Is time relative for each observer in motion?

[Jeremy]

whose frame is "right"?

i have been reading The Elegant Universe and i have learned quite a bit.

however, i don't understand how person A can say that they are still while B is the one who is moving and vice versa.

I guess i understand how each person can say they are "still," but i don't understand what would happen to time for each person.

for example: if A says B is moving, B's clock would be moving slower. But the same can apply B to A at the same time!

 

[russ_watters]

If they've never met, each can equally claim to be stationary. This works in all forms of relativity, not just Einstein's. Imagine playing table tennis on a train - as long as it isn't accelerating, it doesn't matter if its moving or stationary - you can still play the game just fine.

Now, if the two people start off next to each other an one moves away, technically (sometimes you have to add some bizarre unseen forces) you can still call either one stationary, but it makes more sense (and the math is easier) if you call the accelerating one the one that is moving.

 

[εllipse]

i have been reading The Elegant Universe and i have learned quite a bit.

however, i don't understand how person A can say that they are still while B is the one who is moving and vice versa.

I guess i understand how each person can say they are "still," but i don't understand what would happen to time for each person.

for example: if A says B is moving, B's clock would be moving slower. But the same can apply B to A at the same time!

You'll probably be surprised by this, but you are correct. A will make the claim that B's clock moves slower and B will make the claim that A's clock moves slower. And, oddly enough, both A and B are correct in these statements. Many people get confused by this same thing when first learning about relativity. The good news is that I can assure you as you continue to try to understand it, and read more and more explanations of it, you'll begin to be more comfortable with the idea, so don't give up. It'll click.

The reason that both A and B can be correct is because of what's called the relativity of simultaneity. To sum it up, velocity not only affects the rate of the flow of time, but also the order of time. Some things that A claims happen simultaneously (the explosion of two stars, for instance), B will claim happen at different times (B will say that one explosion happens before the other). For a better explanation, google for "relativity of simultaneity". In particular, you may want to read Einstein's thought experiment involving a train and two lightning bolts (here's a link http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html).

For a better explanation of how this can make sense, read up on the "twins paradox". The twins paradox is the classic story of two twins, one who leaves Earth in a very fast space ship, and one who stays on Earth. Upon returning to Earth, the twin who left finds his brother has aged considerably more. There have been many detailed explanations of this on PF, so do a search (here's one to get you started https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=77441&highlight=twins+paradox). Good luck.

 

[Jeremy]

so let's say A is moving left at .25c and B is moving right at .75c, but neither know it.

Both are obviously experiencing time dilation, and to an invisible stationary observer at the meeting point, B is aging slower than A.

But let's say some physically freaky event occurs, such as both drop out of consciousness, and during that time, they assume the same constant speed going in the opposite direction (note: both think that they are still).

1) what times will each person have when they make it back to the meeting point? i assume they will all have the same time, but why: A has obviously traveled slower

2) if B were to call A with a light phone sometime on the divergence, will there be any sort of delay? i assume not, but why does the speed of light make up any sort of difference PERFECTLY?

3) if B were to call A with a phone that traveled the same speed that B is going (.75c), what will happen with regards to everyone's time?

 

[εllipse]

so let's say A is moving left at .25c and B is moving right at .75c, but neither know it.

Both are obviously experiencing time dilation, and to an invisible stationary observer at the meeting point, B is aging slower than A.

But let's say some physically freaky event occurs, such as both drop out of consciousness, and during that time, they assume the same constant speed going in the opposite direction (note: both think that they are still).

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying initially A and B are moving away from each other, but both get knocked out and while they're unconscious both of their ships turn around and start heading toward each other? This seems to be what you're saying, so that's what I'm going to assume..

1) what times will each person have when they make it back to the meeting point? i assume they will all have the same time, but why: A has obviously traveled slower

WRONG! A has not "obviously traveled slower". This statement assumes a universal reference frame, but according to relativity, there is no such thing. It is true that relative to some observer where they meet, A could be traveling slower. It is also true that if A goes from traveling .25c away from this observer (we'll call him C), and turns around and starts moving at .25c toward C, while B goes from moving .75c away from C and turns around to move .75c toward C that B has accelerated more than A. Since B has accelerated more than A, then when they meet up at C, A will have aged more. According to the special theory of relativity, all three (A, B, and C) will be in agreeance that B is the one who has accelerated the most.

