Experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation

Ned,

1) My research indicates that acceleration alone has zero effect on the time dilation due to velocity:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html

2) The symmetry is broken by transforming frames. The acceleration itself is not the culprit. You must change velocity to change frames, and it just happens that in this universe acceleration is associated with velocity change.

3) If you go to the moon now, you see the earth as it is now. But your question is interesting. Anything that has been on the moon (like moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions) have been aging less than the earths frame by a certain amount.

Let's see...

If we assume the moon orbits at 240000 miles (386000000 meters) and has always been at that distance (which it hasn't) and its orbital velocity has always been about 1000m/s and the earth/moon system is roughly 4.5e9 years old, I get a time dilation (the moon rocks are behind similar rocks on earth) by about 220 hours or 9 days. Not too much.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1) 2) Okay, good enough for me. I was just afraid that there might be some asymmetric time dilation, which would mess up your experiment to find symmetric time dilation.

3) Nine days isn't much, but the moon and its rocks should not be trying to orbit an earth that is nine days back along its orbital path around the sun. It would make its orbit unstable.

So, when we brought the moon rocks to earth, and they changed frames, did they age nine days along the way? I suppose it doesnt matter much with rocks, but if they were clocks, that would be quite a neat trick.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. If they were clocks, they would be 9 days behind ours on return to the earth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, so where is reciprocity?

 

MacM,

If earth rocks were clocks, and we took them to the moon's frame, they would be 9 days behind the moon rock clocks! And you knew I was going to say that anyway. Did you expect something different? It's just the "twin paradox" spread out over 4.5 billion years. Right? Such is the madness of SRT.

 

I have an idea for the motion hardware that should be relatively (pun) easy to implement. I shall draw a picture.

 

You need to justify that. There is not one shred of evidence to support that conclusion and there are thousands of data sets that say that is not the case.

Ditto.

Don't think you want to argue for the "Twin Paradox" and "Reciprocity" in the same thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ummm... I think we know our differences re reciprocity and that's what the experiment is about. Yes? I'm not arguing or justifying anything in this thread. You asked a question and I gave you my SRT answer.

Anyway, here's an idea for the spinning clocks setup:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This can be built fairly easily.

- It requires no track at the outside diameter
- Simple aluminum tubing and steel cabling
- C2 can be mounted anywhere along the radius

There are lots of farms around me. In the winter there are huge flat fields all over the place.

Suggestions?

 

Yes.

Form two closed cable loops where C1 and C2 are on opposite side of the device and the counter weights are on the opposite side attached to the other half of its control cable.

In this fashion you can keep the unit balanced an yet move both independantly from center to the rim simultaneously showing that each operate in a particular fashion under the exact same conditions.

Then run a series of relative velocity tests with i.e. - C2 at the rim and C1 moved to different positions along the radius, after collecting your data at each position.

When C1 and C2 are both at the rim you could then begin to bring C2 in reversing the test.

 

Good idea. Done.

Actually, very good idea. By running C1 at the rim followed by C2 (reversing the test) any data artifact that follows one or the other timing unit can be subtracted out as a bias in the electronics. It will then be a true differential measurement as you subtract out the "noise" signal associated with differences in each electronics package.

 

Now we must specify some motor properties.

The speed is no problem. RPM's are at about 15. I think the torque is the most important factor at this point. A DC motor suggests itself since they typically have higher torque ratings and are generally easier to speed-control than AC motors.

The torque required will be a function of the wind resistance of the electronics packages, counter weights, and radial arm/cabling as they move with a rotational velocity that increases to 157m/s at the rim. The whole assembly can be spun up very slowly.

For simplicity sake I will assume the resistance is all at the rim and estimate a total crossectional area for the complete rotating assembly. This will give a torque number more than sufficient to run the actual configuration.

 

Can I suggest that a modified stereo vinyl disc turntable might have some use....especially if it has a strobe rpm light and direct drive.

