Experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by superluminal, Apr 11, 2005.

  1. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Am I the only one who is having difficulties because of the idea that the 'moving' reference frame of C1 has to be transmitting data from sometime in the future to the 'rest' frame of R?

    At t=86400 sec (=24 hours) we have:

    In reference frame C1:
    C1=t
    C2=t-11.843e-9 sec

    In reference frame R:
    C1=t-11.843e-9 sec
    C2=t

    Does this not require that the observation cannot be done live, but in fact must be replayed somehow? Perhaps a memory buffer should be included so that the digital data is transmitted on a delay.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    What do you think? If I run the test with no C2 in the centrifuge and C1 registers a given time dilation and then I run the same test but with C2 in the centrifuge and C1 doesn't change what does that tell you about SRT?.

    No relative velocity affect and no reciprocity. Your belief in SRT requires a differance of result in such tests in the presence or absence of C2.

    And the fog clears? Your reply seems to suggest you now think C1 will tick at the same rate regardless of surroundings and tick as a function of it's velocity relative to the axis of rotation only. That seems very much in agreement with my view.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (this is based on a test where C1 is partially out on the radial arm such that it has velocity for comparison.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2005
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    ...then there is some unknown effect at work. No model that I know of predicts such a thing.

    Rubbish.
    You must be talking about a different SRT.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Perhaps your understanding of what I think is maturing.

    I think that SRT suggests that the rate at which C1 ticks is frame dependent.
    I think that SRT suggests that the measurement of C1's tick rate depends on the frame in which it is measured (as well as other mentioned things which I'm not familiar with that specifically affect crystal oscillators).
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Really. You then deny that Relative velocity and reciprocity affects actual clock tick rates? You aren't making much sense. This test is supposed to demonstrate that C1 is responsive to C2's velocity in that we have SRT claiming affects from relative velocity including reciprocity and yet you now claim that the presence of another clock makes no changes????

    You cannot have it both ways.

    I think you need to explain yourself on this. C1 is either affected by relative velocity and reciprocity as adocated by SRT or it isn't. I claim it isn't but that C1 and C2 will tick at appropriate rates considering their specific velocity to the common rest referance of the rotating axis. Both independant of the presence or relative velocity of any other clocks.

    Superluminal,

    You are the designer of this test. Your intention is to prove SRT. I think you will prove my concept but that is why I hope you actually do the test because the results seem most obvious.

    Let me ask you a question. "Should you find that C1 ticks as a function only of it's specific velocity relative to the rotating axis and has no response to the presence or relative velocity of any other clocks at the same time in the experiment, what would your conslusions be?"
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2005
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    I don't know what you mean by "Reciprocity".
    I don't deny that tick rates are frame dependent, as I said in my previous post.

    Nope. This test is supposed to demonstrate that C1's tick rate is different in a frame with some relative velocity. This is what SR predicts. Note that the "frame with some relative velocity" exists whether there is anything at rest in that frame or not.

    Now you're getting what SRT actually says. Congratulations!


    My prediction is this (I'm imposing a bit here... this is superluminal's experiment, and his goals might be slightly different):
    C1 will receive C2's 1.3 GHz signal as a slightly lower frequency than it's own 1.3GHz signal.
    C2 will receive C1's 1 GHz signal as a slightly lower frequency than it's own 1 GHz signal.

    Translation:
    C2 says that C1's clock is running slow
    C1 says that C2's clock is running slow

    Further translation:
    C1's clock runs slow in C2's rest frame.
    C2's clock runs slow in C1's rest frame.


    Please read the last two lines bearing in mind that any frame exists regardless of the presence or absence of any object.
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    No the congratulations are yours. You have not only missed the point of Superluminals test you have missed a critical assumption of SRT which this test will falsify. (SL thinks he can verify).

    Nobody disagrees that C1 and C2 will display different tick rates moving at different velocities. You need to catch up on the SRT debate.

    Congratulations you have now discovered the term reciprocity. Which the test BTW will disprove I am glad to say.

    Correct. But keep in mind that this is not the issue. You have just described a "Perception of clock tick rate and have not tested for the recorded actual tick rates of the clocks.

    The arguement has been that the perception you presented is hysical reality and translates to C1 and C2 physically running slower, hence accumulating less time than each other.

    I also contest the claim of "Percieved" reciprocity but that is a seperate issue not being gone into here.

    What the test should show is that each ticks at a particular rate as a function of it's motion regardless of any other clocks presence or relative velocity. That physical reciprocity is a falsity, hence the Twins Paradox is a fraud (regarding relative velocity components of the trip).
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2005
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I would predict only one clock will dilate. Becasue the axis of rotation is held abitarilly still regard Earths frame. To get the deisred reciprication the axis of roatation must be in free space so that it can be concluded that either frame can be orbiting depending on your perspective.

    But as it is, only one frame can be considered as orbiting due to it's earth bound nature.

