Hi all

Is there any proof that velocity causes time to dilate, in other words has there ever been an experiment on time dilation where no acceleration is involved?

Tony

Gps.

Physical things like gravity and acceleration can't dilate time because time is just a concept.
Physical things can only affect other physical things (like clocks).

Mental things like time can be affected by thoughts (like emotions).
For example if you're bored time goes slow, and if you're having fun time goes fast.

Having watched a programme on the failures of GR about four years ago it was said that the GPS had an accuracy drift which becomes worse after each adjustment although I have not been able to find out if this is true or not. Even so surely the GPS receivers have an element of acceleration involved in the form of their position inside the gravity field and there centripetal acceleration due to the rotation of the Earth.

Tony

Having watched a programme on the failures of GR about four years ago

What program, what failures?

Even so surely the GPS receivers have an element of acceleration involved in the form of their position inside the gravity field and there centripetal acceleration due to the rotation of the Earth.

GPS takes into account relativistic effects from both velocity and gravity. It is literally a relativity laboratory in space.

Hi all

Is there any proof that velocity causes time to dilate, in other words has there ever been an experiment on time dilation where no acceleration is involved?

Tony

It hard to do an experiment where no accelertion is involved, But experiments have been done that show that accleration in of itself does not affect Time dilation.

A simple one is the centrifuge experiment, where you place a radioactive sample in a centrifuge, spin it up to a high speed, hold it there for a while, and then compare its decay to a control sample.

The advantage of this is that you can use it to determine what, if any effect acceleration has on time dilation. You can do this by changing the radius of the centrifuge between experiments. Thus you you can give two samples the same radial velocity but different centripetal acelerations, or the same centripetal acceleration and different radial velocities.

What these experiments have shown is that the decay rate of the sample is a function of the radial velocity of the sample alone, and that varying the acceleration has no effect.

What these experiments have shown is that the decay rate of the sample is a function of the radial velocity of the sample alone, and that varying the acceleration has no effect.

Can you point me to the papers that shows this result?

Yorda

Physical things like gravity and acceleration can't dilate time because time is just a concept.
Physical things can only affect other physical things (like clocks).

Mental things like time can be affected by thoughts (like emotions).
For example if you're bored time goes slow, and if you're having fun time goes fast.

So you are saying that Einstein is wrong when stating that gravity is a distortion of spacetime, is that correct?

I know he believed the arrow of time was a psychological phenomenon in the sense of the mind creating order but I think he was correct when viewing gravity as a distortion of space and time.

Tony

Janus58

It hard to do an experiment where no accelertion is involved, But experiments have been done that show that accleration in of itself does not affect Time dilation.

I would have thought that if this were the case then it would violate the equivalence principle.

Tony

Janus58



I would have thought that if this were the case then it would violate the equivalence principle.

Tony

No, because, gravitational time dilation is related to a difference in gravitational potential not gravitational force.

Thus, if you put an observer on the centrifuge, and through the equivalence principle, he concluded that the centripetal acceleration was due to an outward acting gravitational field,( to do this he would have to assume that the centrfuge was not spinning.) he would determine that the center of the disk was higher in the field and at a higher gravitational potential. How much of a difference depends on two factors, the distance to the center and the gravitational gradient. (One way to think about it is as how much work it it would take to lift a given weight from the observer's position to the center. Lifting a mass a long distance against a weaker gravitational force can take the same work as lifting it against a stronger force for a shorter distance. In these two cases the gravitational potential are equal.)

Thus you could have two observers on two different centrifuges spinning with different rpms, one far from the center and with a shallow gravitational gradient and one closer to the center with a steeper gradient, and they would measure the same gravitational potential between observer and center and both would measure the same gravitational time dilation even though they feel different gravitational forces.

To an outside observer not spinning with the centrifuges, each of these observers would have the same radial velocity and thus the same time dilation even though they undergo different accelerations.

Is there any proof that velocity causes time to dilate, in other words has there ever been an experiment on time dilation where no acceleration is involved?

Yes. The observed flux of muons at the Earth's surface is a good example. If these particles did not travel at high speeds, they would decay much faster than what is observed.

Janus58

No, because, gravitational time dilation is related to a difference in gravitational potential not gravitational force.

Thus, if you put an observer on the centrifuge, and through the equivalence principle, he concluded that the centripetal acceleration was due to an outward acting gravitational field,( to do this he would have to assume that the centrfuge was not spinning.) he would determine that the center of the disk was higher in the field and at a higher gravitational potential. How much of a difference depends on two factors, the distance to the center and the gravitational gradient. (One way to think about it is as how much work it it would take to lift a given weight from the observer's position to the center. Lifting a mass a long distance against a weaker gravitational force can take the same work as lifting it against a stronger force for a shorter distance. In these two cases the gravitational potential are equal.)

Thus you could have two observers on two different centrifuges spinning with different rpms, one far from the center and with a shallow gravitational gradient and one closer to the center with a steeper gradient, and they would measure the same gravitational potential between observer and center and both would measure the same gravitational time dilation even though they feel different gravitational forces.

But the equivalence principle states that all accelerated reference frames possess a gravitational field then this must mean the more acceleration the deeper in the gravitational field for the equivalence principle to hold true.
Gravity itself is not a force it is a distortion of spacetime so according to the EP any object under acceleration will posses a distortion of spacetime and the greater the acceleration the greater the distortion. Any kind of g-load will create gravitational time dilation.


To an outside observer not spinning with the centrifuges, each of these observers would have the same radial velocity and thus the same time dilation even though they undergo different accelerations.

The equivalence principle has nothing to do with velocity other than angular velocity which is everything to do with acceleration and I’m still waiting for you to point me in the direction of these experiments so I can confirm your view of the EP.

Tony

James R

Yes. The observed flux of muons at the Earth's surface is a good example. If these particles did not travel at high speeds, they would decay much faster than what is observed.

But there is an element of acceleration involved here. Muon decay is caused be high energy cosmic rays impacting air molecules producing pions which decay into muons. The point here is they have been accelerated by the impact and experience deceleration through the atmosphere so not only velocity is involved.

Tony

So you are saying that Einstein is wrong when stating that gravity is a distortion of spacetime, is that correct?

i doubt he seriously thought that things have weight because "spacetime" is distorted. space can't be distorted because it doesn't consist of anything. magnetism doesn't distort space+time, so why would gravity. they're the same thing.

Uclock: acceleration doesn't cause time dilation. Really. You can understand this if you run the Twin's Paradox thought-experiment twice over. On the first run twin A travels for one light year before he turns back. On the second run twin A travels for two light years before he turns back. In both cases the acceleration is the same, the only difference is the duration of the coasting phase. And this is what determines the differential ages of the twins.

What actually causes this time dilation is a change in c. We can never measure c to be anything other than 300,000km/s. Hence we tend to think of c as a rock-solid constant. But when you understand relativity to the full, and realise how light defines our distance and our time, you will understand that c is not in truth an absolute constant at all. The twin who aged less aged less because his c was lower than that of his twin, but he didn't notice it. See TIME EXPLAINED and GRAVITY EXPLAINED for details.

Others here may beg to differ. They can assert that I'm wrong, but they cannot prove me wrong. I dare say that at some point in the future some of them will be teaching this in schools. I imagine it will be called Relativity++. And that's what you call a challenge.

