Understanding Time in a Moving Frame: Observer's Experiment with Egg Timers

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ross Arden
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frame Time
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
33 replies · 3K views
Physics news on Phys.org
Ross Arden said:
the answer is very simple will the observer observe
ET1 < ET3
ET1 < ET4
ET4 = ET3
ET2 > ET4

yes/no
The answer is simple but the question isn’t well enough specified to get any answer. You have tons of unnecessary details (mechanism of clocks, colors of lights etc) and you omit some necessary details. For example: what are these ET numbers supposed to represent? Are they the times between the corresponding flashes being received according to an Earth observer or a rocket observer, or are they the times between the flashes being emitted according to an Earth observer or a rocket observer, or something else?

The reason you are not getting a straightforward answer is because your question does not allow a straightforward answer. Relativity does not depend on the clock mechanism, so don’t specify it, just use a generic “accurate clock”. Any experiment depends on exactly what is measured, so specify what ET1 is. There is a difference between coordinate and proper times, so if possible specify that as well or ask for help determining it. In relativity many quantities are frame variant, so specify which reference frame they are determined in.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pencilvester, Ibix and jbriggs444
Ross Arden said:
I would like a second opinion. Do others agree with this ?

One the things you'll notice is that people will correct each others' errors on this forum. If someone disagrees with an answer you receive, you will see that disagreement right away and it will get corrected.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
A lack of disagreement could have other causes. In this case some people (e.g. me) don’t feel that the problem is well enough specified to even have a clear answer. The question is not well enough specified for me to either agree or disagree with @Nugatory (although on good questions we usually agree historically)
 
Last edited: