all three bodies would percieve the light (according to their own clock) at T=20ls. You math did not reflect that.
My math did reflect the fact that each object measures the light approaching them at 1c in their own rest frame, you apparently didn't read the whole thing carefully enough. But this doesn't imply that each one's clock will read T=20 s, you are ignoring the relativity of simultaneity and the different definitions of "distance" in each frame, which implies (as my math showed) that in B's frame the light was not emitted at the same time that B's clock read 0, nor was it emitted at a distance of 20 ls from B in that frame.

If you are confused by the use of the full Lorentz transformation to derive the fact that in B's inertial rest frame the source emits the flash at coordinates x'=-23.094010767585 and t'=11.547005383792, I can derive this more specifically using the equations for time dilation, length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity if you want, just ask. The idea would be to imagine there is a 20 ls long rod at rest relative to A, with one end next to A and the light source sitting at the other end, and with clocks at either end that are synchronized in A's frame, and then to use length contraction to figure out the length of this rod in B's frame, and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity to figure out when the clocks on each end show various readings in B's frame (and what positions they are at in B's frame when they show those reading), including the reading of t=0 that the clock next to the light source shows when the source emits its light (it won't actually show this reading at t'=0 in terms of B's own coordinates, instead the clock at that end of the rod will show a reading of t=0 at a coordinate time of t'=11.547005383792 in B's frame as noted above).

To help understand how the Lorentz transformation relates to the fact that each frame measures the other frame's rulers as length-contracted, and measures the other frame's clocks to be slowed-down and out-of-sync, you might also want to take a look at this thread where I provided some illustrations of two ruler/clock systems moving alongside one another, as perceived in each system's rest frame.
Physicist1231 said:
We were able to calculate the relative times when each body perceived the light. Let's take the experiment a bit further. Let's say that these photons were completely awesome and they stopped the body from moving upon impact.
"Stopped" in what frame? Again there is no notion of absolute space in relativity, and even if you believe in absolute space then it makes no difference to our calculations whether you assume, for example, that A's frame is in motion relative to absolute space or at rest relative to absolute space. So if "stopped" is supposed to be an absolute statement rather than a frame-dependent one, then your question is only answerable if you pick one of the three frames (A's rest frame, B's rest frame or C's rest frame) as being at rest in absolute space, or define some other frame which is supposed to be at rest in absolute space and tell me how it is moving relative to A's frame.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
JesseM said:
"Stopped" in what frame? Again there is no notion of absolute space in relativity, and even if you believe in absolute space then it makes no difference to our calculations whether you assume, for example, that A's frame is in motion relative to absolute space or at rest relative to absolute space. So if "stopped" is supposed to be an absolute statement rather than a frame-dependent one, then your question is only answerable if you pick one of the three frames (A's rest frame, B's rest frame or C's rest frame) as being at rest in absolute space, or define some other frame which is supposed to be at rest in absolute space and tell me how it is moving relative to A's frame.

So At the beginning of this we determined that all bodies were in the same location and we gave each one a relative motion away from that point (we will say A since he was "at rest"). when i say stopped i mean that there velocity went from X to 0. They ceased to increase distance away from A (whether he perceived it or not). We already determined that A was at rest so any object that is declared motionless would be relative to another motionless object. With that said. When B became "motionless" because the light hit it what was the physical distance between A and B in a straight line? If you walk along that line how far do you go till you hit B? You have no set speed just the direction. You can go as fast or slow (or any mix of the two) in a straight line from A to B. How far do you need to go to hit B from A?

Same thing from B to C and from C to A.

At the end of the day there has to be a set distance that all bodies can agree on because we did the same exact thing at the beginning of this experiment by seperating all three bodies from the light source of 20ls.

The object of these questions is not to determine where each body thinks the other is but rather where each body actually is according to the Coord system where A=0,0,0.
 
  • #46
Physicist1231 said:
So At the beginning of this we determined that all bodies were in the same location and we gave each one a relative motion away from that point (we will say A since he was "at rest").
Right, but we weren't saying A was "at rest" in any absolute sense, we were just defining the motion of B and C in terms of their coordinate speed in A's inertial rest frame. Anyway I take it you are just saying that B and C "stop" in A's rest frame? In that case, since both were moving at a speed of 0.5c, their distance from A in A's rest frame would just be found by taking the coordinate time in A's frame when the light hit them and multiplying that by 0.5c. In A's frame the light hit B at t=40 so the coordinate distance from A at that moment (and the permanent coordinate distance if B immediately comes to rest in A's frame) would be 40*0.5=20 light-seconds, and in A's frame the light hit C at t=23.094010767585, so the coordinate distance from A at that moment would be 23.094010767585*0.5=11.5470053837925 light-seconds. So after B and C stop, if you were to place rulers that reached from A to each of them which were at rest in A's frame, the one from A to B would have a length of 20 light-seconds and the one from A to C would have a length of 11.5470053837925 light-seconds.

