1905 Special Relativity theory Time dilation

The time dilation between two events as measured by two observers knowing their instantaneous 4-velocities (not their 4-accelerations) and the spacetime curvature between them along some path. In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of time dilation in Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR). In SR, both clocks are seen as ticking slow in both directions of relative travel, while in GR, only the clock that experiences acceleration slows down. The reason for time dilation in SR is different from that in GR, with SR involving an illusion caused by an error in Einstein's thought experiments. In GR, time dilation can be caused by accelerated motion or stationary acceleration. The conversation also touches on the relationship between SR
  • #1
David


Originally posted by cucumber
the problem is, that i do not see how time can be slowed down for both at the same time (no pun intended); time dilation should only occur for the one moving at near c, but if there is no reference frame, who experiences time dilation?

do both guys see the other guy moving in slow-motion?
if they do, i need to seriously refine my concept of time...

Let me tell you a little secret. There is an error in the 1905 Special Relativity theory that Einstein corrected with the General Relativity theory. There is no time or clock paradox in General Relativity because only one clock slows down at a time. In the original 1905 theory, Einstein had both clocks slowing down at the same rate at the same time, and that turned out to be an error, which he corrected later in the GR theory.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Originally posted by David
There is an error in the 1905 Special Relativity theory that Einstein corrected with the General Relativity theory.

Untrue. General relativity does not correct special relativity, it merely treats a greater variety of situations than SR can. All SR results are GR results too.
 
  • #3


Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Untrue. General relativity does not correct special relativity, it merely treats a greater variety of situations than SR can. All SR results are GR results too.



That is a common belief, but the reason for time dilation in SR is completely different from the reason in GR. The reason atomic clocks slow down in GR and in real life is because of acceleration. There is a “force” placed upon the atoms of the clocks and this causes the internal harmonic oscillation rates of their atoms to physically slow down.

The reason the clocks slow down in SR is due to Einstein’s thought-experiment use of two “light clocks” and because of the peculiar way he synchronized them and caused them to dilate. Essentially this is an illusional kinematical phenomenon caused by an error in his thought experiments.

The dilation in GR involves only the clock that experiences the acceleration, while a reference clock does not slow down (unless it’s experiencing acceleration too). In GR, the slow clock sees the fast clock as ticking fast, while the fast clock sees the slow clock as ticking slow.

But in SR, both clocks “see” each other as ticking only slow, never fast, and slow in both directions of relative travel, and slow by the same rate. In SR theory, the clocks can either run normally or slower, but they can’t speed up. In GR theory the clocks can run slow or fast depending on the gravitational potential at or the acceleration level of the clocks.

In GR the time dilation can be caused by accelerated motion or stationary acceleration (gravity). But in SR the time dilation is causes only by “relative motion”, while acceleration is left out of the theory altogether, and no “force” of any kind is felt by the clocks.

In SR theory all clocks can “slow down” at the same rates due only to the “v” of their relative motion, but in GR theory atomic clocks slow down due to acceleration, while under the same acceleration, pendulum clocks speed up.

So SR is not a “special case” of GR. The time dilation of the kinematical part of the SR theory is completely different from the atomic clock rate slowdown of the electrodynamical part of GR theory.
 
  • #4


Originally posted by David
That is a common belief, but the reason for time dilation in SR is completely different from the reason in GR.

Not only is that incorrect, it's logically impossible. SR is a special case of GR, so any GR explanation has to apply to SR as well.

The reason atomic clocks slow down in GR and in real life is because of acceleration. There is a “force” placed upon the atoms of the clocks and this causes the internal harmonic oscillation rates of their atoms to physically slow down.

No. Gravitation has no mechanical effect on clocks; it has a geometric effect on spacetime. Moreover, time dilation is not determined intrinsically by acceleration in GR.

In either GR or its subset, SR, you work out the time dilation between two events as measured by two observers knowing their instantaneous 4-velocities (not their 4-accelerations) and the spacetime curvature between them along some path. (The time dilation is not well-defined unless you also specify an arbitrary path.)

Sometimes their accelerations are related to their 4-velocities or the spacetime curvature (such as in the case of a static observer in Schwarzschild spacetime), so the time dilation factor can depend indirectly on the acceleration, but in general it does not.


The reason the clocks slow down in SR is due to Einstein’s thought-experiment use of two “light clocks” and because of the peculiar way he synchronized them and caused them to dilate. Essentially this is an illusional kinematical phenomenon caused by an error in his thought experiments.

Wrong. Not only is Einstein's reasoning correct, is has been verified by experiment: time dilation due to relative motion is not illusory.

The dilation in GR involves only the clock that experiences the acceleration, while a reference clock does not slow down (unless it’s experiencing acceleration too).

That's overly simplistic. For instance, two clocks, neither of which is experiencing (proper) acceleration, can experience time dilation relative to each other.


In GR, the slow clock sees the fast clock as ticking fast, while the fast clock sees the slow clock as ticking slow.

Maybe in the static Schwarzschild case, but not in general.

But in SR, both clocks “see” each other as ticking only slow, never fast, and slow in both directions of relative travel, and slow by the same rate.

You can set up symmetric situations in GR, too.


In GR the time dilation can be caused by accelerated motion or stationary acceleration (gravity).

This is just wrong. If you disagree, please post a GR calculation of how you calculate the time dilation between two events as measured by two observers, for a generic metric (not just Schwarzschild), and show where that calculation makes use of the acceleration (proper or coordinate) of either observer.


So SR is not a “special case” of GR.

Don't be absurd. Simply set the metric to the Minkowski metric, and you have recovered SR as a special case. Set the metric to something else, and you get special cases corresponding to non-flat spacetimes.