    Correct me if I am wrong but the thought experiments using rotating reference frames can only have symmetry if each frame can be considered as equally at rest with the other frame orbting it.

    Clearly the center of axis is unchanging when you switch to the other clock so there fore the result will be non-mutual dilations.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You are correct with one notation. If C1 is located part way out the radial arm such that it has velocity, both will show degrees of dilation relative to the central rest axis of rotation clock "R" as a function of their own velocity unaffected by the presence or velocity of any other clocks during the experiment.

    Equally important to this debate is the fact that computations of "Relative Velocity" between C2 and C1 will not produce a result in agreement with an SRT calculated dilation between them.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I would agree, however C1 will see that C2 [clock closer to R] will be faster and not slower as wanted simply because to get reciprication the ceneter of axis has to also be in a recipricating position.....where C1 is closer to the axis "R" than C2 as currently shown.

    My thoughts only....
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I think we have some confusion. As I recall the sketch (I'll look back and verify) He has C1 in the center and C2 orbitng. My suggestion was to move C1 out of th center to a mid position along the radius of the centrifuge.

    I don't follow your exchanging of the positions having C1 see C2 faster because it is closer?
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You seem to straddle the fence. Wanting to claim the perception but avoid James R's fatal flaw of claiming physical reality of accumulated time change on clocks.

    Dollar to a doughnut when somebody actually tests SRT they will find no such reciprocity of the perception either. If A sees B slow B will see A fast just as we should expect. But that is for another debate.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I agree In this test this would be the result. The furthest clock will see the median clock as ticking faster. The median clock will see teh furthest clock ticking Slower. No reciprication is present simpley because the change in frame perspective is impossible to do with out changing the axis position.
     
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    What is this assumption of which you speak?

    Actually, SRT says they will have the same tick rate in a frame in which the two clocks have equal and opposite velocities.

    For example, if another device C3 with 1GHz and 1.3GHz receivers wa spinning on another apparatus at the same rate, in phase, with parallel axis, but at half the radius of C2, SRT suggests that device C3 would record that C1 and C2 were equally slow.

    Somehow I get the feeling that you read a lot more into "reciprocity" than what I said.

    You predict that the test will disprove it.

    What I have described is more than perception, because the measurements described are an accurate representation of reality in the measurer's frame.
    Try this: SRT predicts that when C1 is brought into C1's rest frame (ie stops spinning), less time will have elapsed on C2 than C1 (I think this is not actually being tested here directly, but it seems an obvious conclusion unless clock C1 send a heap of signals to catch up as it is brought to rest). This is a real, physical difference, is it not?


    What do you mean by "should"? Is this your personal prediction, or the prediction of some model?

    I don't know why you seem to think that anyone regards the presence or absence of any other clock at any velocity as significant. Where do you get these misconceptions?

    SRT simply predicts that in this test:
    1) R will receive a negative count from C1, indicating that C1's 1.3GHz counter has accumulated more ticks than C1's 1.3GHz receiver
    2) R will receive a negative count from C2, indicating that C2's 1GHz counter has accumulated more ticks than C2's 1GHz receiver.

    If you predict that the test will not show this result, that's fine.

    If you think that SRT predicts something different again, then we still have a problem.
     
  18. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Actually, scrap that last post. I've got some things wrong.
    I think that C1 will not see C2 running slow after all.

    In this case C1 and C2 are both at the same position in the direction of motion, meaning that simultaneity will actually be maintained between the two frames. This means that if one clock sees the other run slow, the other must see the first run fast.

    Therefore, C1 will see C2 run fast.

    My last two posts contain facutal errors.


    SRT predicts that in this test:
    1) R will receive a positive count from C1, indicating that C1's 1.3GHz counter has accumulated more ticks than C1's 1.3GHz receiver
    2) R will receive a negative count from C2, indicating that C2's 1GHz counter has accumulated more ticks than C2's 1GHz receiver.

    Interpretation:
    C2 says that C1's clock is running slow
    C1 says that C2's clock is running fast

    Further translation:
    C1's clock runs slow in C2's rest frame.
    C2's clock runs fast in C1's rest frame.

    I'm guessing that GR could say something about this in a different way...
    In C1's rest frame, there is a pseudo-gravitational field (the centrifugal force) poiting radially away from C1. This means that C1 is higher in the pseudo-gravitational field, making its time faster.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    We agree assuming you understand that the further out clock is assumed to have a higher velocity as in having equal angular velocity, etc. Recalling that in this test these are not merely orbiting clocks but are moving on a rail system as initially proposed and as such they could have independant velocities where C1 would move faster than C2.
     
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I think now we can agree.
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    So in summation, is there any expectation of observing reciprical dilation, ie. that both clocks will see the other as slower?
     
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Not fucking ONE.
     
  23. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Hi Mac,
    Are you accepting that C1 will run physically slower than C2?
    I thought you were of the impression that this was only a perception?
     

Share This Page