2) if B were to call A with a light phone sometime on the divergence, will there be any sort of delay? i assume not, but why does the speed of light make up any sort of difference PERFECTLY?

Again, I'm not really sure what you mean, but yeah, there'd be a delay between when A said something and when B heard it, because the signal can only travel at the speed of light. This is why if you watch the news and they interview someone in a foreign country, there's a delay between what the interviewer asks and when the interviewee answers. The signal has to travel to and from a satellite before they can hear what each other have said. The signal travels very fast, but the delay is noticeable.

3) if B were to call A with a phone that traveled the same speed that B is going (.75c), what will happen with regards to everyone's time?

Is this phone things something in The Elegant Universe? I've just now started reading the book myself, so I'm sorry I'm not familiar with whatever phones you're talking about. If B tried to pick up a telephone that was moving at a different speed than him, he'd have a hard time, so B would have to call A on a phone that was moving at his own speed, wouldn't he? I'm sorry, I just can't be of more help on this question. The important thing you need to note is there is no such thing as absolute speed. You can't make the claim that B is moving faster than A. That statement simply doesn't make sense. You can only claim that B is moving faster than A relative to some observer, like C.

And everybody's frame is "right". There isn't such a thing as a "better" frame. The principle of relativity states that all frames are equivalent for the description of the laws of nature.

 

[JesseM]

Jeremy, you might want to take a look at the diagrams I posted on this thread--I showed two rulers with clocks mounted along them moving alongside each other, and how each ruler sees the other ruler's distance-intervals shrunk and the other ruler's clocks slowed down, but because they define simultaneity differently they still manage to agree about all local events (like what a given clock on one ruler reads the moment it passes a given clock on the other ruler).

 

[tmwong]

i have been reading The Elegant Universe and i have learned quite a bit.

however, i don't understand how person A can say that they are still while B is the one who is moving and vice versa.

I guess i understand how each person can say they are "still," but i don't understand what would happen to time for each person.

for example: if A says B is moving, B's clock would be moving slower. But the same can apply B to A at the same time!

that's not the problem of simultaneity. this problem can only be explained by general relativity law which we must include accereelation of speed into the consideration. if A is moving and B is standing still, it's certainly that A have to accerelate from 0m/s to a certain speed. tat's y we say acceleration is needed to produce force and do work. so, A, who has been accerelating, is doing work or transfering energy (e.g: kinectic energy & heat energy). that's why we can say A is moving, while B who never accelerate and tansfer any energy is standing still.

 

[Doc Al]

so let's say A is moving left at .25c and B is moving right at .75c, but neither know it.

OK. That means that there is a third frame, let's call it C, that A and B are moving with respect to. (By the way, both A and B will measure their relative speed as being about 0.84c.)

Both are obviously experiencing time dilation, and to an invisible stationary observer at the meeting point, B is aging slower than A.

Don't know what you mean by "experiencing time dilation", since everyone's clocks are working just fine. It is true that frame C will measure B's clocks to run more slowly than A's clocks.

But let's say some physically freaky event occurs, such as both drop out of consciousness, and during that time, they assume the same constant speed going in the opposite direction (note: both think that they are still).

1) what times will each person have when they make it back to the meeting point? i assume they will all have the same time, but why: A has obviously traveled slower

No, the clocks will not read the same times. Looking at things from the C frame is easiest, since that frame remained a single inertial frame throughout the exercise: According to frame C, when all three clocks reunite, B's clock will have recorded less time than A's clock. All three will agree on this.

(Note: I assume that the situation is this: A and B separate with the given speeds with respect to C. At some instant--according to C--both A and B turn around and return to the starting point.)

2) if B were to call A with a light phone sometime on the divergence, will there be any sort of delay? i assume not, but why does the speed of light make up any sort of difference PERFECTLY?

Of course there would be a delay. Light travels at a finite speed and requires time to travel a distance. From B's viewpoint, A is traveling away at 0.84c, so, with a bit of algebra, you can compute the time--according to B's clocks--it will take for a signal to reach A.

3) if B were to call A with a phone that traveled the same speed that B is going (.75c), what will happen with regards to everyone's time?

I assume you mean a "phone" that used something that traveled at 0.75c with respect to B to convey the signal? The signal would never reach A, since A is traveling at 0.84c. (Until A turns around, of course.) I don't know what you mean by "what will happen with regards to everyone's time?". Why would anything happen to anyone's clocks?