The time dilation of the kinematical part of the SR theory is completely different from the atomic clock rate slowdown of the electrodynamical part of GR theory.

What does "completely different" mean? The time dilations arise from the same general formula, though of course they are not the same because they describe different physical situations.

Incidentally, there is no "electrodynamical part" of GR.
 
  • #5
David

Like some of your arguments, on the other hand have to agree at least partly with ambitwistor's critique of them:

Summing over all possible values of i & j:

S² = Ó GijXiXj, i,j run 1 to 2, Pythagoras in 2-D he say! (eg: X1 = 'normal' X coordinate length, X2 = 'normal' Y coordinate length, S = hypotenuse)

S² = Ó GijXiXj, i,j run 1 to 3, Pythagoras in 3-D he say!

S² = Ó GijXiXj, i,j run 1 to 4, Gij = 0 when i not=j, else Gii = ±1 (kinda), hello to the Special Theory of Relativity.

S² = Ó GijXiXj, i,j run 1 to 4, Gij = Gji, hello to the General Theory of Relativity. (Ok, I missed out the d's).

Darn it that funny Ó symbol was supposed to come out as capital Greek SIGMA, meaning sum over all combinations of i & j. Nevermind.

Pythagoras he say! So there's a progression in generality from Pythagoras, (where Gij = 0 when i not = j, and Gij = 1 for i = j), to SR (4-D) with Gij's sticking to those 'Pythagoras rules', except one of the Gii's is opposite sign to all the others, to GR (also 4-D) where there is no such restriction on the Gij's, just a much looser one as far as I remember, rusty as hell, that Gij = Gji. So there are 16 Gij's, because i & j take the values 1-4 independently but only 10 of them are independent because Gij = Gji.

Ambitwistor will probably tear me into bone gaping shreds for this, but, ahem, the Gij kind of defines gravity through the warping of space time (the four dimensions, Xi to Xj, one of them's 'time', kinda). If none of the 16 (or 10, take your pick) Gij's differ from 0 or ±1, you get 'flat' space-time, or GR 'collapses' into 'SR'. Gij's differing from 0 or ±1, gives you the 'full' GR. Of course, there is no such thing as flat space-time, and so really no such thing as SR.

:-)

Useful approximation though.

;-)

But in the sense of a mathematical generalisation from ( ... Pythagoras ... ) --> SR --> GR, Ambitwistor's got a very good point.

... if Pythagoras had just stuck at it a bit harder ...

;-)

All that said, like you I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with the SR 'explanation' of the Twin Paradox, and talking about this and other Relativity things on another forum quite a while ago now, caused me to fiddle about with it a bit, to produce http://gijxixj.home.att.net/Relativity/GrSrTpSatExplns.htm [Broken]. See if it helps.

( ... goes away and tries to think of rebuffs to Ambitwistor perhaps shredding offering to pieces ... ;-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
GijXiXj,

We use the lowercase g to represent the metric, and lowercase x to represent coordinates.

In special relativity,

[tex]g_{ij} \equiv g_{ji} \equiv \eta_{ij} \equiv
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-1&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&1
\end{array}\right)
[/tex]

i.e. it is not 0 in special relativity, as you indicated. It's a generalized identity matrix. Also, in both special and general relativity, the metric is symmetric.

- Warren
 
  • #7
Warren, you said:

" We use the lowercase g to represent the metric, and lowercase x to represent coordinates. "

Yes, I know, but then the subscripts look less like subscripts for us lazy sods who can't be bother latexing.

By, the way, as far as I know, latexing also isn't a verb, at least in the sense I use it.

You go on:

"In special relativity,

... some matrix ...

i.e. it is not 0 in special relativity, as you indicated.
"

Nope, I never did so indicate. Read what I posted again. I indicated pretty much exactly as you did in your matrix, but in "words", that's all: Pythag & SR: Gii = 1, except SR has one Gii = -1, i not= j then Gij = 0; GR: Gij = Gji.
 
Last edited:
  • #8


Originally posted by Ambitwistor

Gravitation has no mechanical effect on clocks; it has a geometric effect on spacetime. Moreover, time dilation is not determined intrinsically by acceleration in GR.

Well, gravitation does cause an "effect" on some clocks. In this case, whether we call it a "mechanical" effect on atoms or an "electrodynamical" effect, I won't quibble about what we call it.

I want to show you something very interesting in “On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light”, A. Einstein, 1911. In the paper, Einstein predicted that atomic clocks would slow down in stronger gravitational fields, such as in a valley on Earth or at the sun. But he did this in a very long convoluted roundabout way that is a little difficult to follow.

In the paper he said:

”It follows, then, that a ray of light emitted in S2 with a definite gravitational potential, and possessing at its emission the frequency v2, compared with a clock in S2, will, at its arrival in S1, possesses a different frequency v1, measured by an identical clock in S1.”

Then he says:

”Let v0 be the vibration-number of an elementary light-generator, measured by a delicate clock at the same place. Let us imagine them both at a place on the surface of the Sun (where our S2 is located).”

His “elementary light-generator” is basically a vibrating “atom”, which is a fundamental “atomic clock”, and the frequency of the light it emits is tied to its vibration rate.

Then he says that when we measure the frequency of the sunlight at the earth:

”Thus according to our view the spectral lines of sunlight, as compared with the corresponding spectral lines of terrestrial sources of light, must be somewhat displaced toward the red...”

What we basically have here in the “elementary light-generator” on the sun is an elementary atomic clock that is vibrating more slowly than the same kind of atom on Earth and is emitting light of a lower frequency at the sun because the atom is experiencing the force of the stronger gravitational potential at the sun. Its light frequency can be calculated by its shift when received at the earth, and the sun-atom’s vibration frequency shift can also be calculated. Both kinds of frequency shifts can be shown to be lower at the sun than their counterparts here on earth, because the Earth atoms experience less gravitational forces.