But when you understand relativity to the full, and realise how light defines our distance and our time, you will understand that c is not in truth an absolute constant at all. The twin who aged less aged less because his c was lower than that of his twin, but he didn't notice it.

Yet, one of the primary postulates of Special Relativity is that c IS a constant. Seems like you need to revisit your understandings.

Others here may beg to differ. They can assert that I'm wrong, but they cannot prove me wrong.

Michelson and Morley.

I dare say that at some point in the future some of them will be teaching this in schools. I imagine it will be called Relativity++. And that's what you call a challenge.

Visions of grandeur?

No, you need to revisit your understanding. Really. Yes the constant c is a postulate for Special Relativity, and that's fine because c is always measured to be constant. But if you undergo time dilation, your seconds are different so your c, the c that defines your seconds, must be different too. It's crushingly simple. There's no conflict here with Michelson/Morley. They got a negative result for aether flow, but that's not the same thing as the beautiful subtlety of a constant c that actually isn't constant. See this quote:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)

I thought Relativity++ was rather a nice name, akin to the programming language c++. The point is that c changes. LOL, it isn't spacetime that's curved, it's c that's curved, c isn't flat.

[QUOTE=(Q)



Michelson and Morley. ?[/QUOTE]

Dynamic, variable density aether takes care of MM !

Farsight, by exploring other possibilities, is probably getting closer to solving the mysteries of the universe than most stubborn physicists whose current orthodox understanding is getting them virtually nowhere, fast!

He may not be right, but I doubt Einstein was either.

No, you need to revisit your understanding. Really.

"We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

...it isn't spacetime that's curved, it's c that's curved, c isn't flat.

:shrug:

Thanks dav. I think we can be fairly sure I've got something wrong. But I don't think I've got it all wrong. What I really need is some considered intelligent feedback instead of simplistic axioms and a refusal to consider the issues seriously. Then we'll have a better idea. Meanwhile it exercises our curiosity and it's fun, and I guess that's why we're all here.

Yorda

i doubt he seriously thought that things have weight because "spacetime" is distorted. space can't be distorted because it doesn't consist of anything. magnetism doesn't distort space+time, so why would gravity. they're the same thing.
I think you will find Einstein believed quite correctly that gravity is a distortion of spacetime. We only have weight because of our mass and gravity. Outside of the gravitational field we have just mass. Space is not ‘nothing’ it has dimensions and without these dimensions there can be no movement. Magnetism and gravity are different they are not the exactly the same thing.
In free space, lets say where all the gravitational fields are balanced such as at one of Lagrangian points, it will take an unbalanced force to move an object and the object will feel this force but in a gravitational field an object moves not because an unbalanced force acts on it but because spacetime is distorted and it will feel nothing whilst it is in free fall.

Tony

Farsight

Uclock: acceleration doesn't cause time dilation. Really. You can understand this if you run the Twin's Paradox thought-experiment twice over. On the first run twin A travels for one light year before he turns back. On the second run twin A travels for two light years before he turns back. In both cases the acceleration is the same, the only difference is the duration of the coasting phase. And this is what determines the differential ages of the twins.

I think you might need to revisit the twin experiment. Only one twin goes off into space whilst the other remains on Earth. Let say twin A takes the trip into space and twin B remains on Earth. First of all twin A has to undergo acceleration to reach his cruising velocity where he is in uniform motion. He has relative velocity to the frame of his twin, twin B. According to the frame of twin A in space, twin B will have relative velocity to his frame. Both have relative velocity to one another, so if time dilates for one it also dilates for the other.
When twin A reaches the end point of his journey he has to decelerate to a standstill relative to twin B’s frame then accelerate back in the direction of Earth until he reaches his cruising velocity where once again he is in uniform motion. As he approaches Earth he has to decelerate until he lands on the Earth. The point with this thought experiment is there are four sections of acceleration involved for twin A and none for twin B who remained at home on Earth. IMHO it is these moments of acceleration that cause time dilation, unless of course you view spacetime as a metric as Einstein did in which case it makes sense that velocity accounts for time dilation.


What actually causes this time dilation is a change in c. We can never measure c to be anything other than 300,000km/s. Hence we tend to think of c as a rock-solid constant. But when you understand relativity to the full, and realise how light defines our distance and our time, you will understand that c is not in truth an absolute constant at all. The twin who aged less aged less because his c was lower than that of his twin, but he didn't notice it. See TIME EXPLAINED and GRAVITY EXPLAINED for details.

The velocity of light in a vacuum which is 299792458m s^-1 will never change no matter how fast an object is moving when it observes light. Pastafarian is correct, your view of relativity is wrong and you need to study it more. Your essays are not physics because you cannot back them up with any math.


Others here may beg to differ. They can assert that I'm wrong, but they cannot prove me wrong. I dare say that at some point in the future some of them will be teaching this in schools. I imagine it will be called Relativity++. And that's what you call a challenge.

Try and use your essays to equal what we know to be true about gravity such as by mathematically matching Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system. If you can do that then perhaps people will listen and I don’t wish to sound harsh but up until now all you have is a load of words pointing out your view of reality. It is not physics.

Tony

I think you will find Einstein believed quite correctly that gravity is a distortion of spacetime.

then i guess he was a pretty big Idiot.

Space is not ‘nothing’ it has dimensions and without these dimensions there can be no movement.

only objects which consist of something can have dimensions. and dimensions are just abstractions, thoughts.

Magnetism and gravity are different they are not the exactly the same thing.

just like red and blue are different, yet they're parts of the same light.

Yorda

“Originally Posted by Uclock
I think you will find Einstein believed quite correctly that gravity is a distortion of spacetime.”

then i guess he was a pretty big Idiot.

I think calling one of the best minds in the last century an idiot means that you are calling the whole of the physics community idiots. Einstein’s theories of relativity have stood the test of time.
I am not saying his view of spacetime as a metric is correct but it must be close to have withstood experimentation to the level it has. He was far from an idiot. The results of the biggest test of GR ever undertaken are due next month, that of the Gravity Probe ‘B’ experiment, and this is the test I have been waiting for because I believe the value for frame dragging will be higher than expected by GR.

“Space is not ‘nothing’ it has dimensions and without these dimensions there can be no movement.”

only objects which consist of something can have dimensions. and dimensions are just abstractions, thoughts.

Dimensions are real not abstract.


“Magnetism and gravity are different they are not the exactly the same thing.”

just like red and blue are different, yet they're parts of the same light.

Not quite. To what level have you studied physics or are you just making it up as you go along?

Tony

Farsight, I think you might need to revisit the twin experiment... IMHO it is these moments of acceleration that cause time dilation, unless of course you view spacetime as a metric as Einstein did in which case it makes sense that velocity accounts for time dilation.

Sorry Tony, I've studied this. It's definitely not the acceleration that causes the time dilation. See my earlier post about running the Twins experiment twice. Yes there's a symmetry which is broken by the acceleration via a shift in "now", but the time dilation is happening during the coasting phase. The logic of this is clear if you look at the length of the coasting phase in the two runs, both of which have identical accelerations.

