Something is confusing me about time dilation in relativity, and I would appreciate if anyone can help me out. Every time I take a closer look at time dilation I'm finding that it is an unmeasurable phenomena. Let me explain what I mean with this example: Assume you have two atomic clocks, clock A is stationairy on Earth, and clock B is moving at .90c relative to the clock A. Let's look at the situation from clock A's frame of reference: According to relativity, clock A isn't experiencing time dilation or length action because it isn't moving. However, clock B is experiencing time dilation and length contraction because it is moving at .90c. As a result, clock B is running slower than clock A. However, when I break everything down into smaller pieces, it shows clearly that clock B should be ticking at the same rate as clock A regardless of clock B's speed relative to clock A. Let me show you how I came to this result: 1) Clock B is moving at .90c. 2) Since clock B is moving at .90c, it is experiencing time dilation and length contraction. 3) Since clock B is experiencing time dilation and length contraction , the speed of electromagnetic radiation in clock B remains c. (This is the principle of invariance of light). 4) Since the speed of electromagnetic radiation remains c in clock B, the average roundtrip speed of electromagnetic radiation between any two points in clock B remains c. 5) Since the average roundtrip speed of electromagnetic radiation between any two points in clock B remain c, the speed of chemical and physical reactions in the clock don't change since the speed of these reactions are directly related to the speed of electromagnetic radiation. 6) Since the speed of the reactions don't change in clock B, clock B will not tick slower because clock B is not measuring time, it is measuring the speed of the reactions inside the clock. As you can see, if relativity is correct, then atomic clocks (and all other clocks) will tick at the same rate regardless of their speed. However, if relativity is wrong, then a moving clock will tick slower than a stationairy clock (and this has already been confirmed). The mistake that scientists seem to be making is in assuming that clocks measure time. Clocks DO NOT measure time, they measure the speed of physical, chemical, and electromagnetic reactions inside the clock. And relativity indirectly implies that these reactions occur at the same rate in all frames of reference. In conclusion, it appears that if time dilation does exist, it is an unmeasurable property. However, if a moving clock is found to tick slower, then this is evidence that time dilation does not exist and that relativity is wrong. Any feedback is appreciated. Tom
Phrenetic, If you're stating that relativity doesn't make sense, then I agree. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you're stating that part of my post doesn't make sense, please point the part out, so that I can explain it in more detail. Tom
Hello to all. New here. My first post. So I expect to get hammered but here goes: Most people and far to many scientist and educated people go about life believing Einsteins Relativity is absolutely valid and they misapply the theory which places undue limits on our physics and thoughts about what we can ultimately achieve. The perfect example is "Time Dilation": According to Relativity time slows down with an increase in relative velocity. First let me say that I am well aware of the tests and discoveries that tend at first glance to verify such effect on time. 1 - Atomic clocks flown around in airplanes or taken into space have returned with a loss of time. 2 - Muons and MuMesons (cosmic radiation from outer space) penetrates earths atmosphere and reaches earths surface when they should, based on their statistical half life, vanish before traveling that far. They appear to have had time slowed down by their velocity. Unfortunately, neither of the above support Relativity. 1 - Relativity dictates that all motion is relative. That is there is no such thing as absolute motion. All motion is in reference to some other body. This underlying postulate dictates that it is equally valid to view a rocket in space as being stationary (at rest) and that the earth is receeding away from the rocket. That is not my interpretation - It is the foundation established by Relativity. With that being the case the idea that flying a clock around in a plane caused it to lose time due to relative velocity with earth is wholly unfounded. The pilots could have and should have returned and demanded that the earth bound clock should have slowed not theirs. On the one hand relativity says that the rocket has no velocity in of itself and therefore there is no basis for time to change. Simply because you happen to be watching from earth does not effect the clocks physics. If so what happens to the clock if there are three different observers, one on earth and two in space but traveling at a different velocities? c is the velocity of light in space and for comparison = 1. Lets take a look: te is time earth, tr1 is time relative to earth at v = 20% c and tr2 is time relative to earth at 30% c tr1 = (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 = (1 - (.2/1)^2)^.5 = (1 - .04)^.5 = (.96)^.5 = .97979 or 1 - .97979 = .0202 = 2.02% loss relative to te. tr2 = (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 = (1 - (.3/1)^2)^.5 = (1 - .09)^.5 = (.91)^.5 = .95394 or 1 - .95394 = .0461 = 4.61% loss relative to te. Delta Space Clocks = (4.61 - 2.02) = 2.586 % However, Relativity also says that the two space ships have Relavistic effect due to their relative velocity. Lets look at them. tr2 velocity is .3c and tr1 is .2c. Delta velocity is .3 - .2 = .1 c. What is the time difference between tr1 and tr2? tr2 = (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 = (1 - .1/1)^2)^.5 = (1-.01)^.5 = (.99)^.5 = .994987 or 1-.995 = .005 = 0.5% loss relative to tr1. OR I can say tr1 = xxxxxxxx 0.5% loss relative to tr2. If both clocks are return to the same velocity how can both or either have a .5% loss to each other?. In the first example we established that the delta time (time difference between space clocks) would be 2.586% but Relativity requires that the time difference only be 1/2%!!!! Both sets of data are based on valid inertial system Relavistic calculations. If you can explain to me how when these clocks are returned to earth that they will simultaneously show TWO DIFFERENT losses between them and te or each be slower than the other then you win. If you can't I win. On this issue UniKEF agrees with Relativity in that under certain conditions, i. e. - increasing gravity or centrifugal force, that there is a loss of time. But UniKEF can find no mechanisim whereby simple relative velocity can produce such an effect and Relativity upon analysis falls flat. It is invalid. Time does not slow down if you go flying around in space. You do not come back younger than your kids or grand kids. It just doesn't happen. Why the observations of muons and clocks flown in planes show any effect is not clear. What is clear is that it is not RELATIVE VELOCITY. MacM Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is called the "twin paradox," and has to be the most commonly misunderstood basic example of relativity theory. Many people mistakenly believe that it is unexplainable and demonstrates that relativity is wrong. However, it's actually one of the most basic problems studied in a basic course on relativity. Read up: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html - Warren
If you read a book, you'd understand immediately why this interpretation is wrong. Yes, c is the same in every frame of reference. Rather than disproving time dilation, this postulate is actually what leads to the derivation of time dilation. Until you actually invest at least a bit of time trying to actually learn how relativity works, I'm not going to take your anti-relativity posts very seriously anymore. You owe it to yourself to actually learn what you're talking about. - Warren
Prosoothus, Shouldn't it be that clock B is seen to show time-dilation and length contraction by its relative stationary observer - in this case Clock A; rather than actually experiencing time-dilation and length contraction? If I'm not mistaken, an observer riding along with Clock B will not experience any time-dilation nor length contraction. Therefore, in the Clock B's frame of reference, everything appears normal.
My bit I just wanted to throw my two cents in here, because I'm no more the hack or quack than most of you. Relativity, Special or General, came to be theories from real evidence and all physics that suggest the relativity they define. 1) Time is a function of motion. 2) Space is the domain of motion. 2) All objects in motion through space at different velocities move through time at a different rate. (Space is everywhere, not just outside our atmosphere, gravity, or magnetic field.) 4) Time-dilation should be no more peculiar than gravity: to suggest that a relative velocity changes the flow of time is no more counterintuitive than to say distance from an object changes the force of gravity. 5) Between object A and object B, there is a true relative velocity. Object A cannot be at the same velocity as Object B, if there is a change in distance between them. The origin of Object A is different than Object B. One object is always at a lower relative velocity than another, unless they share origins, and there is no change in distance between them. 6) We have not found any 'direction' for the flow of time. What is apparent, if all theories of relativity hold true, is that time has a certain rate, and that rate is relative to all velocities, and most importantly, the absolute speed of light. 7) If time has a certain rate, it may suggest time has a certain direction, or shape. Imagine time as a radial energy, traveling the speed of light in all directions, from the origin of our Universe, or the epicenter of all celestial motion. Or, imagine time as a function of motion, where the origin of motion is the origin of time, and all motion is therefore relative. 8) As we change our direction and velocity, we change the flow of time in our space. 9) This is no more preposterous than any suggestion of aether or other hack theory. I personally like it better, because it defines the reasoning behind relativity, without putting new caveats and intangible limits on reality.
Relative Motion IF ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE THEN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE MOTION. How do you propose to limit what you say doesnot exist. Ref: Velocity Addition Formula.