 

[Jeremy]

i guess i even misunderstood some of my questions...

when i said "what will happen with regards to everyone's time," i meant that, if B asked A what time he had (on the phone), would the delay cause A and B's clocks to be the same or would they be different.

thanks for all your input

 

[JesseM]

i guess i even misunderstood some of my questions...

when i said "what will happen with regards to everyone's time," i meant that, if B asked A what time he had (on the phone), would the delay cause A and B's clocks to be the same or would they be different.

thanks for all your input

When does B receive the signal--when he's still moving apart from A, or after they've both turned around and started heading towards each other? If it's when they're moving apart, and they started from the same position with both clocks synchronized, then B would see A's clock behind his, since in his frame A's clock is ticking more slowly than his and the signal took a while to get from A to him. If it's when they started heading back, then it really depends on the details of the situation, you need to put some numbers into your scenario to get the answer.

 

[Enos]

The total measured distance between them would always be the same if the acceleration is uniform. Even if we knew B was accelerating there would be no way to convince him without other things to compare A with respect to B. If B was accelerating and A was stationary they would have measured the same total distance.
A sends a light pusle to B and B moves toward the light during the time it takes light to reach him. His reflection travels back to A at the same distance the light reflects off B. B sends a light pulse to A and B moves in the same direction as the light as it travels towards A. When the light reflects back towards B, B is still moving towards the light as it travels back. So the total measured distance is equal.
A's measurements:
A------------------>B
A<------------------B

B's measurements:
B------------------->A
B<-----------------A

They just know when they sent the light signal and when they received it back. So it doesn't matter who is accelerating if they do not feel the acceleration they can rightly say that they are stationary and the other is accelerating.

 

[Dr.Brain]

i have been reading The Elegant Universe and i have learned quite a bit.

however, i don't understand how person A can say that they are still while B is the one who is moving and vice versa.

I guess i understand how each person can say they are "still," but i don't understand what would happen to time for each person.

for example: if A says B is moving, B's clock would be moving slower. But the same can apply B to A at the same time!

When one observer is moving with respect to other , each of them would see that other's time is running slower.So whose frame should we believe in? . The simplest method to make out the 'true inertial frame' is that the 'person who feels the acceleration and surroundings' is to be believed.

Taking the example of the twin-paradox , A stays on Earth and B travels in spaceship and then comes back , A tells that B's clock is running slower , but same is true for B's view of A but B is the one who is feeling all the accelerations and will see the objects falling around when his spaceship takes a turn, his is the 'true inertial reference frame'

 

[JesseM]

When one observer is moving with respect to other , each of them would see that other's time is running slower.So whose frame should we believe in? . The simplest method to make out the 'true inertial frame' is that the 'person who feels the acceleration and surroundings' is to be believed.

Taking the example of the twin-paradox , A stays on Earth and B travels in spaceship and then comes back , A tells that B's clock is running slower , but same is true for B's view of A but B is the one who is feeling all the accelerations and will see the objects falling around when his spaceship takes a turn, his is the 'true inertial reference frame'

But you have no obligation to analyze things from A's inertial frame--you could equally well analyze the situation from the point of view of anyone of an infinite number of other inertial frames which are in motion relative to A. So I think it would be better to just say that we have to analyze things from the perspective of some inertial frame (and because B accelerates, his frame is not inertial), not that anyone inertial frame is more "true" than any other inertial frame.

 

[Dr.Brain]

But you have no obligation to analyze things from A's inertial frame--you could equally well analyze the situation from the point of view of anyone of an infinite number of other inertial frames which are in motion relative to A. So I think it would be better to just say that we have to analyze things from the perspective of some inertial frame (and because B accelerates, his frame is not inertial), not that anyone inertial frame is more "true" than any other inertial frame.

Agreed , ofcourse the physics laws would remain the same for both and other infinite observers, even though both everyonewould think that each other's time is running slower but they both would agree on almost every phenomena.

I would like to quote the example of a cuboid box placed horizontally on ground such that front view tells us its length and side view, its width .We can see only one side at one time and cannot see one side and adjascent side simultaneously conserving the exact dimensions of the cuboid box, its just the matter of tilting your head in the right direction to see the other side.