It was Minkowski who introduced spacetime, Einstein was very unhappy about it at the time, was happy again when formulating General Relativity, but had doubts again later in life. As for how deep these doubts were I can't be sure, but I think they were more serious than is generally appreciated. The telling phrase is "Is Spacetime a Space?".

The velocity of light in a vacuum which is 299792458m s^-1 will never change no matter how fast an object is moving when it observes light. Pastafarian is correct, your view of relativity is wrong and you need to study it more. Your essays are not physics because you cannot back them up with any math.

The measured velocity of light is always the same because light defines distance and time. Look up the definition of the second and the metre on google. We think of time dilation as being countered by length contraction, but a transverse metre rule is not length contracted. If you're travelling at .99c with respect to me it will take your light beam seven times as long to traverse an identical transverse metre. Yes there's the symmetry again, but you and I could count and compare the number of traverses during your "Twins" round trip. The only way that you experiences fewer traverses than me is if your c is reduced with respect to mine. That's why you come back younger. I'm sorry, but Pastafarian is naive, and he uses specious arguments because he lacks the intellectual capacity to tackle the subject.

My essays are mathematics-lite because I'm explaining mathematical axioms. These are the things like t, E, and m that you take for granted. Mathematics cannot explain the axioms upon which it is built, an observation that is related to Godel's Theorem. If you'd read TIME EXPLAINED v2.1 you would know why I mention his name, and if you give it enough thought, you might one day appreciate why these essays are most definitely physics. I'd go so far as to say they're groundbreaking, so please do read them thoroughly and give them your serious consideration. Please don't respond with something I've already dealt with in an essay unless you can point out my error, whereupon I'll be disappointed, but pleased to receive earnest intelligent feedback.

PS: I certainly don't think Einstein was a fool. That's why this is Relativity++.

The only way that you experiences fewer traverses than me is if your c is reduced with respect to mine. That's why you come back younger.

Complete rubbish. Unless light is going through a medium or you change the properties of spacetime, it ain't gonna happen, numbnuts.

I'm sorry, but Pastafarian is naive, and he uses specious arguments because he lacks the intellectual capacity to tackle the subject.

Specious arguments=experimental results.

My essays are mathematics-lite because I'm explaining mathematical axioms.

You're talking gibberish.

If you'd read TIME EXPLAINED v2.1 you would know why I mention his name

Kooks always drop names in hope of getting attention.

and if you give it enough thought, you might one day appreciate why these essays are most definitely physics.

Handwaving, without the use of hands.

I'd go so far as to say they're groundbreaking

Hahahaha! More like wind breaking.

Please don't respond with something I've already dealt with in an essay unless you can point out my error, whereupon I'll be disappointed, but pleased to receive earnest intelligent feedback.

Translation: agree with me or else I'll throw a hissy fit.

C isn't constant?
Hmm... well I thought C depicts the speed of light in a vacuum.
If the speed of light in a vacuum isn't constant...well then that would mean that if I ran at 4 miles an hour Im making light go slower relative to me! That doesn't seem right though...because I thought the paradox that arose with einstein was due to the fact that light WAS constant and therefore didn't follow the laws of relative motion... Well then I guess physics is wrong since light is infact NOT constant.

But if you undergo time dilation, your seconds are different so your c, the c that defines your seconds, must be different too. It's crushingly simple.

C defines our seconds? Personally I thought seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years etc. etc. arose from planetary motion and orbit. I mean, how can it not? Unless you suggest the speed of light was used to define time even before c was defined. Those ancients must have been really really really really really smart then.

But lets say you do go through time dilation. Your passage through time is different RELATIVE to an observer going at a different velocity. But to you, personally, a second is still a second. To the observer, a second is still a second, therefore c remains unchanged because measurments in change is just that, a measurment. A concept created by us to effectively MEASURE different aspects of nature, no more, no less.

Your suggesting the observer can explain the traveler's perception of time as if it was as physical as the traveler's motion. Unfortunately, he can only effectively explain its motion through time by comparing it to his own and he does using measurements.

Gravitational time dilation and Velocity time dilation are the same thing. The faster you travel, the more mass you have (yet you'll appear skinnier; go figure). The more mass you have the more gravity. This is what Uclock was arguing against in the centrifuge experiment. The faster moving guy would have more mass hence more gravity. The faster you go the more your mass, and clocks will seem to slow down to a relative observer.

Farsight commented that c can differ from perspectives, but c cannot change from perspectives, it is always c, and that was the question that inspired the T.S.R., but nonetheless not applicable. Sorry Farsight

So the only real non-velocity time dilation must occur by spacing yourself from mass.

The GPS clocks (as given by Q) / or other spacefaring satellite clocks are the only correct answers I can see so far.

There do seem to be other definitions of time dilation other than T.S.R. ones. Some teachers, etc (if this is homework), may be looking for an answer like
"the suitcase in the train" thing. here
http://www.kinkel-bischem.de/kosmologie/engzyklentheorie5.html
it is based on observation and not relativity theories, kind of like the doppler effect. I think wikipedias definition is an observation effect as well. Just in case we are messing up someones homework assignment. lol

Votorx: this is the definition of the second:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0K…

The second is defined in terms of periods of radiation. Radiation is light. If we had some change of condition that affected the period of this radiation, this would affect our seconds. Our seconds would be longer seconds, but we wouldn't know it because that change of condition would similarly effect every atom in our bodies, and in our clocks, and in our rulers. Now look at the definition of the metre:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second...

Not only would we have different seconds, but we would also have different metres, by definition. And again this would affect every atom in our bodies, and in our clocks, and in our rulers. But look at the definitions again. We will still measure c at 300,000km/s. PS: there is no "passage through time". Your passage is through space. See TIME EXPLAINED v2.1 for details. And take note of this quote:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)

kwilborn: there's been much debate in physics about rest mass and relativistic mass. Personally I favour the latter. And while there is a parallel between relativistic time dilation and gravitational time dilation, the two are not equivalent. You do not "have more gravity" if you travel fast. See MASS EXPLAINED and GRAVITY EXPLAINED for details.

Farsight

Sorry Tony, I've studied this. It's definitely not the acceleration that causes the time dilation. See my earlier post about running the Twins experiment twice. Yes there's a symmetry which is broken by the acceleration via a shift in "now", but the time dilation is happening during the coasting phase. The logic of this is clear if you look at the length of the coasting phase in the two runs, both of which have identical accelerations.

This is only a thought experiment and if you run the thought experiment twice and have a longer uniform motion phase in one run than the other how do you know for definite that there will be a greater time dilation unless you conclude that velocity is responsible for time dilation and not acceleration then both twins have a velocity relative to each other. That is the reason why it is called the twin paradox.


It was Minkowski who introduced spacetime, Einstein was very unhappy about it at the time, was happy again when formulating General Relativity, but had doubts again later in life. As for how deep these doubts were I can't be sure, but I think they were more serious than is generally appreciated. The telling phrase is "Is Spacetime a Space?".

Einstein admitted he had no idea what space was, here is an extract in his own words:
In Special Relativity Part III, [1] Einstein states:
“In the first place, we entirely shun the vague word “space” of which, we must honestly acknowledge we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by “motion relative to a practically rigid body at reference.”