He is essentially saying that atomic clocks “tick more slowly” at the sun than at the earth, which I think he should have come right out and stated as simply as that. But he didn’t. He went into a long description about what “time” is at the sun and what “time” is at the earth, and he introduced two completely superfluous “delicate clocks” of no particular kind or description, which he designated as “U” clocks.

He already has the most basic and accurate clocks in the “elementary light-generators”, which are the atoms on the sun and the same kinds of atoms on earth, ie “atomic clocks”, so the introduction of the “U” clocks is not at all necessary, since they are totally imaginary and their rates are different at the sun and at the Earth in exactly the same amount as the “vibration-number of an elementary light-generator” is different at the sun and at the earth.

But he goes on to say:

“What v2 denotes is the number of periods with reference to the time-unit of the clock U in S2, while v1 denotes the number of periods per second with reference to the identical clock in S1. Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U in different gravitational potentials must be regarded as going at the same rate... Therefore the two clocks in S1 and S2 do not both give the ‘time’ correctly. If we measure time in S1 with the clock U, then we must measure time in S2 with a clock which goes 1 + Φ/c^2 times more slowly than the clock U when compared with U at one and the same place.”

So he’s basically saying here that the “U” sun clock (which I designate U2) ticks slower at the sun than the other “U” clock (which I designate U1) ticks at the earth. So the “U” clocks themselves are nothing other than “atomic clocks”. And he says that if we want to accurately note the U2 tick rate at the sun, and duplicate that rate in a clock here on earth, then we must adjust the rate of any other kind of Earth clock by purposely slowing it down to the U2 rate, and then we compare that slower rate to the earth’s U1 clock rate. That’s what he means by, “we must measure time in S2 with a clock which goes 1 + Φ/c^2 times more slowly than the [earth] clock U when compared with U at one and the same place [at the earth].”

But this is extremely confusing in the way he words it. What he is basically saying is that on earth, we adjust and slow down a third clock, of a different kind than “U”, to the rate of the Sun’s U2 clock, and then we compare the rate of the adjusted and purposely slowed down clock with the rate of U1.

So? What did he accomplish by introducing the “U” clocks?

Nothing at all.

We already know the rate of the Sun’s U2 clock by observing the sunlight’s spectral line shift, and this gives us the vibration rate of the sun’s atoms that emit the light. Since that vibration rate is tied directly to the rate of the U2 clock, we don’t even need the U2 clock. And since the earth’s U1 clock rate is tied directly to the vibration rates of the same kinds of atoms on earth, we don’t need the U1 clock. So there is absolutely no need for any imaginary “U” clocks, since the atoms themselves are “delicate clocks” that “tick” at different rates at the sun and on the Earth because of the gravitational potential differences in both places.

So Einstein in 1911 was saying that atomic clocks slow down under strong gravity and speed up under weak gravity, but he said it in such a confusing way, that’s why in 1911 “only 12 people in all the world” could understand what he was talking about. If he had used simpler wording instead of what he did use, then most people in all the world could have easily understood what he was talking about.

So, yes, gravitation does cause an “effect” in atomic clocks. You can call it a “mechanical” effect, or an “electrodynamical” effect, or whatever you want to call it. It is a physical effect caused by a gravitational “force” being placed on the atoms. But this is not “time dilation”, its an “atomic harmonic oscillation rate slowdown”.

Originally posted by Ambitwistor

That's overly simplistic. For instance, two clocks, neither of which is experiencing (proper) acceleration, can experience time dilation relative to each other.

Yes, true, my computer clock and my wall clock constantly disagree. In aerospace, that’s called “clock drift”, and there are several causes for it. In my post I was speaking specifically of atomic clocks and acceleration.
 
  • #9


Originally posted by David
Well, gravitation does cause an "effect" on some clocks. In this case, whether we call it a "mechanical" effect on atoms or an "electrodynamical" effect, I won't quibble about what we call it.

It's neither one. Even if electrodynamics didn't exist, gravitational time dilation still would exist. Nor is time dilation restricted to clocks that operate by mechanical means, or to vibrating atoms, or whatever. Time dilation has nothing to do with how the clocks are physically constructed.

It is a physical effect caused by a gravitational “force” being placed on the atoms. But this is not “time dilation”, its an “atomic harmonic oscillation rate slowdown”.

That's wrong. It is time dilation, it has nothing to do with a force being exerted on anything, and it has nothing in particular to do with harmonic oscillation or any other mechanical or electromagnetic process.

Yes, true, my computer clock and my wall clock constantly disagree. In aerospace, that’s called “clock drift”, and there are several causes for it. In my post I was speaking specifically of atomic clocks and acceleration.

I was speaking of clocks (atomic and otherwise) and acceleration, too. You missed my point, which had nothing to do with inaccuracies in clocks.
 
  • #10


Originally posted by Ambitwistor
It's neither one. Even if electrodynamics didn't exist, gravitational time dilation still would exist. Nor is time dilation restricted to clocks that operate by mechanical means, or to vibrating atoms, or whatever. Time dilation has nothing to do with how the clocks are physically constructed.


I don’t think you can say that unless you can show some observational or experiment evidence of what you say. Electrodynamics does exist and that’s why atomic clocks slow down in a greater gravitational potential.

Although it is commonly called “time dilation,” it’s actually a “clock rate change” (a slowdown or speedup) caused by some sort of force placed on or removed from the fundamental mechanism of the clock, or a changing force being felt by the clock mechanism.