Same happens with space-time , both are inter-connected and are the same aspects of one single event (like the length and width are two different aspects of one single cuboid but different length's and width's would be recorded by different observers moving relative to each other), its just that one observer's brain would calculate the apparent dimensions of a stationary thing in less than a second but would never be able to visualise at the same instant what the same thing would look like when seen from stationary observer.

 

[tmwong]

i guess i even misunderstood some of my questions...

when i said "what will happen with regards to everyone's time," i meant that, if B asked A what time he had (on the phone), would the delay cause A and B's clocks to be the same or would they be different.

thanks for all your input

the answer is their time would be different due to time dilation.

 

[Noah0504]

i have been reading The Elegant Universe and i have learned quite a bit.

however, i don't understand how person A can say that they are still while B is the one who is moving and vice versa.

I guess i understand how each person can say they are "still," but i don't understand what would happen to time for each person.

for example: if A says B is moving, B's clock would be moving slower. But the same can apply B to A at the same time!

That is a very good book. I suggest rereading it if you are not clear on a concept. Brian Greene does an excellent job of explaining, but that still doesn't mean everything will come to you on the first try.

I also recommend reading "The Fabric of The Cosmos," which is also by Brian Greene.

 

[paul_abbotts]

The principle of repropricity

Hi,
There is an answer to this question which involves repropicity. One observer must see his clock slow down and experience length contraction with respect to the other observer or reference frame. This is actually what happens in a gravitational field or the real universe, one frame is selected for validity over the other. The principal of repropicity is violated in a gravity field. General relativity or Riemann geometry or curvature actually answers this question in a very subtle way. One observer sees time dilation the other observer sees time contraction and length dilation! You must remember that special relativity is in some ways not applicable to the real universe that is why Einstein invented General relativity in the first place. General relativity applies to the real universe of curvature and gravity.

 

[yogi]

Well paul - I don't think that is quite correct - SR applies to the real world just as does GR. What is at issue in SR is something that is explained in different ways by different authors - some demand that you can't get a real answer w/o using GR because after two clocks are brought in sync in the same frame - one of them must accelerate in order for their to be a relative velocity - but that doesn't mean you need GR - the acceleration is simply incidental to determining which one moved - and to this question, Einstein give the answer to how the clock rates would be different in his 1905 paper ...long before he invented (discovered) the principle of GR.

 

[EnumaElish]

Uh, now I am really confused. How do I sort out acceleration's effect from velocity's effect on time?

Suppose a girl named Astra is born on a spaceship in year 1906, shortly after Einstein publishes the theory of SR. A boy named Cosmo is born on the "same day" on another spaceship. At any point in time, the two ships are getting apart with constant "net" velocity v. Neither baby experiences any acceleration, ever.

Which of the two is aging faster? Astra thinks she is at rest, but Cosmo is in motion so he must age slower. Cosmo thinks he is the one at rest, so Astra must age slower. Years later, when the two meet in cyberspace and exchange photos, who looks older, he or she?

 

[pervect]

There is insufficient information to solve the problem. But you do say that the spaceships are "moving apart" - and then you talk about "meeting" in cyberspace.

The "meeting" picture does not jibe well with the physical reality of light-speed communications, where the propagation delays start out at some unspecified value, and increase as the couple moves apart. (If velocities are high, propagation delays can increase rapildy). It would be instructive, I think, if you would think about the problem of comparing ages over a communications channel where the propagation delays are large and increasing.

My view of the "paradox" is very simple, BTW. Simultaneity is relative, so it is impossible for two observers to unambiguously compare clocks unless they are physically at the same location.

 

[EnumaElish]

What if I change my question as, "the two ships start from very distant points but are getting closer at a constant velocity"?

Years and years later the ships come across each other; at that point Astra and Cosmo go to a window in their respective ships and smile and wave at each other.

Who looks older? And why?

My guess is, they will look exactly the same age. Each will then think that the time dilation effect is "cancelled out" by the simultaneity effect. That is, Astra will say, "Gee, Cosmo, I thought you'd look younger, because your clock has been running slower than mine! But you were born before I was, so that explains it." And Cosmo will say, "It's funny you say that Astra, because I think you were born before I was. That is the only way I can explain to myself why you look exactly my age even though your clock has been running slower than mine." They will then say, "Oh, so that's it! We cannot agree on simultaneity!"

Am I even close?

 

[Aer]

What if I change my question as, "the two ships start from very distant points but are getting closer at a constant velocity"?