He also looked at the arrow of time as the mind creating order so he considered it as a psychological effect. The point of this thread is there is no real hard evidence that velocity causes time dilation. Any experiment on time dilation involves a certain amount of acceleration which is unavoidable therefore the possibility that it is only the acceleration portion of any experiment that is responsible for time dilation, always exists.


The measured velocity of light is always the same because light defines distance and time. Look up the definition of the second and the metre on google. We think of time dilation as being countered by length contraction, but a transverse metre rule is not length contracted. If you're travelling at .99c with respect to me it will take your light beam seven times as long to traverse an identical transverse metre. Yes there's the symmetry again, but you and I could count and compare the number of traverses during your "Twins" round trip. The only way that you experiences fewer traverses than me is if your c is reduced with respect to mine. That's why you come back younger. I'm sorry, but Pastafarian is naive, and he uses specious arguments because he lacks the intellectual capacity to tackle the subject.

If I never bothered to learn physics and had to keep looking up definitions of units then would not try and discuss physics with people who have. I don’t disagree with velocity causing time dilation if you view spacetime as a metric as Einstein did but there is an alternative and it is this alternative that I am exploring.
I am new to this website so I cannot comment on Pastafarian’s level of knowledge but if I agree with him then I will say so.



My essays are mathematics-lite because I'm explaining mathematical axioms. These are the things like t, E, and m that you take for granted. Mathematics cannot explain the axioms upon which it is built, an observation that is related to Godel's Theorem. If you'd read TIME EXPLAINED v2.1 you would know why I mention his name, and if you give it enough thought, you might one day appreciate why these essays are most definitely physics. I'd go so far as to say they're groundbreaking, so please do read them thoroughly and give them your serious consideration. Please don't respond with something I've already dealt with in an essay unless you can point out my error, whereupon I'll be disappointed, but pleased to receive earnest intelligent feedback.

PS: I certainly don't think Einstein was a fool. That's why this is Relativity++.


You are just putting your view of the mathematical axioms and everyone is entitled to a view but without following up this view with extra math to solidify your perspective of reality then how do you expect physicists to take notice?
I have read your essays and they do nothing for me so I would like to ask you, to what level have you studied physics?

You are right, Einstein was most definitely not a fool, only an idiot would say such a thing.

Tony

// Useless info

It takes me 10 min to get through a 10 page religious thread with a relevant reply, it took me an hour and a half to get through this thread and a real lot of help from wiki. I still do not have a relevant reply :(

Farsight, this is only a thought experiment and if you run the thought experiment twice and have a longer uniform motion phase in one run than the other how do you know for definite that there will be a greater time dilation unless you conclude that velocity is responsible for time dilation and not acceleration then both twins have a velocity relative to each other. That is the reason why it is called the twin paradox.

Because I understand time. Time dilation is like perspective. If we're separated by distance I look smaller to you and you look smaller to me. If we're separated by velocity your time looks smaller to me and mine looks smaller to you. If you spend a short period away from me while your time looks smaller, and then come back, the resultant difference in our ages is modest. If you spend a long period away from me while your time looks smaller and then come back, the difference in our ages is greater, even though in both these cases the accelerations were the same.

Einstein admitted he had no idea what space was, here is an extract in his own words: In Special Relativity Part III, [1] Einstein states: “In the first place, we entirely shun the vague word “space” of which, we must honestly acknowledge we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by “motion relative to a practically rigid body at reference.”

Fair enough, but his views did evolve over the years, and you shouldn't take that as his final view. Have a google on Einstein and Godel in Princeton in about 1949.

He also looked at the arrow of time as the mind creating order so he considered it as a psychological effect. The point of this thread is there is no real hard evidence that velocity causes time dilation. Any experiment on time dilation involves a certain amount of acceleration which is unavoidable therefore the possibility that it is only the acceleration portion of any experiment that is responsible for time dilation, always exists.

Again, fair enough. But I do think you're wrong about the lack of hard evidence. There have been long flights with atomic clocks, centrifuge experiments, there's GPS, and Nasa missions. With the understanding of relativity that abounds along with my own concepts, that's enough for me to assert that you've got the wrong idea.

If I never bothered to learn physics and had to keep looking up definitions of units then would not try and discuss physics with people who have. I don’t disagree with velocity causing time dilation if you view spacetime as a metric as Einstein did but there is an alternative and it is this alternative that I am exploring. I am new to this website so I cannot comment on Pastafarian’s level of knowledge but if I agree with him then I will say so.

No problem. It's good to talk.

You are just putting your view of the mathematical axioms and everyone is entitled to a view but without following up this view with extra math to solidify your perspective of reality then how do you expect physicists to take notice?

I expect them to show some interest. I don't expect them to say there's no maths so that's not physics. That's like saying there's no French so that's not English. It's a false premise used for dismissal and clinging to current concepts. Physics shouldn't be like that. It should be open, rational, exploring. I also expect physicists to appreciate that a postulate (or an axiom) is very different to explanation. Einstein postulated that c is always measured to be the same value, I can explain why.

I have read your essays and they do nothing for me so I would like to ask you, to what level have you studied physics?

I challenge that. I don't think you'd be asserting that acceleration causes time dilation if you'd read TIME EXPLAINED or GRAVITY EXPLAINED. But OK, if you've skimmed them briefly because they don't attract you, that's something I should look at. My formal physics education ended at A-level, and I've done private reading over twenty-something years. Yes, I'm an outsider, an amateur. I have a Computer Science degree and work as an IT Manager. Perhaps the most useful aspect of my skillset has been the Systems Analysis.

Farsight

Because I understand time. Time dilation is like perspective. If we're separated by distance I look smaller to you and you look smaller to me. If we're separated by velocity your time looks smaller to me and mine looks smaller to you. If you spend a short period away from me while your time looks smaller, and then come back, the resultant difference in our ages is modest. If you spend a long period away from me while your time looks smaller and then come back, the difference in our ages is greater, even though in both these cases the accelerations were the same.

Do you really understand time? If so can you explain time’s arrow, why time has a direction, why we have a past and why the future is not set in stone? Do you think it is a psychological process as Einstein did or do you think time’s arrow should have a real explanation in physics?

“Einstein admitted he had no idea what space was, here is an extract in his own words: In Special Relativity Part III, [1] Einstein states: “In the first place, we entirely shun the vague word “space” of which, we must honestly acknowledge we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by “motion relative to a practically rigid body at reference.” ”

Fair enough, but his views did evolve over the years, and you shouldn't take that as his final view. Have a google on Einstein and Godel in Princeton in about 1949.
His views may have evolved over the years but time’s arrow is the one physical problems he never tackled, because he thought of it as psychological.

“He also looked at the arrow of time as the mind creating order so he considered it as a psychological effect. The point of this thread is there is no real hard evidence that velocity causes time dilation. Any experiment on time dilation involves a certain amount of acceleration which is unavoidable therefore the possibility that it is only the acceleration portion of any experiment that is responsible for time dilation, always exists. ”

Again, fair enough. But I do think you're wrong about the lack of hard evidence. There have been long flights with atomic clocks, centrifuge experiments, there's GPS, and Nasa missions. With the understanding of relativity that abounds along with my own concepts, that's enough for me to assert that you've got the wrong idea.

