lewis1440
- 6
- 0
I do not fully understand the time dilation formula, if the answer is nearer to 1 does that mean time itself under perspection has slowed or increased?
The discussion revolves around the time dilation formula in the context of special relativity, exploring its implications and the potential for misuse. Participants express varying levels of understanding and propose alternative approaches to the concept.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the use of the time dilation formula versus the Lorentz transform, indicating a debate over the best approach to understanding time dilation.
Some limitations include the potential for misunderstanding the implications of the time dilation formula and the varying interpretations of the gamma factor in relation to time perception.
DaleSpam said:I would recommend not using the time dilation formula. It is too easy to misuse. Instead, you should always use the Lorentz transform.
While it's safer to use the full Lorentz transform, IMO the time dilation formula can give better physical intuition if you're trying to picture how things are behaving in a given frame. It's always true that a clock which is moving in a given inertial frame is running slower in that frame, so for example if gamma=1.25, that means in the frame of the observer who sees the clock in motion, it takes 1.25 seconds for the clock to tick forward by 1 second. So the larger the value of gamma, the slower the clock is ticking in the observer's frame. If gamma=1, then that means the clock is at rest relative to the observer, and it's ticking at 1 second per second of time in the observer's frame (no relativistic time dilation).lewis1440 said:I do not fully understand the time dilation formula, if the answer is nearer to 1 does that mean time itself under perspection has slowed or increased?