What do you mean by they start from very distant points? I think you are implying that they are both at rest in the same frame and immediately begin to accelerate equally in magnitude but oppositely in direction such that they eventually reach a certain relative velocity with respect to each other.

Years and years later the ships come across each other; at that point Astra and Cosmo go to a window in their respective ships and smile and wave at each other.

Who looks older? And why?

This is a very good question. However, there is a sticky point since you included acceleration. Special Relativity deals with non-accelerating frames such that neither Astra nor Cosmo can consider their frame of reference an "inertial reference frame".

My guess is, they will look exactly the same age. Each will then think that the time dilation effect is "cancelled out" by the simultaneity effect. That is, Astra will say, "Gee, Cosmo, I thought you'd look younger, because your clock has been running slower than mine! But you were born before I was, so that explains it." And Cosmo will say, "It's funny you say that Astra, because I think you were born before I was. That is the only way I can explain to myself why you look exactly my age even though your clock has been running slower than mine." They will then say, "Oh, so that's it! We cannot agree on simultaneity!"

Am I even close?

On a technicality, you are wrong and that is because you are assuming Special Relativity to be true. For the sake of brevity I am just going to tell you what Special Relativity says which is as follows: Each sees the other as younger in their respective frames of reference and further analysis would indicate that this is because of their "relative simultaneity" (for the lack of a better phrase). And if you assume each to decelerate such that they return to the same frame of reference as that in which they started, then after this deceleration period they will both agree that they aged the same amount.

This explanation requires you to adopt both length contraction and relativity simultaneity as predicted by Special Relativity. But as I've pointed out on this forum and others, neither of these two ideas have been experimentally proven. That is not to say that experiments are not explained by these two ideas - there is a difference. I've not been successful in getting the most intellectual savy members of this forum to discuss this issue, probably as it comes very close to crossing the line of "acceptable topics" that the moderators of this forum have imposed. However you may read my post on sciforums concerning the Muon Experiment explained by length contraction here

 

[EnumaElish]

What do you mean by they start from very distant points? I think you are implying that they are both at rest in the same frame and immediately begin to accelerate equally in magnitude but oppositely in direction such that they eventually reach a certain relative velocity with respect to each other.

No. I explicitly wish to exclude all GR from this story. Astra and Cosmo never experience any acceleration or gravity ever in their lives. At the time they are born, the two spaceships are cruising toward each other without any acceleration OR deceleration whatsoever. Assume all this happens in a very empty sector of the universe, like the void between super-mega-clusters (archipelago?) of galaxies; a very cold, dark and empty place for a gazillion megaparsecs in every which way. Not only is there no acceleration, neither is there any gravity in the two children's lives.

When Astra and Cosmo are born, there is a finite distance of x between the two ships, which at that point have been cruising toward one another at constant speed for a while. Assume that from the point at which the babies are born, it takes the ships 25 years to meet up (counting years according to either ship's internal clock).

When they meet, Astra is thinking, "I know Cosmo has not experienced any acceleration or deceleration or gravity throughout his life, and neither have I. Therefore I can use SR to predict his age. It took Cosmo 25 years to finally meet me, and during all that time he was traveling at a positive speed, while I was stationary as far as I can tell. So he must be younger than I am."

At that very instant Cosmo is thinking, "I know Astra has not experienced any acceleration or deceleration or gravity throughout her life, and neither have I. Therefore I can use SR to predict her age. It took her 25 years to finally meet me, and during all that time she was traveling at a positive speed, while I was stationary as far as I can tell. So she must be younger than I am."

They then approach facing windows, and look at each other with a sense of wonder. What will they see? And why?

{Add}Will they instead be thinking, "In our situation there is no preferred frame. While I feel like I have not been moving at all, I may well have been moving at some speed through the universe. Hmm, this is more confusing than I thought. Well, there is just no way that I can predict the other's age." ?{Add}

 

[Aer]

No. I explicitly wish to exclude all GR from this story. Astra and Cosmo never experience any acceleration or gravity ever in their lives. At the time they are born, the two spaceships are cruising toward each other without any acceleration OR deceleration whatsoever.

Then Astra and Cosmo will not agree upon which order they were born. If Astra thinks he and Cosmo were born simultaneously , then Cosmo will think that Astra was born after him - and vice versa. This is what I was referring to as "relativity simultaneity" - basically, the two don't agree on any events being simultaneous.