Note though that the choice to have them "stop" in A's frame is an arbitrary one, if you had them come to rest in B or C's frame when the light hit them then the final distances would be different.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
So why are we able to not need reletivistic physics here? would there not have been some Length contractionsduring the movement?

Would these measurements change if taken from B instead? or C?
 
  • #48
Physicist1231 said:
So why are we able to not need reletivistic physics here? would there not have been some Length contractionsduring the movement?
Length contraction only applies when you know a distance between two objects (or two ends of the same object) in the frame where they're at rest, and you want to know the distance between the same two objects in a frame where they're in motion. It doesn't change the fact that if an object is moving at v in some frame, then in time t it will move a distance of v*t in that frame.
Physicist1231 said:
Would these measurements change if taken from B instead? or C?
Are you asking what the distances would be in B's frame if you assume each one comes to rest relative to B's frame when the light hits them (and likewise for C), or do you still want to assume they all come to rest relative to A's frame, but now you want to know the final distances between them in the inertial frame where B was at rest prior to changing velocities and coming to rest in A's frame? Or something else?
 
Last edited:
  • #49
JesseM said:
Length contraction only applies when you know a distance between two objects (or two ends of the same object) in the frame where they're at rest, and you want to know the distance between the same two objects in a frame where they're in motion. It doesn't change the fact that if an object is moving at v in some frame, then in time t it will move a distance of v*t in that frame.?

You are pointing out that you only need to use Lengh contraction when you "know" an object is in motion. What if you don't "know" it is in motion but is compared to a separate (also unknown) object. The fact that an object would actually change size/shape dependent of the "knowledge" of motion is kinda silly. It does not seem right if you can pick and chose when to use something like Lenth contraction when you "always" take into account Time contraction/expantion (Dilation).

JesseM said:
Are you asking what the distances would be in B's frame if you assume each one comes to rest relative to B's frame when the light hits them (and likewise for C), or do you still want to assume they all come to rest relative to A's frame, but now you want to know the final distances between them in the inertial frame where B was at rest prior to changing velocities and coming to rest in A's frame? Or something else?

It has already been noted and assumed that an object "at rest" compared to another object is at rest. So if C is at rest to A and B is atrest to A then C is at rest to B and B is at rest to C. At rest = 0 relative motion to all parties involved (in this instance only 4 points (if you include the light source [also "at rest"]).
 
Last edited:
  • #50
In order to solve this problem (the example provided) you need to have some sort of rigid structure of space time.

For instance the assumption that the light was emitted "at the same time" as body B and C were moving is on a rigid strucure. Otherwise you can just comeback with the question "at the same time" to who's frame? That question was never brought up as it is a general assumption under NP and NOT under RP (Relativistic Physics). So at the basis of this experiment we had a rigid assumption of time THEN manipulated it with RP.

If you were to stick with RP and ask the question "at the same time relative to whos frame"? That would be difficult to define but we could say at the referece point of A. If we did that though A would not percieve the light (thus knowing when teh light was emitted) to compare it to the time B and C left A. The same holds true for the view points of B and C since they were with A at the time of interception.

If you were to put the frame at the light source then it emits the light at T=0 and it perceives B and C moving away from A at that point. But there is already a 20 second (give or take given velocities) that these objects have already traveled before the light source realized that B and C moved.

SO. If the proper RP question was asked in the beginning the math would be a little different as you would wind up with different answers depending on your perception. If you did do the math from the light source (as i originally set it up as Light source is at 0,0,0 and at rest) you would find that B would have actually traveled a lot further than the 20ls as predicted. IE, B was in motion but was not perceived to start moving according to the light source for 20s. So B was in motion for a good 20 seconds BEFORE the light was even emitted. Now the light has to traveld the first 20ls to get to where it was before. Then travel the 10ls (initial 20ls travel time at .5c) and then catch up to where the object B.

Instead we set into place a timer that was assumed to be a rigid time structure and same for all parties involved which goes against RP all together.
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
73
Views
5K
Replies
51
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
55
Views
3K
Back
Top