Do you know of any kind of clock that doesn’t measure time by means of some kind of physical vibration or motion taking place inside or at the clock or a motion of the clock relative to something else?

I understand that a high gravitational potential speeds up pendulum clocks while it slows down atomic clocks at the same location, so here we have two different kinds of clocks changing rates in opposite directions at the same place, so this phenomenon is obviously a “clock rate change” phenomenon at each clock, not a “time rate change” phenomenon at the place.
 
  • #11


Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Gravitational time dilation affects all clocks equally, no matter what their construction. The problem with a pendulum clock, however, is that it is designed to only work in one gravitational field. Even in Newtonian gravity, a pendulum clock will tick at different rates at different gravitational potentials;

So will atomic clocks.

I don’t see how you can say these things. A pendulum clock clearly speeds up where an atomic clock slows down.

Where do you get your ideas from? Why would you say that gravity slows down a pendulum clock just like it slows down an atomic clock, when 500 years of observational evidence reveals that a larger gravitational potential speeds up a pendulum clock? On what are you basing your refutations of direct observational evidence?
 
  • #12


Originally posted by David
So will atomic clocks.

No, they won't.

I don’t see how you can say these things. A pendulum clock clearly speeds up where an atomic clock slows down.

Reread what I said:

Even in Newtonian gravity, a pendulum clock will tick at different rates at different gravitational potentials; this has nothing to do with gravitational time dilation, which Newtonian gravity does not possess

That a pendulum clock ticks at different rates at different locations in a gravitational field has nothing to do with gravitational time dilation. Pendulum clocks have to be constructed to work at a specific gravitational potential.

If I construct a pendulum clock to tick off a 1-second period at one height, according to an observer at that height, then I have to construct a different pendulum clock (with a different pendulum length) to tick off a 1-second period at a different height, according to an observer at that different height. (This is unlike atomic clocks; the same atomic clock will work at any height.)

Assuming that I have two pendulum clocks constructed to work at the heights they are at, they will tick at exactly the same rate in Newtonian gravity. That means there is no time dilation. But if you put the same two clocks into a general relativistic gravitational field, they will not tick at the same rate, and the rate difference will be the same as for two atomic clocks at those locations, or any two other kinds of clocks.


Where do you get your ideas from?

Einstein.
 
Last edited:
  • #13


High quality pendulum clocks are adjustable for different elevations and some atomic clocks are too. The large pendulum clocks of past generations were completely adjustable for use all over the earth, at different elevations. In the 19th Century, some pendulum clocks were used to measure elevation. If you move a pendulum clock up in elevation, it will tick more slowly, and if you move an atomic clock up in elevation it will “tick” more rapidly. That appears to be a clear law of nature.

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Einstein.

He said that atomic clocks will slow down when placed under a large gravitational potential, and observational evidence says that idea turned out to be true. But just as with the ideas of any other theorist, you need to compare everything he said to actual experiment and observation to determine what different things he said were true or untrue. In 1915 he said all stars were “fixed” and the universe was “static”. That turned out to not be true. He said in 1911 that we need the “U” clocks in his thought experiments, but that turned out not to be true.
 
  • #14


Originally posted by David
High quality pendulum clocks are adjustable for different elevations and some atomic clocks are too. The large pendulum clocks of past generations were completely adjustable for use all over the earth, at different elevations.

Yes, but once you have adjusted them for the local gravitational field and synchronized them with each other, two pendulum clocks (or any other two clocks) at different elevations will keep the same time in Newtonian gravity --- but they won't in general relativity. That's what is meant by gravitational time dilation.

He said that atomic clocks will slow down when placed under a large gravitational potential,

Gravitational time dilation in general relativity has nothing intrinsically to do with atomic clocks, or the properties of atoms. (For that matter, what we call "atomic clocks" today weren't even invented in 1911.)
 
  • #15


Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Gravitational time dilation in general relativity has nothing intrinsically to do with atomic clocks, or the properties of atoms. (For that matter, what we call "atomic clocks" today weren't even invented in 1911.)

Maxwell talked about vibrating atoms being used as clocks as early as the 1870s. Vibrating atoms are "atomic clocks". They don't have to be enclosed in a manufactured case that is labeled "Atomic Clock" before they can be "atomic clocks".

You are talking about ancient theories as opposed to observation data, and some of those theories are now obsolete.
 
  • #16


Originally posted by David
You are talking about ancient theories as opposed to observation data, and some of those theories are now obsolete.

I'm talking about general relativity and the gravitational time dilation which is predicted by that theory, as well as the experimental evidence for that time dilation.
 
  • #17


Originally posted by David
If you move a pendulum clock up in elevation, it will tick more slowly, and if you move an atomic clock up in elevation it will “tick” more rapidly. That appears to be a clear law of nature.

Pendulum clocks depend on gravity to work, thus the local gravitational strength will affect their operation. If you move both an atomic clock and pendulum clock up in elevation, yes the atomic clock will tick more rapidly, and the pendulum clock more slowly. BUT, If you measure the pendulum clock tick rate very carefully, you will note that it doesn't tick quite as slowly as you would expect(as compared to a pendulum clock at a lower elevation), and that difference will be exactly equal to the amount that the atomic clock ran fast (again, as compared to a clock at a lower elevation).

The pendulum clock is effected by both the lessening of local gravitational strength and gravitational time dilation, it is just that the first has the greatest effect.

The atomic clock however is not sensitive to local gravitational stength but does note time dilation due to relative difference in gravitational potential (Not the same thing as local gravitational strength).