Assume all this happens in a very empty sector of the universe, like the void between super-mega-clusters (archipelago?) of galaxies; a very cold, dark and empty place for a gazillion megaparsecs in every which way. Not only is there no acceleration, neither is there any gravity in the two children's lives.

When Astra and Cosmo are born, there is a finite distance of x between the two ships, which at that point have been cruising toward one another at constant speed for a while. Assume that from the point at which the babies are born, it takes the ships 25 years to meet up (counting years according to either ship's internal clock).

The two won't agree on the distance between the ship either because of length contraction.

When they meet, Astra is thinking, "I know Cosmo has not experienced any acceleration or deceleration or gravity throughout his life, and neither have I. Therefore I can use SR to predict his age. It took Cosmo 25 years to finally meet me, and during all that time he was traveling at a positive speed, while I was stationary as far as I can tell. So he must be younger than I am."

Again, refer to when Cosmo was born - it's all relative.

At that very instant Cosmo is thinking, "I know Astra has not experienced any acceleration or deceleration or gravity throughout her life, and neither have I. Therefore I can use SR to predict her age. It took her 25 years to finally meet me, and during all that time she was traveling at a positive speed, while I was stationary as far as I can tell. So she must be younger than I am."

See above.

They then approach facing windows, and look at each other with a sense of wonder. What will they see? And why?

{Add}Will they instead be thinking, "In our situation there is no preferred frame. While I feel like I have not been moving at all, I may well have been moving at some speed through the universe. Hmm, this is more confusing than I thought. Well, there is just no way that I can predict the other's age." ?{Add}

I guess we'll have to conduct this experiment and see what happens.

 

[EnumaElish]

I guess we'll have to conduct this experiment and see what happens.

I think that's a great idea.

 

[yogi]

There is a implied symmetry to SR that slumbers beneath the explanations, but it has never been validated by experiment. When Einstein derived the transformations, he first assumed one frame to be at rest and the other moving - then he shows that the clock in the moving frame would appear to be running slow as measured by clocks spaced apart in the at rest frame Then goes on to say, the same would be true if things were switched and the observer in the moving frame considers himself to be at rest - since there are no preferred frames in SR, this statement seems perfectly valid - but this assumes complete symmetry between the two frames - and that the two clocks are running at the same rate relative to a third frame that is moving at a velocity midway between the velocity of the first frame and the second frame - We never make this experiment -

Consider for example a clock aboard a high speed particle that is calculated to run slow because of its extended lifetime - can we say that the clocks in the Earth frame and the particle frame are equivalent - will clocks onboard the particle actually measure the Earth clock to be running slow? If two clocks are originally synchronized while at rest in one frame, and one is moved - and later returned to the same frame, Einstein tells us that the moved clock will have accumulated less time - and the amount of lost time will depend upon the length of the journey and the velocity, but not the initial acceleration nor deceleration (so long as these periods are short in comparison with the time spent traveling at constant velocity). Somewhere in the experiment something physical took place that destroys the symmetry - so when two clocks pass by each other with relative velocity v, all that can be said is that each clock will be keeping proper time in its own frame.

 

[Juan R.]

When one observer is moving with respect to other , each of them would see that other's time is running slower.

A moment, special relativity does not say that one "see" that other's time is runing slowers. It says that time runs slower for systems in motion than for systems at rest, independently if one observes or no the other system.

 

[Juan R.]

That is a very good book. I suggest rereading it if you are not clear on a concept. Brian Greene does an excellent job of explaining, but that still doesn't mean everything will come to you on the first try.

I also recommend reading "The Fabric of The Cosmos," which is also by Brian Greene.

That book is good for laymen or people with a superfitial insight on how Nature work. It is true that Greene explaing well things but, and this is the problem, explain incorrect things.

The chapter in SR is approved, but the chapter on GR contain several incorrect (serious) claims. The chapters dealing with thermodynamics concepts contain a rather irrelevant view of thermodynamics. The chapter on quantum mechanics is almost completely wrong.

The good appears in laster chapters dealing with string and M "theory". All claimed therein is either a complete nonsense or completely false (that book is a marvellous piece of marketing) since string theory is other thing.

For example the explanation of extended dimensions is completely incorrect when details studied. The claim of that one can derive the entropy of Black holes from string theory is, of course, false, because string theory does not work with BH, just with BPS states and others.

