What Experiments Demonstrate Time Dilation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of time dilation, particularly in the context of various experiments that demonstrate its effects. Participants explore theoretical implications, address misconceptions, and reference specific experiments such as those involving atomic clocks, GPS satellites, and muons, while also touching on broader topics like spacetime and the expansion of the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that their friend believes time dilation is not real and attributes differences in atomic clock measurements to mechanical effects from gravity.
  • Another participant suggests that GPS technology serves as an example of time dilation, but the friend dismisses it as merely a result of gravity differences.
  • Some participants assert that time dilation has been observed in experiments with muons, which cannot be mechanically affected, challenging the friend's reasoning.
  • There is mention of Einstein's equation and how time can affect mass or energy, though this is debated among participants.
  • One participant expresses frustration with engaging someone who is perceived as willfully ignorant of scientific principles.
  • Concerns are raised about the friend's misconceptions stemming from popular science interpretations rather than formal education in physics.
  • Participants reference the need for quantitative explanations of experiments to counter alternative views on time dilation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree with the friend's views on time dilation, with multiple competing explanations and interpretations presented. The discussion remains unresolved, as participants express differing opinions on how to engage with the friend's misconceptions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that there are separate effects of time dilation due to gravity and speed, and that the conversation touches on complex topics like spacetime that may not be easily conveyed through popular science media.

  • #31
narrator said:
Less gravity means there's a mechanical difference.
Yes, but any "mechanical difference" would have to be based on a difference in g, since that's the "mechanical" aspect of gravity. So, for example, his mental model would predict that clocks on the geoid at the poles should run at a different rate from clocks on the geoid at the equator, because g is different. But in fact they run at the same rate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I wouldn't waste any more mental energy on this friend.

narrator said:
Check this quote from him:
"I'm actually very curious how practically everyone doesn't see the inescapable logic here!"
Then he adds:
"I suspect many universities are polluting students minds during the last couple of decades."
'Nuff said.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy and narrator
  • #33
gmax137 said:
I wouldn't waste any more mental energy on this friend.
Easy to get caught up in it, hey. But you're right.
 
  • #34
narrator said:
Easy to get caught up in it, hey.
Understood!
 
  • #35
narrator said:
I would love to have been in young Einstein's shoes just for that one moment when his new theory explained the precession period of Mercury. What a thrill.
Yes! The part that really fascinates me is how he must have reacted when he realized that GR explained the nature of gravity. I wonder if he expected that.

PS. On the other hand, Einstein accomplished so many profound things that it might not have been so amazing to him.
 
  • #36
FactChecker said:
how he must have reacted when he realized that GR explained the nature of gravity. I wonder if he expected that.
I'm not sure what you mean. Explaining gravity while being consistent with relativity was Einstein's primary goal in developing GR. He didn't have to "realize" that afterwards.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50 and FactChecker
  • #37
narrator said:
I would love to have been in young Einstein's shoes just for that one moment when his new theory explained the precession period of Mercury. What a thrill.
He actually got that thrill twice--first when his initial version of the field equation (which turned out not to be quite correct) got the correct result, and second when he found the final (correct) version of the field equation and it still gave that result.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker and narrator
  • #38
FactChecker said:
PS. On the other hand, Einstein accomplished so many profound things that it might not have been so amazing to him.
PeterDonis said:
He actually got that thrill twice
I watched a video a while back. The presenter, Dr Harry Cliff, said that Einstein was so excited by his equation proving Mercury's orbit that it gave him heart palpitations. 😮
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and FactChecker
  • #39
What happened to the Mods when we need them? We have spent 38 posts discussing that which we are just not allowed to discuss. I was wondering whether to start off a flat Earth discussion and see if I could get as many posts going.
I'd be 'dilated' to hear some comments. (From a Joan Rivers joke.)
 
  • #40
sophiecentaur said:
What happened to the Mods when we need them? We have spent 38 posts discussing that which we are just not allowed to discuss. I was wondering whether to start off a flat Earth discussion and see if I could get as many posts going.
I'd be 'dilated' to hear some comments. (From a Joan Rivers joke.)
A tangent plane is not a bad approximation for many applications :-p
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
  • #41
You have my apologies if I've transgressed. It's been helpful to expand my knowledge of the topic in a positive way. So at least that's something, hey. I suppose I could have done so without the backstory.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
  • #42
narrator said:
You have my apologies if I've transgressed. It's been helpful to expand my knowledge of the topic in a positive way. So at least that's something, hey. I suppose I could have done so without the backstory.
Hardly your fault if hordes of PF members want to contribute to a chat about your friend's nonsense. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: narrator
  • #43
sophiecentaur said:
What happened to the Mods when we need them?
If you think a thread discussion violates the rules, report it.
 
  • #44
narrator said:
You have my apologies if I've transgressed. It's been helpful to expand my knowledge of the topic in a positive way. So at least that's something, hey. I suppose I could have done so without the backstory.
If you had transgressed unacceptably you would know about it. :)

We usually do not host discussions of crackpottery, even to debunk it because there is more crackpottery in the world then there is debunking bandwidth; and we usually do not allow arguments by proxy ("refute my friend...") because they are seldom advanced in good faith.

So far this thread has managed to remain productive and passes one of the basic tests: If three years from now a google search were to lead someone to it, would that be a good thing? But as it approaches the point of diminishing returns we will close it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, russ_watters, phinds and 2 others
  • #45
Nugatory said:
If three years from now a google search were to lead someone to it, would that be a good thing?
Do these things mature (or the reverse) with age?

I didn't consider reporting. I was just commenting on how members seemed attracted to this sort of thread 'like moths around a flame'. Nothing wrong with the content of the thread (except the "friend's" views) but I was a bit disappointed at the lack of self regulation.
 
  • #46
narrator said:
He reckons it's the different gravity on GPS satellites, not time dilation. I said yes, it's the different gravity, causing time dilation but he's not having it.

In addition to what others said:

esa said:
Relativistic Clock Correction

The rate of advance of two identical clocks, placed one in the satellite and the other on the terrestrial surface, will differ due to the difference of the gravitational potential (general relativity) and to the relative speed between them (special relativity).
Source:
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Relativistic_Clock_Correction
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: narrator
  • #47
We seem to have reached the point of diminishing returns here, so the thread is closed.

If necessary, new threads can be started to cover anything raised by the discussion in this thread.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and narrator

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
5K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K