All of the above involve acceleration. There can be no physical experiment that does not involve acceleration to some degree or another. You can assert all you like but I am in search of the truth as to why the arrow of time exists. It is a real fundamental question that has been passed off as ‘psychological’ without trying to find a reason for it. I can see the reason why Einstein viewed velocity as a cause of time dilation in the way he viewed spacetime but there is another way to look at spacetime which encompasses times arrow.

“If I never bothered to learn physics and had to keep looking up definitions of units then would not try and discuss physics with people who have. I don’t disagree with velocity causing time dilation if you view spacetime as a metric as Einstein did but there is an alternative and it is this alternative that I am exploring. I am new to this website so I cannot comment on Pastafarian’s level of knowledge but if I agree with him then I will say so.”

No problem. It's good to talk.

Yes it is. Without communication there is no way to advance knowledge.

“You are just putting your view of the mathematical axioms and everyone is entitled to a view but without following up this view with extra math to solidify your perspective of reality then how do you expect physicists to take notice? ”

I expect them to show some interest. I don't expect them to say there's no maths so that's not physics. That's like saying there's no French so that's not English. It's a false premise used for dismissal and clinging to current concepts. Physics shouldn't be like that. It should be open, rational, exploring. I also expect physicists to appreciate that a postulate (or an axiom) is very different to explanation. Einstein postulated that c is always measured to be the same value, I can explain why.

This is not about clinging to current concepts. If your essays make testable predictions that can be verified that are different from the mainstream view of physics then that will allow them to investigate your interpretation of reality. I cannot see any of your essays doing this as they stand at the moment. The language of physics is math and if you cannot use math to explain your essays to physicists then you might as well write your essays in a foreign language.


“I have read your essays and they do nothing for me so I would like to ask you, to what level have you studied physics? ”

I challenge that. I don't think you'd be asserting that acceleration causes time dilation if you'd read TIME EXPLAINED or GRAVITY EXPLAINED. But OK, if you've skimmed them briefly because they don't attract you, that's something I should look at. My formal physics education ended at A-level, and I've done private reading over twenty-something years. Yes, I'm an outsider, an amateur. I have a Computer Science degree and work as an IT Manager. Perhaps the most useful aspect of my skillset has been the Systems Analysis.

Why would you think your essays would change my mind that acceleration causes time dilation? They are just your interpretation of reality.
I know you are an amateur and therefore if you have a point to try and make to mainstream physics then do so in the language they understand in the form of math along side your essays. You might find it helps to solidify your own understanding of your ideas.

Tony

Janus58



But the equivalence principle states that all accelerated reference frames possess a gravitational field then this must mean the more acceleration the deeper in the gravitational field for the equivalence principle to hold true.
There is not always a direct relationship between acceleration and depth of gravitational field. You can have a strong local acceleration in with a shallow feild and a weaker local acceleration in a deep field. Case in point: The surface gravity of Uranus is less than that of the Earth's, yet the surface of Uranus is deeper in its respective gravitational field than the surface of the Earth is in its field.


Gravity itself is not a force it is a distortion of spacetime so according to the EP any object under acceleration will posses a distortion of spacetime and the greater the acceleration the greater the distortion. Any kind of g-load will create gravitational time dilation.

Using the dimple in the rubber sheet analogy. The slope of the at any given point of the dimple is the local g-load. The distance below the normal "flat" level of the sheet is the depth in the field. It is perfectly possible to have two "dimples" where at a in one the slope at a given point is less than the slope at the point of the other, but is still deeper in its gravity well.
It is this depth in the field that determines gravitational time dilation.

Again, using Uranus as an example. The formula for gravitational time dilation for a body such as a planet is:
to =tf(sqrt(1- 2GM/(rc²)))

Where to is the time dilated time period.
tf is the time period as measured by an observer removed from the field
G is the gravitational constant
M the mass of the planet
r the distance from the center of the planet.

At the surface of the Earth, this works out to

to = tf(0.999999999)

Meaning that said removed observer sees 0.999999999 secs pass on the surface of the Earth fro every second he measures.

For Uranus, this works out to

to = tf(.999999997)

Meaning that the time dilation is greater at the Surface of Uranus than it at the Surface of the Earth, yet the surface gravity of Uranus is less (.889g) than that of the Earth. If gravitational time dilation was due to local strength of field, (magnitude of acceleration) you would get the opposite results.

If your contention is that the accepted formula for time dialtion is wrong, and one that the controlling factor is local g-load, then why is it that every experiment done to test gravitational time dilation (such as the HArvard Tower Experiment) give results that agree with this formula?





The equivalence principle has nothing to do with velocity other than angular velocity which is everything to do with acceleration and I’m still waiting for you to point me in the direction of these experiments so I can confirm your view of the EP.

Tony
The point is that the time dilation measured by the outside observer will rely on the radial velocity alone, and the observer on the centrifuge will agree with him as to the degree of that time dilation in all cases, even though the g-load he locally measures can vary depending on the different combinations of angular velocity and his distance from the center that result in the same radial velocity.


Here's a link to an article in Nature describing such an experiment.

Bailey, J. et al., Nature 268, 301 (1977) on muon lifetimes and time dilation.

Muons orbit in a circular storage ring and their time dilation measured. The results match those predicted by the standard Lorentz transformation which only takes the radial velocity into account.

James R



But there is an element of acceleration involved here. Muon decay is caused be high energy cosmic rays impacting air molecules producing pions which decay into muons. The point here is they have been accelerated by the impact and experience deceleration through the atmosphere so not only velocity is involved.

Tony

It's not enough to just say that there is an element of acceleration involved. To support the claim that it is the acceleration that is the culprit in time dilation, you have to show how the particular accelerations result in the time differences involved and still match those predicted by the standard "velocity only" formula. IOW, where's the math?

And not only for this experiment, but every experiment done in every high energy particle lab in the world, which use different designs, with different acceleration magnitudes and durations, yet still produce results that are always in agreement with velocity alone being the factor in time dilation.

That's interesting Janus, thanks.

Do you really understand time? If so can you explain time’s arrow, why time has a direction, why we have a past and why the future is not set in stone? Do you think it is a psychological process as Einstein did or do you think time’s arrow should have a real explanation in physics?

Yes I do Uclock. And you haven't read TIME EXPLAINED at all, because if you had you would have seen how scathing I was about the Arrow of Time. It's merely a counting direction. I called it the Arrow of Beans. Time is a derived effect of motion. Like heat. And like heat it is not imaginary, but it is not fundamental. Did you notice the 1949 in my post? When did Einstein write Special Relativity part III? Aw that's enough, you've made up your mind that acceleration causes time dilation, you ignore anything that demonstrates that this is incorrect, you pretend you've read background material but get caught out and make up fatuous reasons as to why you don't need to bother. So just forget it.

Is there an argument that Acceleration does not cause time dilation here?

It is a controversial subject that NASA is planning to prove or disprove once and for all. What is wrong with the atomic clock on the plane experiments again?

I accept that velocity and gravity affect perspective times based mostly on those. The longevity of particles or "muons" based on their comparative life expectancy has been attacked a lot, but I am only a reader of these experiments. Helionic waves or whatever.

