I Time Dilation on 3D Torus: Clock Speed & Why It Matters

Click For Summary
In a three-dimensional torus model, a clock traveling at a constant speed parallel to the torus ticks slower than a stationary clock due to the effects of special relativity. This phenomenon occurs because special relativity applies only in flat geometries, and while a flat 3-torus can exist, it introduces a preferred frame that alters the typical relativistic outcomes. The analysis of a simpler 1+1 spacetime cylinder illustrates that an observer at rest in the preferred frame experiences the fastest ticking clock. Observers in motion around the cylinder have a helical worldline, resulting in slower clock rates. Thus, the geometry of the torus affects time dilation, challenging conventional interpretations of special relativity.
appot89
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Does special relativity apply to an object moving in constant velocity parallel to a torus?
Assume that space is a three-dimensional torus ( a 3D donut) . If there is a clock traveling at a CONSTANT speed in a direction parallel to the torus (inside out of the hole) and one clock that is still. Which clock ticks faster and why?

I know that the clock rotating will tick slower, but I cannot understand why it happens to do so if it's speed is constant.
I would greatly appreciate your input!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
appot89 said:
Assume that space is a three-dimensional torus ( a 3D donut) .
For special relativity to apply, it has to be a flat 3-torus. SR only applies if the spacetime geometry is flat. It is possible to have a flat geometry with a 3-torus spatial topology, but it won't be like what you are imagining. See below.

appot89 said:
Which clock ticks faster and why?
A simpler case to analyze is the 1+1 spacetime in which the spatial topology is a circle. In other words, the spacetime as a whole has the topology of a cylinder. Everything about this case carries over to the flat 3-torus case.

The nice thing about the 1+1 cylinder case, though, is that you can simply "flatten out" the cylinder without changing its geometry (since an ordinary cylinder already has a flat intrinsic geometry--it only looks curved because of how it is embedded in 3-D Euclidean space, but nothing about that embedding affects how we analyze the 1+1 cylinder spacetime). When you "flatten out" the cylinder, you see that, unlike the ordinary 1+1 Minkowski spacetime (which has an ordinary infinite plane topology), the 1+1 cylinder spacetime has a "preferred frame": the inertial frame whose spatial axis is a closed circle going around the cylinder (and which thus is exactly "horizontal" when the cylinder is flattened out). An observer at rest in this frame will have the fastest ticking clock (more precisely, will age more between meetings with any other observer in relative motion), and this observer's worldline will go "straight up" the cylinder (and will be exactly "vertical" when the cylinder is flattened out).

Any other observer in relative motion will have a worldline that winds around the cylinder, and the "spatial axis" of such an observer's rest frame will not be a closed circle, but a helix (and in fact this poses some technical issues when defining coordinates in such a frame). This should be evident from looking at how such a frame's axes look in the "flattened out" version, and then "rolling up" that flattened out picture into a cylinder again.
 
  • Like
Likes LBoy, Vanadium 50 and PeroK
PeterDonis said:
For special relativity to apply, it has to be a flat 3-torus. SR only applies if the spacetime geometry is flat.
I’d even say SR does not apply to a flat torus as the geometry introduces a preferred frame. SR in my mind only applies to Minkowski space.
 
  • Like
Likes ergospherical, vanhees71 and robphy
Although the flat torus is flat, I’d argue it’s not quite special relativity unless you have R^4 or restrict to a region of the torus where you don’t see the finite size of the spatial part.
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
673
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
7K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K