 

superluminal, I really do like your willingness to test SRT. That has always been a concern of mine in accepting the theory. The 'proofs' often cited in literature turn
out to be ambigeous and inconclusive when examined in detail. One is often required
to accept some 'assumption' if they are to agree SR is supported. I like your experiment. You are actually thinking, working on a real proof. I really believe the
symmetry (reciprocity) you are seeking to prove will not be shown, but if it is, I will
certainly admit I was wrong. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong something! If
the reciprocity IS shown, I will no longer question SRT, that would serve as a proof
of its validity for me. How could anyone question SRT then?
The link you provided in your first post about the clock postulate was also a great help
to me. I remembered reading it early in my study of SRT, but my understanding of SRT
and GR was just beginning and I had forgotten the details. The clock postulate eliminates the need for my proposed experiment of an atomic clock on a large centrifuge. Seems other physicist here were not familiar with the clock postulate either, as they believed mechanical acceleration itself slowed clocks the same as gravitational
acceleration (location in gravitational potential). I was of the opinion that mechanical
acceleration DID NOT affect clock tick rates. Something else cleared up. Anyway, I
just wanted to say I admire your efforts superluminal.

 

Cost and power can be reduced by installing a nacelle around the units and/or radial arm.

 

Yes. I tried to show that a bit by chamforing the edges of the 'pods' in the drawing. Are you familiar with calculating wind resistance as a function of velocity and crossectional area (we EE's don't do that too much)? Plus the reductions one can expect with a nacelle or cowling of a given shape? You do work with wind turbines right?

QQ... I'm not sure if you are being serious here. Please help?

 

2inq,

Thanks very much! I never thought I would have to do this when I started looking for evidence of reciprocity. I'm still amazed that there isn't some common knowledge of an experiment that was done with sats or something. So this looks like an oppurtunity to add a tiny bit to the human knowledge base.

Again, to all, I have no problem scrapping the whole existing plan if there is a simpler alternative. I have some refinements that will eliminate the RF transceivers. I will post them shortly for discussion.

 

Isn’t this true? . . . C1 [and C2 spinning around C1] is on Earth moving at relative velocity in relation to the Sun, which is spinning at a relative velocity to the center of the Milkyway, which is moving at a relative velocity to. . . etc.

Are you suggesting that C2’s time-transmissions will reveal a compression [in relation to C1’s] in the direction of C2’s movement? I don’t think it will.

IF:
The initial velocity of C1; or actually anything; is unknown [or even possibly unknowable] before C2 [whose initial velocity is exactly the same] begins moving around C1. I am assuming C1 is Earth bound [and so is in motion already] and in a sense C2 is [relatively speaking] from an outside reference [or observer]; appears to have the same relative speed; that of C1. Its spinning motion around C1 doesn’t appear to be anything at all - only the forward velocity hurtling through space is observed from an outside reference-frame as to its relative velocity - and not it’s spinning motion.

In fact to an outside [not Earth bound] observer behind C1, C2; the relative velocity of C2 could even appear, at times, to speed up and slow down as the Earth spins - moving slower at times than C1 and faster at times than C1.

So what is the velocity of C1 relative to C2? To a nearby observer it appears C2 is faster, to a far away observer they are exactly the same, to one Behind both - C2 is at times slower, then at times C2 is faster.

Maybe there is something about your experiment that I just don’t understand?

 

itopal,

Thanks for the input.

Why yes, yes it is.

Not at all. This is not an isotropy experiment. SRT suggests rather strenuously though that two objects with a relative velocity between them (v) will each observe the other as dilated by gamma, based on v.

The observers in this case are C1 and C2. From C1's rest frame C2 (and everything else in the universe) is moving. From C2's rest frame the reverse is true. The velocity of C1 relative to C2 is 157m/s (if C2 is at the center). Rotational velocity and linear velocity (rotational velocity is the instantaneous linear velocity of an object constrained to move in a circle) are equivalent in the calculation 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

I think you need to review your understanding of frames of reference. I believe JamesR has a thread dedicated to this...

Also true.

 

OK true - my assumption was false - the outside observer was my mistake.

Isn't gamma time-dilation already verified? As in gamma-rays?

So maybe you’re talking about creating an experiment [device] that can show gamma [dilation] at real-world speeds, ones way under light-speed?

If that's the idea then the critical issue is OPM.

Don't waste your own if you can waste someone else’s money.

 

itopal,

Nothing to do with gamma rays. That's just a greek letter they happened to choose for both.

Time dilation as calculated by gamma:

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

is throughly proven. However the simultaneous observation of BOTH clocks as being observed dilated has never, as far as anyone I've contacted, knows (universities, NASA, etc...).

Yes the experiment is meant to show mutual observed dilation at acheivable speeds for some guys with a motor, some aluminum tubing, and some cables.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m:

The dilation will be very small so the electronics has to be very well calibrated and characterized prior to any actual measurements (we're talking 10 or 11 billionths of a second here...)