The GPS answer I thought was the best for non velocity time dilation, however it is true that velocity may be a factor in that.

The two experiments that I feel have proved both Velocity and gravity time dilation are these.

a) the atomic clock in plane experiment.

b) the atomic clocks at high altitudes (no velocity) experiments. This is where clocks have been left atop mountains and eventually are eventually off. The most accurate clocks are atomic clocks, but due to the gravitational redshift, the oscillations of atoms will vary with gravity- that is, their frequency will change depending on the value of the gravitational field they are in. The gravity will affect the frequency of the atoms. Therefore, time runs faster at higher altitudes. Due to the same effect that makes time run faster at higher altitudes, it would run more slowly in a large gravitational field.

c) my empoyees seem to work slower when I am in a rush. (this has just been a personal observation and not scientific. lol)

So Einsteins math has withstood some pretty heavy measuring. How can we argue with a theory that makes sense, and stands up to measurements?

So yes; There has been non-velocity time dilation experiments involving high altitudes and atomic clocks.

b) the atomic clocks at high altitudes (no velocity) experiments. This is where clocks have been left atop mountains and eventually are eventually off. The most accurate clocks are atomic clocks, but due to the gravitational redshift, the oscillations of atoms will vary with gravity- that is, their frequency will change depending on the value of the gravitational field they are in. The gravity will affect the frequency of the atoms. Therefore, time runs faster at higher altitudes. Due to the same effect that makes time run faster at higher altitudes, it would run more slowly in a large gravitational field.



Again, it is not the local value of the gravity field that results in gravitational time dilation, but the difference in gravtational potential, or relative depth in the field. This is what Einstein's math predicts and the experimental results show. IOW, Einstein predicts that if you had a uniform gravitational field (One where g does not vary with height), two clocks, placed at different heights in that field, will still run at different rates, even though both clocks experience the same g force.

Janus58

There is not always a direct relationship between acceleration and depth of gravitational field. You can have a strong local acceleration in with a shallow feild and a weaker local acceleration in a deep field. Case in point: The surface gravity of Uranus is less than that of the Earth's, yet the surface of Uranus is deeper in its respective gravitational field than the surface of the Earth is in its field.

Only because of greater mass of Uranus increasing its schwartzchild radius but it is a gas giant and therefore as such it has no surface. Unfortunately we can’t actually physically test this hypothesis.

Using the dimple in the rubber sheet analogy. The slope of the at any given point of the dimple is the local g-load. The distance below the normal "flat" level of the sheet is the depth in the field. It is perfectly possible to have two "dimples" where at a in one the slope at a given point is less than the slope at the point of the other, but is still deeper in its gravity well.
It is this depth in the field that determines gravitational time dilation.

Again, using Uranus as an example. The formula for gravitational time dilation for a body such as a planet is:
to =tf(sqrt(1- 2GM/(rc²)))

Where to is the time dilated time period.
tf is the time period as measured by an observer removed from the field
G is the gravitational constant
M the mass of the planet
r the distance from the center of the planet.

At the surface of the Earth, this works out to

to = tf(0.999999999)

Meaning that said removed observer sees 0.999999999 secs pass on the surface of the Earth fro every second he measures.

I am sorry Janus58 but I think you may have that the wrong way around. The person on the surface of the Earth will see the observers clock outside the gravitational field beat once every 0.99999999s for every one beat of his own clock, otherwise it would mean that clocks beat faster inside a gravitational field than outside which is not the case.

For Uranus, this works out to

to = tf(.999999997)

Meaning that the time dilation is greater at the Surface of Uranus than it at the Surface of the Earth, yet the surface gravity of Uranus is less (.889g) than that of the Earth. If gravitational time dilation was due to local strength of field, (magnitude of acceleration) you would get the opposite results.

If your contention is that the accepted formula for time dialtion is wrong, and one that the controlling factor is local g-load, then why is it that every experiment done to test gravitational time dilation (such as the HArvard Tower Experiment) give results that agree with this formula?

I take it you mean the Pound-Rebka experiment performed at Harvard University.
Yes it is apparently accurate to within 1% of Einstein’s value which is pretty good isn’t it? I do not have access to the actual paper but I think I may be able to do better than Einstein at calculating time dilation by viewing spacetime differently.


The point is that the time dilation measured by the outside observer will rely on the radial velocity alone, and the observer on the centrifuge will agree with him as to the degree of that time dilation in all cases, even though the g-load he locally measures can vary depending on the different combinations of angular velocity and his distance from the center that result in the same radial velocity.

Yes, according to Einstein you are correct but I think his view of spacetime is wrong, he may be close but he is never quite spot on is he?


Here's a link to an article in Nature describing such an experiment.

Bailey, J. et al., Nature 268, 301 (1977) on muon lifetimes and time dilation.

Muons orbit in a circular storage ring and their time dilation measured. The results match those predicted by the standard Lorentz transformation which only takes the radial velocity into account.

Again, the Loretz transformation is close but we are also talking about centripetal acceleration involved here not just velocity. It may we be the rate of acceleration that is causing the effect and not the velocity.

Tony

Janus58

It's not enough to just say that there is an element of acceleration involved. To support the claim that it is the acceleration that is the culprit in time dilation, you have to show how the particular accelerations result in the time differences involved and still match those predicted by the standard "velocity only" formula. IOW, where's the math?

And not only for this experiment, but every experiment done in every high energy particle lab in the world, which use different designs, with different acceleration magnitudes and durations, yet still produce results that are always in agreement with velocity alone being the factor in time dilation.

I agree. I do not intend to just say that there is another way to view and calculate time dilation unless I have the math to back it up.
There is another way to view space and time which for the first time accounts for the arrow of time as a physical phenomenon. This view of spacetime is radical but testable but any University or institution with the correct facilities. I will be posting this concept of spacetime shortly, including a paper on time dilation.
My earlier posts are a little misleading because it is not acceleration per se that causes time dilation. It is forced displacement in spacetime such as when an object is acted on by an unbalanced force.

Tony

Farsight

Yes I do Uclock. And you haven't read TIME EXPLAINED at all, because if you had you would have seen how scathing I was about the Arrow of Time. It's merely a counting direction. I called it the Arrow of Beans. Time is a derived effect of motion. Like heat. And like heat it is not imaginary, but it is not fundamental. Did you notice the 1949 in my post? When did Einstein write Special Relativity part III? Aw that's enough, you've made up your mind that acceleration causes time dilation, you ignore anything that demonstrates that this is incorrect, you pretend you've read background material but get caught out and make up fatuous reasons as to why you don't need to bother. So just forget it

Yes I have read you essay on TIME EXPLAINED and if what you say about the arrow of time is true then why can’t I grow younger instead of aging? It is far more than just a counting direction. None of us can go back in time because it has a direction, an arrow that allows time to move in only one direction and I believe there is a real physical reason for this.
Don’t throw your toys out the pram. I may not agree with your interpretation of time but that does not mean we cannot discuss time in a sensible manner.

Tony

kwhilborn

Is there an argument that Acceleration does not cause time dilation here?

Not quite, the argument is that velocity is not the reason that time dilates and all experiments on time dilation involve an element of acceleration which ‘indirectly’ accounts for time dilation. I maintain that any unbalanced force acting on an object will cause its time to dilate and this can be measured by how much this force displaces the object in spacetime. When the unbalanced force ceases to act on the object and it is in uniform motion, then time dilation for the object also ceases.