The idea of universe follows a Calabi-Yau space has been already substituted by G2 mathematics, etc.

 

[Aer]

A[t the] moment, special relativity does not say that one "see" that other's time is runing slowers. It says that time runs slower for systems in motion than for systems at rest, independently if one observes or no the other system.

This is not true.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Absolutely right, Aer. There is for avery massive system a rest frame in which it is "not in motion" and therefore does not experience time dilation. The Lorentz transforms only operate betwen frames. slowing the time, for example of one frame relative to another. The time relationship is real, not illusion, but it is irreducibly relative, since any frame can have arbitrary motion relative to some other frame, and therefore abrbitrary time slowing relative to that frame. So you have a modified ontology.

 

[pervect]

What if I change my question as, "the two ships start from very distant points but are getting closer at a constant velocity"?

Years and years later the ships come across each other; at that point Astra and Cosmo go to a window in their respective ships and smile and wave at each other.

Who looks older? And why?

There's still not enough information to answer the question, but the question makes more sense because Astra and Cosmo can wave to each other when their ships are close, and compare ages.

If you time-reverse the question, though, you'll see that you still have to deal with the relativity of simultaneity. The age comparison operation has a unique answer when the space-ships are close, but it does not have a unique answer when the space-ships are far apart, it depends very much on the details, which were not specified in the problem statement.

 

[Juan R.]

A moment, special relativity does not say that one "see" that other's time is runing slowers. It says that time runs slower for systems in motion than for systems at rest, independently if one observes or no the other system.

A moment Aer! don't "modify" my posts and, please, attempt to interpret them correctly.

If somebody says that one "see" (note i used "") that time is runing slower, then it appears that time dilation is an kind of "optical" effect, but it is not.

This problem of interpretation is rather usual in both time dilation and length contraction. In his textbook on relativity

The length contraction is a velocity perception effect due to the motion of the reference frame relative to the rigid body. However, note that the length contraction is not an optical illusion; it is a real effect originating from the Lorentz transformation

I did a similar claim for saving some people for obtainin an incorrect understandin of time dilation that you obviously misread.

In fact, this relativistic effect is called the retardation of moving clocks (Check section 2.6 of Moller). It is a real effect asociated to motion, no some kind of illusion that we "see".

According to standard knowledge, the time of a clock in motion run slower that clock at rest and that is independent of i am observing the system or not as said. The mean life of unstable Mesons IS larger when are moving at high velocities independently if am observing the next CERN experiment or not.

 

[paul_abbotts]

Hi
I have unfortunately spelt reciprocity wrong in a previous thread a few weeks ago! Sorry for that. The point here is there should be a principle of reciprocity to explain why observers at different velocities disagree with each other about which one of them experiences the true time dilation and length contraction. In the real universe only one observer experiences time dilation and length contraction, the other observer experiences time contraction and length dilation. The universe picks out one observer as being correct and the other as being incorrect with regards to special relativity. Gravity ineffect violates the principle of reciprocity! Can this be used as a definition of gravity?

 

[pervect]

Hi
I have unfortunately spelt reciprocity wrong in a previous thread a few weeks ago! Sorry for that. The point here is there should be a principle of reciprocity to explain why observers at different velocities disagree with each other about which one of them experiences the true time dilation and length contraction. ?

I know of no principle by that name, and I think that you're getting onto a wrong track here.

What relativity does have is not "reciprocity" but "the relativity of simultaneity".

The point is that there are multiple equally valid ways of comparing the times of two spatially separated clocks, thus there is no paradox in each observer thinking the other observer is aging slowly. They are using different notions of simultaneity.

 

[JesseM]

Hi
I have unfortunately spelt reciprocity wrong in a previous thread a few weeks ago! Sorry for that. The point here is there should be a principle of reciprocity to explain why observers at different velocities disagree with each other about which one of them experiences the true time dilation and length contraction. In the real universe only one observer experiences time dilation and length contraction, the other observer experiences time contraction and length dilation. The universe picks out one observer as being correct and the other as being incorrect with regards to special relativity.

Not true, as long as they are both moving at constant velocity there will be no physical reason to prefer one point of view over the other, both will make the same predictions about all physical events like what two other clocks read at the moment they cross paths. Check out my post An illustration of relativity with rulers and clocks for help visualizing this.