Time Dilation: Self-Consistency Problem Explained

mathman44
Messages
204
Reaction score
0
Hi all.

I'm having trouble getting an intuitive understanding for the following situation. Let frame A and frame B be moving with relative velocity v.

It's true that a clock in frame A will be time dilated with respect to a clock in frame B, but also that a clock in frame B will be time dilated with respect to a clock in frame A.

i.e. any time between two events measured in frame A must be multiplied by gamma to get the corresponding time measured between those two events in frame B, and correspondingly, that time as measured in frame B must be multiplied by gamma to get the corresponding time as measured in frame A. Obviously this would mean that

t_a = \gamma^2{t_a}

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathman44 said:
i.e. any time between two events measured in frame A must be multiplied by gamma to get the corresponding time measured between those two events in frame B,
In general, that's not true. You need the full Lorentz transformations to translate the time between two arbitrary events from one frame to another.

In the special case of events that take place at the same location in A, which could be measured with a single collocated clock in A, then the simple time dilation formula would apply. (Note that events that take place at the same location in A must of necessity take place at different locations in B; so it's true that ΔtB = γΔtA, but ΔtA ≠ γΔtB.)
 
Ah... yes, if the events occur at one location in space in one frame, they must be separated in space in the other frame.

Cheers!
 
Mathman, now that Doc Al has addressed the second part of your post, can you explain how that impacts the earlier part where you said:
"It's true that a clock in frame A will be time dilated with respect to a clock in frame B, but also that a clock in frame B will be time dilated with respect to a clock in frame A."

Specifically, does his answer mean that one or both of your "true" statements are not true?

It appears to me that he was focusing on just your first statement and it appears that what you call "a clock in frame A" is what he is calling "a single collocated clock in A" but I'm wondering that if you still consider this to be a true statement, where is the clock in frame B or what clock in frame B were you talking about?
 
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
88
Views
7K
Replies
54
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top