It is a controversial subject that NASA is planning to prove or disprove once and for all. What is wrong with the atomic clock on the plane experiments again?

For a start, there was no account taken of the forces of acceleration taken during take off and landing or any account of acceleration forces due to turbulence.


I accept that velocity and gravity affect perspective times based mostly on those. The longevity of particles or "muons" based on their comparative life expectancy has been attacked a lot, but I am only a reader of these experiments. Helionic waves or whatever.

The GPS answer I thought was the best for non velocity time dilation, however it is true that velocity may be a factor in that.

The two experiments that I feel have proved both Velocity and gravity time dilation are these.

a) the atomic clock in plane experiment.
Inconclusive, too many factors of acceleration where not taken into account.


b) the atomic clocks at high altitudes (no velocity) experiments. This is where clocks have been left atop mountains and eventually are eventually off. The most accurate clocks are atomic clocks, but due to the gravitational redshift, the oscillations of atoms will vary with gravity- that is, their frequency will change depending on the value of the gravitational field they are in. The gravity will affect the frequency of the atoms. Therefore, time runs faster at higher altitudes. Due to the same effect that makes time run faster at higher altitudes, it would run more slowly in a large gravitational field.
Still inconclusive, the clocks had to be moved from where ever to the top of the mountain and during their journey they will experience movement (acceleration) so unless this is also taken into account then the experiment will be flawed as far as my concept of spacetime is concerned.


c) my empoyees seem to work slower when I am in a rush. (this has just been a personal observation and not scientific. lol)
Give them a pay rise, it might speed them up! Also not scientific.


So Einsteins math has withstood some pretty heavy measuring. How can we argue with a theory that makes sense, and stands up to measurements?

The reason I am arguing with Einstein’s view of spacetime is because he never took into consideration the arrow of time. He believed it to be a psychological phenomenon whereas I believe it must have a real physical explanation. He is close to calculating time dilation but never spot on. Yes, his theory does make sense if you view spacetime as a metric but there is another way which can mathematically match Newton’s value for gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true, without using Newton’s gravitational constant. The main difference is that in this new way of viewing spacetime gravity becomes ‘time dependant’ and is not a force that works over an infinite distance.

Tony

Janus58

Again, it is not the local value of the gravity field that results in gravitational time dilation, but the difference in gravtational potential, or relative depth in the field. This is what Einstein's math predicts and the experimental results show. IOW, Einstein predicts that if you had a uniform gravitational field (One where g does not vary with height), two clocks, placed at different heights in that field, will still run at different rates, even though both clocks experience the same g force.

I agree, with Einstein’s view of spacetime that is exactly what might happen but what I am saying is there is no experimental evidence to back up that assumption.

Tony

Janus58







I am sorry Janus58 but I think you may have that the wrong way around. The person on the surface of the Earth will see the observers clock outside the gravitational field beat once every 0.99999999s for every one beat of his own clock, otherwise it would mean that clocks beat faster inside a gravitational field than outside which is not the case.

???? What's the difference between saying the outside observer sees the Earth clock beat 0.99999999 sec for each one of his own, and saying that the Earth observer sees the outside observer's clock beat 1 sec for every .99999999 sec of his own? They both say that the outside observer's clock beats 1 sec for every 0.999999999 sec beat on the Earth clock. IOW, the outside observer's clock beats faster.


Again, the Loretz transformation is close but we are also talking about centripetal acceleration involved here not just velocity. It may we be the rate of acceleration that is causing the effect and not the velocity.

Tony

But, since the ratio of centripetal acceleration to radial velocity changes with the radius of the ring,There is only one radius at which time dilation by centripetal acceleration would give the same results as the time dilation predicted by velocity. Since this experiment gives results that agree with the velocity prediction, this means, that in order for the centripetal acceleration to be the cause, the experiment would had to have used a radius very close to this, by pure chance. Not only that, but every like experiment done since would have had to use that same radius. I find that too unlikely a coincidence.

Janus58


???? What's the difference between saying the outside observer sees the Earth clock beat 0.99999999 sec for each one of his own, and saying that the Earth observer sees the outside observer's clock beat 1 sec for every .99999999 sec of his own? They both say that the outside observer's clock beats 1 sec for every 0.999999999 sec beat on the Earth clock. IOW, the outside observer's clock beats faster.

You stated: Meaning that said removed observer sees 0.999999999 secs pass on the surface of the Earth fro every second he measures.

There is a big difference. If the observer outside of a gravitational field sees the observer’s clock on Earth beat once every 0.99999999 sec for every one beat his own clock then the clock on Earth is beating faster than the clock in space which is not the case. By your statement above you are saying that clocks beat slower in space. Take a closer look at your statement.


But, since the ratio of centripetal acceleration to radial velocity changes with the radius of the ring,There is only one radius at which time dilation by centripetal acceleration would give the same results as the time dilation predicted by velocity. Since this experiment gives results that agree with the velocity prediction, this means, that in order for the centripetal acceleration to be the cause, the experiment would had to have used a radius very close to this, by pure chance. Not only that, but every like experiment done since would have had to use that same radius. I find that too unlikely a coincidence.

Can you give me the details of this experiment? I need to know if they are varying the size of the storage ring in which the muon is accelerated and the velocities involved, the accuracy of the clocks used and the length of time the experiment was run for. Is there public access to this paper because I am having trouble finding it? (Bailey, J. et al., Nature 268, 301 (1977) on muon lifetimes and time dilation.)

Tony

Janus: Just out of interest, is your dilation factor of 0.999999999 calculated? If I look at escape velocity of 11.2 kilometres per second versus c of 300,000 kilometres per second I see that it's roughly 1 in 30,000. One in a hundred thousand is 0.00001 so 1 in 30,000 is about 0.00003. If I take this from one I get 0.99997. All ready reckoning - I haven't worked it out properly so apologies if there's a c squared in there somewhere.

Farsight

I think you will find Janus58 has used t = t'*sqrt(1-(2*G*M/r*c^2)) from GR to calculate the gravitational time dilation.

Tony

I'm no scientist, I should probably get a book or something on science. Anyways my thinking is this, velocity doesn't dilate time, from my understanding space effects time in that a more denser object will shift time around it into dilating from the surrounding normal space. So if you're approaching a dense object in your ship like a pulsar the closer you get the more time will slow outside the boundries of the gravity field. To an observer you might seem to be moving slowly, when infact you are moving exactly the same speed as they are.

This means gravity effects time because space bends more around an object that's more massive. Ahemm... yeah so wouldn't that mean that velocity doesn't change the rate of time but the faster you can move through space? So if I could move from point A to B in say 500 miliseconds and it was 30 light years then redo that and accomplish it in say 2 minutes, in theory the time I was gone should differ. For the person not moving in space that quickly the differences should be vast, and for me seem the same.

So this really means that as you move in space your mass increases, thus the surrounding gravity field is distorted to a point were you move into abnormal time. Instead of a singularity you become that singularity, and then are the cause of gravity being disturbed.

What do you think?

