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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter myoho.renge.kyo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between time intervals in different reference frames as described in Einstein's "The Principle of Relativity." Participants explore why the time transformation t' is not equal to t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and examine the implications of various equations related to the speed of light and relative motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation involving time intervals tB, tA, t'A, and rAB, concluding that t' = t*c / (c - v) and questioning why this does not equal t / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
  • Another participant challenges the clarity of the initial derivation, pointing out inconsistencies in the definitions of variables and suggesting that the approach may lead to incorrect conclusions.
  • A later reply emphasizes the need to relate two different frames of reference, suggesting that the initial derivation only considers a single observer's perspective and does not adequately compare the two frames.
  • Further contributions express the need for a deeper understanding of multivariable calculus and differential equations to grasp the concepts presented in Einstein's work.
  • Participants discuss the Fitzgerald Contraction and its relevance to the time transformation question, indicating that the relationship between frames must consider the motion of the observer relative to the light path.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the derivations and the interpretation of time intervals in different frames. There is no consensus on the relationship between t' and t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2>, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in the derivations, including assumptions about the relationship between variables and the need for clarity in defining frames of reference. The discussion also reflects a dependence on the interpretation of Einstein's principles without reaching a definitive conclusion.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
12K