I Time dilation of a rotating disk

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding time dilation in the context of a rotating disk with four observers at different positions. The main point is that the time experienced by each observer varies due to their relative motion and acceleration, with the order of time experienced being A = D > C > B. It is emphasized that acceleration affects time dilation asymmetrically, making it different from the symmetrical time dilation seen in constant velocity scenarios. The concept of relativity of simultaneity is crucial for resolving apparent paradoxes in time perception between observers. Overall, the complexities of time dilation in rotating systems require a solid grasp of special relativity principles to fully comprehend.
  • #31
John Morrell said:
Would I be right in saying that in the original question, none of the observers are actually moving in any of the other observers' frames of reference except the guy not standing on the disc? They are all accelerating at different amounts, but if you take any of their instantaneous frames of reference none of the other people on the disc are moving at all. They have always been the same distance away in the same direction.
I'd say, no. Or else a satellite in geosynchronous orbit isn't moving relative Earth's FOR, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Chris Miller said:
Or else a satellite in geosynchronous orbit isn't moving relative Earth's FOR, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case.

What do you consider to be "Earth's FOR"? If a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is directly above you, standing on the equator of the rotating Earth, and you remain still, motionless on the rotating Earth, the satellite remains directly above you: it doesn't move at all relative to you. Doesn't that count as not moving in "Earth's FOR"?
 
  • #33
Chris Miller said:
I'd say, no. Or else a satellite in geosynchronous orbit isn't moving relative Earth's FOR, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case.
What do you mean by "earth's FOR"? The non-rotating frame where only the Earth’s centre is at rest? Or the rotating frame where the entire Earth and geostationary satellites are at rest?
 
  • #34
Yeah, the thing about FOR's is that they are essentially coordinate systems. You relate distances, times, velocities, etc in relation to an arbitrarily chosen point or observer. In the frame of reference of a person on earth, the satellite never changes position. The same position vector points from you to the satellite at any time. Likewise, all the people on the disk do not move in relation to each other.
 
  • #35
I guess I see Earth's FOR as including a vast region of space at which it is at the center and not moving relative to, whereas the satellite, which is far from the center, is.
 
  • #36
Chris Miller said:
I guess I see Earth's FOR as including a vast region of space at which it is at the center and not moving relative to

Is this frame rotating or not? You can pick either answer: both are valid. But you have to be clear about which you are using. And then you have to realize that answers to other questions can depend on which you pick. If you pick the non-rotating frame (which is often called an "Earth-Centered Inertial" frame in the literature), then yes, the satellite is moving relative to this frame. But if you pick the rotating frame (which is often called "Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed"), the satellite is not moving. So whether the satellite is moving depends on which one you pick: there is no unique answer to the question.
 
  • Like
Likes pervect

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
808
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K