Re: Relative Motion USING ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOU SOUND MORE AUTHORITATIVE. There is only one "absolute" velocity in relativity theory -- c. For the last time. - Warren
What does this mean? IF ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE THEN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE MOTION. How do you propose to limit what you say doesnot exist. Ref: Velocity Addition Formula. <HR> If all motion is relative, it suggests the medium of time is relative to all motion. If time has a limit of motion, it is probably c. Therefore, all motion in some respect, is relative to c. You mentioned firing a gun forward toward the front of a ship. If I am moving at .99c, and you fire a gun at me, the bullet will strike me at the full implied relative velocity. But, remember, time has dilated to such an extent, that your bullet is actually only traveling a few inches per minute, when viewed by an outside observer. Therefore, you only add some infintesimally small amount of velocity to .99c, because your bullet, in reality, is only traveling some one tenthousandth its implied velocity, and when that velocity is added to c, it means virtually nothing.
CAPS Thought maybe you couldn't read the fine print. When you going to get it through your head that what you are calling the absolute limit is the RELATIVE limit? There is and can be no ABSOLUTE limit. And that my friend is in accordance to Relativity straight out of the book.
Right You read me right. Now you go copy a paragraph or two out of a Relativity book and post it here that says otherwise.
Re: Right Uhh.. actually I didn't read you right. In fact, most of the things you keep saying don't make any real sense. In relativity, all observers measure c the same. This means that c is the only "absolute" velocity, because you don't need to also provide a frame in order to precisely define it. In what sense is c relative? Try to use the scientific definitions of words, please. - Warren
Good Good. But I believe it is you that have terms twisted. Relative velocity has always been relative velocity and there IS a v = c limit relavistically. But your problem with Relativity is the Velocity Addition Formula which Einstein added for the sake of makeing his theory whole and it is it that causes your problems. He added it just as he added the Universal Constant to make the Universe steady state - He was wrong there and I state he was wrong with the VAF. Eliminate the VAF and most of Relativities problems go away and current observations - such as quasar velocities of 5,200c are no longer a problem. What I believe happens at v = c is that Lorentz Contraction (which also does exist relavistically) simply phases you out of this dimension and you cintinue to propogate at higher energy in a continuation of our universe at a higher energy level. That is I see a physics limit. At or beyond v = c you no longer have a physical link but you would still exist to other common observers such as a third observer traveling at 50%c to each of the primary observers. This view fits current observation and lack the conflicts with reality that current Relativity presents. Fluidity: If this is correct it means the bullet hits you full force, just as yu see it and the bullet ceases to exist to the earth observer. The earth obserber can't affect the gun and bullet physics. The VAF is a flase premis.
Re: Good The modification of the velocity addition formula from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics is not some haphazard "addition" -- it's derived directly from the Lorentz transforms, which were first discovered in Maxwell's equations, and later verified to be a result of the fact that light always travels at c in all frames of reference. If you believe that light always travels at c, the special relativistic velocity addition formula is an immediate consequence. Could you provide some more information about this "problem?" Are you refering to the so-called "superluminal jets?" If so, it's just a geometrical situation. Well, now, this abject speculation about phasing out of dimensions into higher energy level and so on is totally out of the realm of physics. Unless of course you can design an experiment to observe one of these bodies doing what you describe. Welcome to BubbleLand. I'm sorry, but you're just displaying your own lack of understanding here. No matter how many times you jump up and down and chant "RELATIVITY HAS CONFLICTS AND PARADOXES," it still isn't true. There are no internal inconsistencies in relativity. - Warren
Problem You identified the problem but don't recognize it. Your assumption that the velocity of light is always c. It apear to be c, I accept that but that can easily be only an illusion and not reality. The production of light can be a quantum energy function relative to the Chiral Condensate, your velocity (energy) relative to the light source alters the production of light making it appear constant. Dimension and time and Lorentz have no bearing anymore and the emputus of Relativity vanish. All current observations are better served in that view. These are not fully formed theories, they are alternate thoughts and what their implications are. The implications are we are better served without Relativity and Strings (11) dimensional universes (all mathematical contrivancies) and go back to studying actual physics of physical enities.
Re: Problem The logical positivist philosophy, of which science is but one example, believes that what is real is what you can measure. There is no such thing as an "illusion." 100% steaming bull shit. Oh wait, it's all wrong simply because you say so?!? Great! The why don't you leave the construction of fully-formed theories to those people who are actually capable of constructing them? It sounds to this physicist like you are in need of a great deal more education -- if you can put aside your grandiose ego long enough to let someone else show you reality. - Warren