The other difference is that a person standing next to the clocks would notice that the pendulum clock was running slow, but would see the atomic clock as running at proper speed, and would not be be aware of any speeding up of the clock. (He would note, however, that the atomic clock at the lower elevation was running slow)
 
  • #18


Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I'm talking about general relativity and the gravitational time dilation which is predicted by that theory, as well as the experimental evidence for that time dilation.

Yes, but I’m talking about reality.

The reason I got into this is because all my life I worked with variable time-flow rates of different kinds, and all kinds of Doppler effects, and when I retied I wanted to read some physics books and find out what “time” is.

I was shocked to learn that most physicists don’t know what “time” is, and they have made up some of the wildest and most outrageous claims and superstitions about it. I’ve read things such as Stephen Hawking claiming that a person will “live longer” on top of a mountain because Einstein said so, and stuff like you’ve just said about pendulum clocks “time dilating” at the same rates as atomic clocks in high gravitational potentials, even though they clearly “speed up”, and stuff about relative motion causing clocks millions of miles away to “slow down”. “Relative motion” alone can’t possibly cause any clock to slow down or speed up.

These old and incorrect “time” theories have become urban legends. I’ve worked with and interviewed scientists in different fields who don’t pay any attention to them. In fact, many scientists use the observed rules of “thermodynamic time”. In fact, doctors, medical researchers, and biologists don’t pay any attention to the Einstein time superstitions. They mainly use the rules and laws of thermodynamic time.
 
  • #19


Originally posted by David
In fact, doctors, medical researchers, and biologists don’t pay any attention to the Einstein time superstitions. They mainly use the rules and laws of thermodynamic time.

Doctors, medical researchers, and biologists are unlikely to ever work in a situation where the affects of time dilation are significant. So why would they use a more complicated theory when the additional accuracy it provides isn't necessary? In fact, it's unlikely that most of them will even learn about relativity at all.
 
  • #20


Originally posted by Janus
Pendulum clocks depend on gravity to work, thus the local gravitational strength will affect their operation. If you move both an atomic clock and pendulum clock up in elevation, yes the atomic clock will tick more rapidly, and the pendulum clock more slowly. BUT, If you measure the pendulum clock tick rate very carefully, you will note that it doesn't tick quite as slowly as you would expect(as compared to a pendulum clock at a lower elevation), and that difference will be exactly equal to the amount that the atomic clock ran fast (again, as compared to a clock at a lower elevation).

Can you post some links to some precise experiments that prove this conclusively?
 
  • #21


Originally posted by master_coda
Doctors, medical researchers, and biologists are unlikely to ever work in a situation where the affects of time dilation are significant. So why would they use a more complicated theory when the additional accuracy it provides isn't necessary? In fact, it's unlikely that most of them will even learn about relativity at all.

Biologists have frozen twin embryos and thawed one out 7 years after he was conceived. The baby was 8 earth-years old when he was born. This was true “time dilation” using thermodynamic means to suspend his growth rate to “0” seconds per second for 7 atomic clock years.

All that stuff about “relative motion” time dilation is just superstition. The biologists have already done it, and they did it with thermodynamics, not “relative motion”.
 
  • #22


Originally posted by David
Biologists have frozen twin embryos and thawed one out 7 years after he was conceived. The baby was 8 earth-years old when he was born. This was true “time dilation” using thermodynamic means to suspend his growth rate to “0” seconds per second for 7 atomic clock years.

All that stuff about “relative motion” time dilation is just superstition. The biologists have already done it, and they did it with thermodynamics, not “relative motion”.

That is not time dilation. If someone dies at the age of 72 and then 10 years pass, did time dilate? After all, they only aged 72 years in an 82 year period.

Halting someones growth doesn't change the way time flows. It merely changes their rate of growth.
 
  • #23


Originally posted by Janus
The other difference is that a person standing next to the clocks would notice that the pendulum clock was running slow, but would see the atomic clock as running at proper speed, and would not be be aware of any speeding up of the clock.

You don't know this. This is just a made up urban legend. Look, I’ve talked to the atomic clock physicists at Boulder. They’ve stood next to atomic clocks that changes rates and they know they changed rates. The rate changes are too slight to notice without the use of other reference clocks. So a person can’t possibly tell if an atomic clock changes rates unless they compare it to the read-out on reference clocks. They told me that NO manufactured atomic ever runs at the same rate. They said that two atomic clocks manufactured side by side will run at different rates when they are turned on. So no atomic clock runs at the same rate as any other atomic clock in the same place. That’s what they told me. This is clock dilation, not time dilation. Only the old theories call it "time dilation", but I've talked to too many industrial engineers who say it is meaningless.
 
  • #24


What are you saying? That because clocks can change rates for reasons that have nothing to do with time dilation, changes in rates never have anything to do with time dilation?

Incidentally, industrial engineers, like biologists and doctors, are unlikely to need to compensate for the affects to time dilation.
 
  • #25


Originally posted by David
Yes, but I’m talking about reality.

The reason I got into this is because all my life I worked with variable time-flow rates of different kinds, and all kinds of Doppler effects, and when I retied I wanted to read some physics books and find out what “time” is.

I was shocked to learn that most physicists don’t know what “time” is, and they have made up some of the wildest and most outrageous claims and superstitions about it. I’ve read things such as Stephen Hawking claiming that a person will “live longer” on top of a mountain because Einstein said so, and stuff like you’ve just said about pendulum clocks “time dilating” at the same rates as atomic clocks in high gravitational potentials, even though they clearly “speed up”, and stuff about relative motion causing clocks millions of miles away to “slow down”. “Relative motion” alone can’t possibly cause any clock to slow down or speed up.