Janus58




You stated: Meaning that said removed observer sees 0.999999999 secs pass on the surface of the Earth fro every second he measures.

There is a big difference. If the observer outside of a gravitational field sees the observer’s clock on Earth beat once every 0.99999999 sec for every one beat his own clock then the clock on Earth is beating faster than the clock in space which is not the case. By your statement above you are saying that clocks beat slower in space. Take a closer look at your statement.

No, you need to look closer. The statement" the removed observer sees 0.99999999 pass on Earth for every sec he measures", means that when his own clock has ticked off 1 sec, the Earth clock has only ticked off 0.999999999 sec by the removed observer's observation,( put another way, when his clock has ticked off 1,000,000,000 seconds, only 999,999,999 seconds have ticked off on Earth; the Earth's clock will be one second behind the Observers.) not that the Earth clock beats at an interval of 0.999999999 sec.




Can you give me the details of this experiment? I need to know if they are varying the size of the storage ring in which the muon is accelerated and the velocities involved, the accuracy of the clocks used and the length of time the experiment was run for. Is there public access to this paper because I am having trouble finding it? (Bailey, J. et al., Nature 268, 301 (1977) on muon lifetimes and time dilation.)

Tony

Here's a link to the nature article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html

uclock

Thanks for the thorough explanation. I'm not equipped to postulate theories, although I do have one more question.

Would not the clock on a hill test still stand up to your theory based on the difference in gravity force.

I can tell from your nick that you have given time a lot of thought. I would like to see your theory in full. Perhaps I missed it in this thread. I will look again.

P.S. to darksidz. Don't forget mass increases with speed.

That's actually what I meant. As the object moves faster it's mass will increase, therefore any surrounding space will have a corresponding change in gravity. This will cause time to dilate around the object even though it's natural mass is essentially the same. The movement through space is the only thing that's really causing this increase though so that's the reason it even occurs.

darksidZz: note that the relativistic mass will increase with velocity. The rest mass or "invariant" mass does not. There's been a lot of debate in physics about which is the best definition to use. I prefer the latter actually, but most people prefer to speak of it as energy. As it happens gravity is the result of energy as well as mass, but there's no "change of gravity in the surrounding space". You can see this if you imagine one mass passing another. The reason we see time dilation in a moving object is perhaps better described in terms of "light clocks" where the light path is like this /\/\/\ instead of this |.

DarksidZz

So this really means that as you move in space your mass increases, thus the surrounding gravity field is distorted to a point were you move into abnormal time. Instead of a singularity you become that singularity, and then are the cause of gravity being disturbed.

What do you think?
An interesting view but what if it is not mass that increases the more you gain velocity but something else such as potential displacement?

Tony

Janus58

No, you need to look closer. The statement" the removed observer sees 0.99999999 pass on Earth for every sec he measures", means that when his own clock has ticked off 1 sec, the Earth clock has only ticked off 0.999999999 sec by the removed observer's observation,( put another way, when his clock has ticked off 1,000,000,000 seconds, only 999,999,999 seconds have ticked off on Earth; the Earth's clock will be one second behind the Observers.) not that the Earth clock beats at an interval of 0.999999999 sec.

I apologise, I misinterpreted your statement.

Here's a link to the nature article:

Thanks, but unfortunately I am not in a position to keep purchasing articles from Nature journals.

I apologise again but I have three questions to ask you.
Was it the ‘On-line isotope mass separator’ that was used for the experiment?
Is it situated in the 2km ring?
Do you happen to know the velocity involved?

I hope I’m not being too bothersome.


Tony

kwilborn

uclock

Thanks for the thorough explanation. I'm not equipped to postulate theories, although I do have one more question.

Would not the clock on a hill test still stand up to your theory based on the difference in gravity force.
Yes I believe it would and I think I can calculate time dilation very accurately inside and outside gravitational fields once my concept of spacetime is calibrated, which can be done with a few drop test experiments.


I can tell from your nick that you have given time a lot of thought. I would like to see your theory in full. Perhaps I missed it in this thread. I will look again.

I have yet to post my concept of spacetime on this site because I wanted to discuss a few aspects of accepted physics first. The problem I seem to find is, I get little or no feedback but that may be due to the quality of physicists, if any, that use these sites.
I do expect an easy ride because the concept is so radical but the math work and work well and the least I expect is an argument against my theory from those who back the mainstream.
I will post my concept of spacetime, including a separate paper on time dilation, at the weekend and I hope there will be a serious discussion of all the consequences of such a radial theory.

P.S. to darksidz. Don't forget mass increases with speed.

Yes, that is correct if you view spacetime as Einstein did.

Tony

Hmmm,

IF (NOTE: Underlined) Mass did not increase with speed, it would open up a "Kettle of worms".

Maybe its "time" for that. lol

Newtons gravity law could be replaced by brush's theory for starters. The Gravity is a push supporters would be happy.

My children are young (Uclock)Tony, so you still have some time if you want them to study YOU when they reach university.

I am not saying I believe it either way, if I have learned anything in physics its that we know a lot less than we do know.

Good-luck.

P.S. O.K. so we've concluded that any experiment involving time dilation is bound to have either acceleration or differing gravitational force, in which you have agreed might "fit" your theory. Sounds like you need a new test. Have they not measured the mass of speeding objects? Anyways, back to my own project. Good-luck

UCLOCK, If you want a very interesting theory in support of your "theory" check out.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=16&t=3067

very interesting (rubs chin).

kwhilborn

Hmmm,

IF (NOTE: Underlined) Mass did not increase with speed, it would open up a "Kettle of worms".

Maybe its "time" for that. Lol

I agree, It never quite seemed right to me that if you constantly accelerate at 9.81m s^-2 mimicking Earth’s gravity that you cannot eventually pass light speed although I understood the reasoning behind it.
I am not saying my concept of TR is correct because it has yet to be tested but if these tests turn out to be in favour of TR then it opens up the possibility of faster than light space travel which will be a good thing.


Newtons gravity law could be replaced by brush's theory for starters. The Gravity is a push supporters would be happy.

If there is one thing I agree with Einstein on that is that gravity is a distortion of spacetime. There is a kind of push, that being spacetime has a sort of natural pressure.


My children are young (Uclock)Tony, so you still have some time if you want them to study YOU when they reach university.

I think that is highly unlikely because it is going to take decades for the physics community to change direction even if the tests of TR are undertaken because it is such a radical view of spacetime. Nice thought though.


I am not saying I believe it either way, if I have learned anything in physics its that we know a lot less than we do know.

Good-luck.

True and thanks, I’ll need it.


P.S. O.K. so we've concluded that any experiment involving time dilation is bound to have either acceleration or differing gravitational force, in which you have agreed might "fit" your theory. Sounds like you need a new test. Have they not measured the mass of speeding objects?

Yes and the conclusion is that mass increases with velocity but if an object does generate its own spacetime field as TR states then it is quite possible that the extra energy absorbed by the object is in the form of potential displacement within its own spacetime field because the field is moving with the object.


Anyways, back to my own project. Good-luck.

And good luck with your own project.


UCLOCK, If you want a very interesting theory in support of your "theory" check out.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?a...er&f=16&t=3067

very interesting (rubs chin).

I’ll try and find the time to check it out properly, thanks again.

Tony