Why is t' not equal to t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in relativity of time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myoho.renge.kyo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
myoho.renge.kyo
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
"on the relativity of times"

tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)

"The Principle of Relativity", p 42, by A. Einstein.

consequently,

c = [rAB / (tB - tA)] + v and c = [rAB / (t'A - tB) - v

let rAB = x' and (tB - tA) = t' so that

c = (x' / t') + v

since x' = x - v*t

c = [(x - v*t) / t'] + v so that

x = t'*(c - v) + v*t

and let rAB = x and (t'A - tB) = t so that

c = (x / t) - v so that

x = t*(c + v)

consequently,

t'*(c - v) + v*t = t*(c + v)

t'*(c - v) = t*(c + v) - v*t

t'*(c - v) = t*c

t' = t*c / (c - v)

t' = t / (1 - v / c)

t' is not t / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2). why? thanks! (6:00 pm thru 7:00 pm, 9/21/2006)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Unfortunately I don't have that book, and even if I had it, wouldn't it be better if you explained the problem you are considering? What are A, B, tB, tA, v, x ecc.?

Why do you call rAB = x and then, rAB = x' ? You have already written that x'=x-v*t, so they are not the same thing! How can you find a correct solution if you do it? It's impossible!

Maybe you should read better what you write!
 
Last edited:
myoho.renge.kyo said:
tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)

"The Principle of Relativity", p 42, by A. Einstein.

consequently,

c = [rAB / (tB - tA)] + v and c = [rAB / (t'A - tB) - v

let rAB = x' and (tB - tA) = t' so that

c = (x' / t') + v

since x' = x - v*t

c = [(x - v*t) / t'] + v so that

x = t'*(c - v) + v*t

and let rAB = x and (t'A - tB) = t so that

c = (x / t) - v so that

x = t*(c + v)

consequently,

t'*(c - v) + v*t = t*(c + v)

t'*(c - v) = t*(c + v) - v*t

t'*(c - v) = t*c

t' = t*c / (c - v)

t' = t / (1 - v / c)

t' is not t / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2). why? thanks! (6:00 pm thru 7:00 pm, 9/21/2006)
a look at Leo Karlov "Paul Kard and Lorentz free special relativity" Phyhs.Educ. 24 165 1989" and at Asher Peres "Relativistic telemetry" Am.J.Phys. 55 516 1987 could be illuminating.

the best things a physicist can offer to another one are information and criticism
 
myoho.renge.kyo said:
tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)​

"The Principle of Relativity", p 42, by A. Einstein. consequently,

c = [rAB / (tB - tA)] + v and c = [rAB / (t'A - tB) - v​

let rAB = x' and (tB - tA) = t' so that c = (x' / t') + v, and
let rAB = x and (t'A - tB) = t so that c = (x / t) - v, so that x = t*(c + v)

Generally, when we say x,t and x',t', we imagine 2 sets of spacetime variables, one set for each of 2 observing perspectives, say frame k & frame K.

Your derivation leadin (above here) defines x',t' for the outbound segment of the ray, and x,t for the reflection segment of the same ray. However, it's all from a single observer vantage. Hence there is nothing in your derivation which relates one frame to the other.

So, when you obtained this ...

myoho.renge.kyo said:
consequently, ... t' = t / (1 - v / c)

You are not relating one frame wrt the other. You are instead relating the outbound duration to the return leg duration per a single frame vantage.

The equation in your question ...

myoho.renge.kyo said:
t' is not t / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2). why?​

is the Fitgerald Contraction, which requires the comparison of 2 frame perspectives against the backdrop of light.
 
thank you so much. i really appreciate your help. i am having so much dificulty with this. i think i need to understand multivariable calculus and differential equations in order to at least understand p. 44 in The Principle of Relativity. but i would like to understand what you mean.

for example, how can i relate one frame of reference, say K (the stationary system) with K' the moving system using the following:

tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)

A. Einstein on p. 42 in The Principle of Relativity, states, "observers moving with [K'] would thus find that [tB - tA is not equal to t'A - tB], while obsevers in [K] would declare that [tB - tA = t'A - tB]." thanks again. in the mean time i am going to read Fitzgerald Contraction.
 
Last edited:
myoho.renge.kyo said:
how can i relate one frame of reference, say K (the stationary system) with K' the moving system using the following:

tB - tA = rAB / (c - v) and t'A - tB = rAB / (c + v)

A. Einstein on p. 42 in The Principle of Relativity, states, "observers moving with [K'] would thus find that [tB - tA is not equal to t'A - tB], while obsevers in [K] would declare that [tB - tA = t'A - tB]." thanks again. in the mean time i am going to read Fitzgerald Contraction.

You'd need to relate these ...

outbound path ...

tB-tA = rAB/(c-v) proportional_to TB-TA = rAB/c​

return path ...

t'A-tB = rAB/(c+v) proportional_to T'A-TB = rAB/c​

The proportionality for both legs are identical, and assumed linear.

One observer records t & r, while the other observer records T & r.

Note that ...

One should not assume going in that r=r.

TB-TA = TA'-TB, but tB-tA <> t'A-tB.​

Einstein recognized that all inertial observers experience equal times for the outbound & return light path lengths, given the emitter & refector are at rest with that observer. So the linear constant of proportionality which relates the frames must relate a reflection point which is not at the center of your observed round trip interval, to the center of his round trip interval ... since the emitter & reflector are at rest with him and not you. You see them in motion!

pess5
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top