These old and incorrect “time” theories have become urban legends. I’ve worked with and interviewed scientists in different fields who don’t pay any attention to them. In fact, many scientists use the observed rules of “thermodynamic time”. In fact, doctors, medical researchers, and biologists don’t pay any attention to the Einstein time superstitions. They mainly use the rules and laws of thermodynamic time.
These time theories are not old and though they sound outrageous to you, but our best evidence says they are CORRECT. People in biology related fields don't use the theories because they aren't relevant for those fields. Time dilation is only significant in human terms at VERY high speed.

The field where scientists DO use the theories naturally is PHYSICS (and the related fields). In astronomy, space travel, telecommunications, etc. these theories are ESSENTIAL to making our technology work.

The GPS system is the most cited example - its a system that is built on relativity itself. It uses the timing of signals from satellites to find positions on earth. Without a clear picture of how the speed of light varies (or in fact does NOT vary) and how the rate of the passage of time varies, it would not work. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp [Broken] is a decent article about what GPS tells us about Relativity.

I realize some of these concepts don't seem to make sense at first glance, but they DO work in reality. The starting point is the constancy of the speed of light. Familiarize yourself with it as the rest comes directly from it. IE, the fact that the speed of light is constant to all observers is WHY time must be variable.
You don't know this.
You misunderstood Janus's point. Obviously any clock including an atomic clock has an internal error. These errors are IRRELEVANT to this conversation because any measurements we are talking about are much, much larger than these internal errors (otherwise the measurements would be useless).

Listen, this isn't anything to get all worked up about. Your fierce opposition to these ideas is getting in the way of your ability to understand them. Let it go for a little while and look at what we are telling you. UNDERSTAND the theories and LOOK at the evidence.
Can you post some links to some precise experiments that prove this conclusively?
I doubt it. It wouldn't be an experiment that would interest a physicist and the error in a mechanical clock is high enough you would have difficulty getting a meaningful result. Please don't take that to mean the effect does not exist. It does. It has been proven as conclusively as any theory can be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26


Originally posted by master_coda
That is not time dilation. If someone dies at the age of 72 and then 10 years pass, did time dilate? After all, they only aged 72 years in an 82 year period.

Halting someones growth doesn't change the way time flows. It merely changes their rate of growth.


No, of course not, but they are dead and out of the loop. The “rate of their growth” is a function of their own local biological body “time”. This is real biological science, not hypothetical physics theory.

The freezing of human embryos is REAL time dilation, since the embryos don’t age while frozen. They can’t freeze an entire full-grown human yet because of many problems such as cell ruptures due to water ice formation. But they are able to dry out the embryo cells so they don’t rupture while frozen.

Generally, the other “twin” frozen embryos are destroyed after one frozen embryo is successfully implanted and born several years later, but, since they usually save 6 to 10 frozen “twins” at the same time, they could thaw out one a year for 10 years and have 10 twins of 10 different real-life ages, aged 1 to 10. I’m not sure if these are fraternal or maternal twins, but they are conceived at the same time in a lab. You can look this up on Google under “frozen embryos”.

Einstein discussed thermodynamic time dilation in his 1907 “update” of the SR theory, but he wound up with a paradox in it to, since he said that both systems “see” the other system get colder during the “relative motion”. This is the logical consequence of an illogical theory, since when someone “sees” “time slow down” in another frame, they “see” the molecular vibration rates in that other frame slow down, and that is what produces the thermodynamic effect, but in SR theory, it is just an illusion, just as the “time dilation” is an illusion. Just as the “time dilation” of Doppler theory is an illusion. But a great urban legend has grown up around the SR theory, that says the “time dilation” due to “relative motion” is “real”, but it’s not “real”.

Clock dilation in GR theory is real.
 
  • #27


Originally posted by David
The freezing of human embryos is REAL time dilation, since the embryos don’t age while frozen. They can’t freeze an entire full-grown human yet because of many problems such as cell ruptures due to water ice formation. But they are able to dry out the embryo cells so they don’t rupture while frozen.

And dead people don't age after they die. Being dead does not magically "remove you from the loop". Frozen or dead, time does not flow differently. You simply don't do anything.


And as for SR...so do you accept that there are experiments that show time dilation, and you are just arguing that the observed dilation is an illusion and not real?
 
  • #28


Originally posted by master_coda
And dead people don't age after they die. Being dead does not magically "remove you from the loop". Frozen or dead, time does not flow differently. You simply don't do anything.

The biologists look at time differently. To them, atomic time is assumed to be extremely stable, even “absolute” as far as living organisms are concerned.

But heat (temperature), ie “thermodynamic time”, strongly affects life functions. The freezing of the embryos represents a “suspension” of the thermodynamic time-flow of the organism that is frozen.

This is true “time dilation” as far as that organism is concerned. Of course, if you are frozen and the vibration rates of your molecules are slowed down so that they “don’t do anything”, then you, in your own “system”, are infinitely “time dilated”, while the rest of time continues to flow around you. If the embryo is frozen, one second of everybody else’s time = 0 seconds of embryo time.

Your own personal “system” in biology is not an “inertial frame”, it is your body and everything inside it.

Biologists don’t think in terms of “inertial frames”, they think in terms of “body frames” or individual organism “systems”. Your body is your “frame” or “system”, and it is regulated by the biological rules of “thermodynamic time”. The physics concepts of “atomic-clock time dilation” and “relative motion” just don’t apply in biology.
 
  • #29


Originally posted by David
The biologists look at time differently. To them, atomic time is assumed to be extremely stable, even “absolute” as far as living organisms are concerned.

The physics concepts of “atomic-clock time dilation” and “relative motion” just don’t apply in biology.
We told you this already. For a biologist, this topic is unimportant. For a physicist, its ESSENTIAL.
 
