I've been reading some old posts, and came across Superluminal's experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation. I see it was started about three months ago. So have you done (or started doing) the experiment yet? I ntoice that one problem he was having was deciding whether the mutual observed time dilation would be equal (reciprocal), because one frame was non-inertial, and the other wasn't (as in the original design), or at least didn't have the same acceleration as the first one (as in the modified design later). I don't know whether you've solved it, but if you place both the clocks on the circumference, then their accelerations will be equal, thus making the dilation equal, no matter what, and, there will still be a relative velocity, whose magnitude comes out to be, v = 2rωsin(φ/2) Where ω is the angular speed, and φ is the angular difference between the radius vectors of C1 and C2. Of course, v would be maximum (2rω ) when φ=π. Which makes it easier from the experiment point of view too, since there would be more balance when C1 and C2 are placed at opposite ends. I don't know anything much about electronics, and so, can't say whether this will be very feasible. But I theoretically, this is better because the relative velocity would be greater in this model than the earlier one. A difference of rω to be exact. As to how to put this into practice, comments, anyone?
I won't speak for SL but I believe he concluded his experiment would be a failure and has given up on SRT debates. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'll only note that "Mutual Dilation" is not being contested. It is "Reciprocity" that he sought to prove and is contested.
Read the thread which prompted SL to starat that thread and read the discussions in the thread. SL wrongfully termed reciprocity as being "Mutual Dilation".
Sorry AER but you are grossly mistaken. MacM has not made up the term reciprocity. It is inherent and advocated by SRT. I show why reciprocity is false by using three frames. ******************************************************************************************************** http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm Given this definition of inertial reference frames, the principle of relativity asserts that for any material particle in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame - called the rest frame of the particle - with respect to which the particle is instantaneously at rest (i.e., the change of the spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is zero). This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. The existence of this class of reference frames, and the viability of the principles of relativity and reciprocity, are inferred from experience. Once these principles have been established, the relationship between relatively moving inertial coordinate systems can then be considered. ***************************************************************************
I never said you made up the term reciprocity. But you are the first person I've ever seen say "mutual dilation" so in my world, you made up that term.
I may be the first person you have seen use it but I certainly didn't make it up. Mutual Dilation differs from Reciprocity in that MD means both slow equally and hence you would not record any time dilation between two such clocks, although they both would tick different than a third clock which was at rest monitoring them. This is represented by a case of co-moving particles for example. Two muons approaching earth, etc. Reciprocity is an SRT term and is the predicitions that clock A runs slower than clock B at the same time as clock B runs slow than clock A.
Okay, I don't see what's wrong in using the term mutual dilation. Even someone who sees it for the first time (like me) will be able to understand what it means.
MacM's first statement is correct. After reviewing this with members here and in other forums, the consensus was that the non-inertial nature of the experiment would not test what we were looking for, i.e. SRT's prediction of Mutual Observed Dilation-MOD (whatever you want to call it), under inertial conditions. However, his second statement is, I believe, incorrect. The experiment was intended to demonstrate the "I say your clock is dilated, while you say my clock is dilated" effect. I researched this, including contacting NASA and several universities. To my amazement, this apparently simple test has never been explicitly carried out, although all agreed that it must happen. Whatever you wish to call it (Mutual Observed Dilation-MOD) that is all I was looking for and that is stated explicitly in the experiment description - The "I say your clock is dilated, while you say my clock is dilated" effect". I am certain that MacM feels SRT requires a "physical" dilation such that both clocks "simultaneously" and "physically" each read less than the other, which would indeed be nonsense (and believes that was what I was looking for!?). The fact that in my rest frame I measure your clock to be running slow and from your rest frame you measure my clock to be running slow is an indication that we occupy very different spacetime coordinate frames and is resolved easily with a spacetime diagram. Space and time are different for each of us. The only statements you can make regarding both clocks, that have any coherent "physical" meaning wrt each other, is when they are both in the same frame, and then there will be no ambiguity. Just my humble opinion of course. Have fun with it.
Nail meet head. This is precisely where MacM's logic fails. He attempts to superimpose his absolute nature of space-time onto special relativity.
Rosnet, I think the problem is that no matter where you place the clocks in a rotating frame, they are never inertial, and that is all SR deals with - uniform motion. You would clearly be testing some aspect of SR but modified by GR somehow? I'm not a physicist and can't reconcile the non-inertial effects such that it would yield a significant result regarding MOD. Any physicists out there want to weigh in?
Aer, Yes. I was involved in debates of this sort with Mac and others for months and now have moved on to the simpler task of debating religion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m:
My boss just asked me why I was laughing...thanks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would have to look at your setup - maybe I'll dig it up later. But what specifically are you saying is the source of the problem? Is the problem anything to do with the gravitional field or is it a problem with considering orbiting clocks in general (that is, assume a vaccum).
You mean the problem with the experiment itself? The clocks are not in an inertial frame as SR requires. They experience constant acceleration and a changing velocity vector (duh!). We all agreed that this, therefore, would be an invalid test and would not show mutual dialtion. Remember, the clocks are not orbiting. They are under a strong continuous centripetal acceleration. Gravity has nothing to do with it since both clocks are at the same point in the gravity well.
I've never seen your setup, so I had no basis to make assumptions - I was just throwing out ideas. Anyway, I'll take a look.
Unfortunately this is not the case. Mutual Dilation IS NOT Reciprocity. In mutual dilation each dilates equally and there is no systemic measureable time dilation between such clocks. That is easy to demonstrate and has been observed numerous times. Co-moving muons for example. Reciprocity is not my invention and I have not put my interpretation on it. It is a fact inherent and advocated by SRT where each clock runs slower (is time dilated) relative to the other and it is indeed total nonsense. ******************************************************************************************************** http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm Given this definition of inertial reference frames, the principle of relativity asserts that for any material particle in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame - called the rest frame of the particle - with respect to which the particle is instantaneously at rest (i.e., the change of the spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is zero). This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. The existence of this class of reference frames, and the viability of the principles of relativity and reciprocity, are inferred from experience. Once these principles have been established, the relationship between relatively moving inertial coordinate systems can then be considered. *************************************************************************** This condition is brought about by the false idea that all inertial motion is at an equivelent rest. (That is to assume no absolutes exist). In such a case each assumes to be at rest and all motion is relagated to the other as well as all relavistic affects. Since each is inertial and each assumes an equal rest reciprocity is the result. The facts are and emperical data supports the fact that all inertial motion is not equivelent. That is relative velocity between clocks may be comprised of each having some component inertial motion relative to their initial common inertial rest and in such cases the time dilation is not based on total relative velocity and reciprocity does not occur.