  • #30


Originally posted by russ_watters
We told you this already. For a biologist, this topic is unimportant. For a physicist, its ESSENTIAL.

Yes, atomic clock rate changes due ro gravitational potential changes are very important, but these aren’t “time dilations”. They are clock rate changes. The clocks speed up or they show down. The clocks.
 
  • #31


Originally posted by David
Yes, atomic clock rate changes due ro gravitational potential changes are very important, but these aren’t “time dilations”. They are clock rate changes. The clocks speed up or they show down. The clocks.
No. And whether you believe it or not, its the truth. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

If you are really interested in learning about this, pick up a laymans' book about relativity. And have a look at the link on GPS I posted.
 
  • #32
The statements of your beliefs do not constitute a proof.

You need to separate belief from knowledge. While you have very strong beliefs about these matters it is clear that you have very little knowledge. It would be to your benefit if you could suspend your disbelieve of the current state of Physics and read the responses to your ideas with an open mind. You have been presented the physics as it is now understood why not make an effort ot understand it.


Your web page is a presentation of your beliefs, I could not detect a single proof of their correctness. Until you learn that the language of Physics is mathematics, you will never be able to present your ideas in a coherent fashion. Your arguments are not convincing, without the systematic logic of a carefully Mathematical presentation you can prove nothing.

The reason Einstein's concepts became universally accepted was due to his careful and through mathematical presentation. If you are going to argue against Time dilation you will have to find errors in the math, you have not done so.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Integral
The statements of your beliefs do not constitute a proof.

You need to separate belief from knowledge...

Your web page is a presentation of your beliefs, I could not detect a single proof of their correctness.

Are you talking to me? I don’t have a “webpage”.

I don’t have a “disbelief in the current state of physics”.

Without the current state of physics, we wouldn’t have airplanes, rockets, TV, computers, Doppler radar, or Doppler sonograms.

Einstein produced many “concepts” in his lifetime. Not all were correct. His idea about a “static” universe was not correct. Many physicists now believe the universe is “expanding”. His idea that only “relative motion” causes real “time dilation” was not correct. Relative motion between objects separated by great distances can’t (in my humble opinion) possibly cause either of their atomic clocks to slow down. But a great myth has grown up about “relative motion” causing clocks to “slow down”.

Atomic clocks can apparently slow down if they are moved rapidly though fields, but if this happens, it wouldn’t be due to “relative motion”, it would most likely be due to the motion of the clocks through the fields.

There are physics websites on the internet that say outright or imply Faraday’s discovery that an electron flow caused by the movement of a magnet near a coil of wire, or the movement of the coil near a magnet is a demonstration of Einstein’s special relativity theory.

But this is clearly not the case. It’s not the “relative motion” that causes the electron flow in the wire. It’s the changing field strength of the magnet, at the coil, that causes the electron flow. We don’t even need “relative motion” for this to happen if we use an electromagnet and vary its voltage.

One university website says:

“In 1905, Einstein proved that electricity and magnetism were one and the same (the difference is a matter of perspective)”

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...lec17.ppt+magnet+coil+einstein&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Is this true? Are electricity and magnetism “the same thing”?

And look at this:

http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/services/demos/demosp1/p1-21.htm [Broken]

This experiment was originally conducted and explained by Faraday, not Einstein. This doesn’t demonstrate anything about Einstein’s “special relativity” theory. I just shows two different ways to make a coil of wire experience a changing magnetic field when the coil and the magnet are at close range. This has nothing at all to do with “relative motion”. If the coil were in Los Angeles and the magnet were in New York, no amount of “relative motion” between the two would cause electrons to flow in the coil, so it’s not “relative motion” that causes the electrons to flow in the coil.

I think it should be the responsibility of university physics departments to dispel these old myths, rather than to continue to teach them to students.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Originally posted by David


Einstein produced many “concepts” in his lifetime. Not all were correct. His idea about a “static” universe was not correct.

Einstein did not produce this concept, he merely accepted the prevaling opinion by science at the time on this issue.


There are physics websites on the internet that say outright or imply Faraday’s discovery that an electron flow caused by the movement of a magnet near a coil of wire, or the movement of the coil near a magnet is a demonstration of Einstein’s special relativity theory.

But this is clearly not the case. It’s not the “relative motion” that causes the electron flow in the wire. It’s the changing field strength of the magnet, at the coil, that causes the electron flow. We don’t even need “relative motion” for this to happen if we use an electromagnet and vary its voltage.


You are misinterpreting what these sites are saying. Maxwell's equations (concerning electromagnetic behavior) predicted that you would get one result if you the coil was moving, and a different result if the magnet was moving.

Of course this doesn't turn out to be the case. It doesn't matter whether you move the magnet or coil.

Now in SR there is no preferred state of motion; you can't say whether A or B is moving, only that A and B have a Relative motion with respect to each other.

By Applying the transformations of SR to Maxwell's equations, He showed that they made the same prediction no matter which (coil or magnet) was considered moving; IOW, it was only the Relative motion of the two that mattered.

Thus, without SR, you get different result from a coil and magnet if you move one as opposed to the other.

With SR you get the same results no matter which one you move.

Since experiment shows that it doesn't matter which one moves, This is a demonstration of the correctness of SR.

This is what that second link you gave was about.

Since I can't get the content of the first link to come up properly, I can't really comment on what it really says.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Janus
Since experiment shows that it doesn't matter which one moves, This is a demonstration of the correctness of SR.

No it’s not. The phenomenon of the electron flow occurs when an electromagnet is used, even if there is no “relative motion”. The “motion” is not what produces the electron flow, the variation in the magnetic field at the coil is what produces the electron flow.

I don’t know about any errors in Maxwell’s point of view, but I have some old physics textbooks from the 1920s and ‘30s and they say the effect is caused by the changing magnetic field strength at the coil. They don’t say anything about this having anything to do with “relative motion”. They say it has to do with the changing field strength at the coil, and they say the same thing can be accomplished by using an electromagnet and by varying the voltage to the electromagnet, with no relative motion involved. There is no need to mention SR in connection with this Faraday discovery.

But this UCLA Physics Department website tries to make it appear as an Einstein discovery and an Einstein phenomenon:

LINK TO SOURCE

And I don’t think this website is correct about the Lorentz force being involved, because it is my understanding that for a Lorentz force to be involved, a separate current has to already be flowing through the coil before the magnet is introduced.

When I go to electrical websites, I get the stuff about Faraday and about the electromagnet. But when I go to some physics websites, I don’t. I just get the stuff about Einstein and the “relative motion”, but nothing about the electromagnet.

What is the reason for bringing SR and Einstein into this stuff? Galileo wrote about relativity. Newton wrote about relativity. Doppler developed a great theory based on his understanding of relativity. Poincare wrote about the relativity of motion in 1902. Lorentz wrote the first modern relativity paper in 1904.

People knew thousands of years ago that if person 1 moved toward person 2, while person 2 stayed still, they would get closer together. While if person 1 stayed still and if person 2 moved toward person 1, they would also get closer together. So I don’t understand the significance of Einstein’s “relativity theory” in these types of relative motion demonstrations. And of course “the laws of physics are the same everywhere”. But physicists have known that for hundreds of years.

I think Einstein did great work with General Relativity, and he deserves all the credit he can get for that. In fact, let’s give him a couple of more Nobel Prizes. But some of this other stuff about “special relativity” seems to be a lot of nonsense.

I’ve had people on the internet, people who have studied university physics, telling me all sorts of incorrect things about relative motion and “time dilation”, while they don’t know the first thing about the Doppler Effects. They don’t even know there is more than one Doppler Effect. They can give me a lot of misinformation about the motion of light photons and alleged clock slow-downs, but they can’t even tell me the physical phenomena involved in why an observer on an open car at the end of a moving train hears no Doppler shift from the moving train’s moving whistle.

They don’t know it’s because the moving observer encounters the stretched out (redshifted) wavelengths at a speed of faster than the normal speed of sound, or that the “blueshift” effect caused by the observer’s motion cancels out the “redshift” effect caused by the train whistle’s motion. When I explain this to university graduates who have had several physics courses, they act like they’ve never heard this explanation before. They know nothing about it, but they seem to know all about the special relativity urban legends.
 
<h2>1. What is the theory of special relativity and how does it relate to time dilation?</h2><p>The theory of special relativity, developed by Albert Einstein in 1905, states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. This means that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. Time dilation is a consequence of this theory, which states that time appears to pass slower for objects moving at high speeds.</p><h2>2. How does time dilation occur in special relativity?</h2><p>Time dilation occurs in special relativity because the speed of light is constant for all observers. This means that if an observer is moving at a high speed relative to another observer, they will experience time passing slower than the other observer. This is due to the fact that the faster an object moves, the slower time appears to pass for that object.</p><h2>3. What is the equation for time dilation in special relativity?</h2><p>The equation for time dilation in special relativity is t' = t / √(1 - v²/c²), where t' is the time experienced by the moving object, t is the time experienced by the stationary observer, v is the velocity of the moving object, and c is the speed of light.</p><h2>4. How does time dilation affect the measurement of time in everyday life?</h2><p>In everyday life, time dilation is not noticeable at normal speeds. However, at extremely high speeds, such as those experienced by astronauts in space, time dilation can have a significant effect. For example, astronauts who spend extended periods of time in space may age slightly slower than those on Earth due to their high speeds relative to Earth.</p><h2>5. Can time dilation be observed or measured in experiments?</h2><p>Yes, time dilation has been observed and measured in various experiments, such as the famous Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971. In this experiment, atomic clocks were flown on airplanes in opposite directions around the world, and when compared to stationary clocks, the moving clocks showed a slight difference in time due to their high speeds. This confirmed the predictions of special relativity and the existence of time dilation.</p>

1. What is the theory of special relativity and how does it relate to time dilation?

The theory of special relativity, developed by Albert Einstein in 1905, states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. This means that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. Time dilation is a consequence of this theory, which states that time appears to pass slower for objects moving at high speeds.

2. How does time dilation occur in special relativity?

Time dilation occurs in special relativity because the speed of light is constant for all observers. This means that if an observer is moving at a high speed relative to another observer, they will experience time passing slower than the other observer. This is due to the fact that the faster an object moves, the slower time appears to pass for that object.

3. What is the equation for time dilation in special relativity?

The equation for time dilation in special relativity is t' = t / √(1 - v²/c²), where t' is the time experienced by the moving object, t is the time experienced by the stationary observer, v is the velocity of the moving object, and c is the speed of light.

4. How does time dilation affect the measurement of time in everyday life?

In everyday life, time dilation is not noticeable at normal speeds. However, at extremely high speeds, such as those experienced by astronauts in space, time dilation can have a significant effect. For example, astronauts who spend extended periods of time in space may age slightly slower than those on Earth due to their high speeds relative to Earth.

5. Can time dilation be observed or measured in experiments?

Yes, time dilation has been observed and measured in various experiments, such as the famous Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971. In this experiment, atomic clocks were flown on airplanes in opposite directions around the world, and when compared to stationary clocks, the moving clocks showed a slight difference in time due to their high speeds. This confirmed the predictions of special relativity and the existence of time dilation.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
597
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
942
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
88
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
842
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
954
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
406
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Back
Top