Timeline for Does special relativity imply that time dilation is affected by an orientation of clocks?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2019 at 14:13 | history | edited | user4552 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
spelling
|
| Dec 20, 2019 at 13:20 | answer | added | Mohammad Javanshiry | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 1, 2018 at 19:59 | vote | accept | Alex Burtsev | ||
| Feb 1, 2018 at 17:52 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 1, 2018 at 6:00 | answer | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 1, 2018 at 1:56 | answer | added | robphy | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 1, 2018 at 1:49 | comment | added | WillO | @safesphere: I think I have a pretty track strong record of accepting constructive criticisms when I'm wrong, but in this case you've failed to convince me. You say the independence of the angle is due to the length contraction. I prefer to say exactly the opposite: The length contraction is due to the independence of the angle (which in turn is due to relativity). I like my way better, because yours raises the question: Then what is the length contraction due to? And the answer is still going to come back to: relativity, just as mine does. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 23:18 | comment | added | safesphere | @WillO Agreed that the postulates are virtually equivalent to the Minkowski metric, but the question is to show the clock independence of the angle. The answer "because it is relative" states that somehow relativity should ensure this, but does not explain how it works out in the remote frame and doesn't even suggest that it is due to the length contraction. A good answer should show the way the math works out. This is why my post was only a comment. Also, respectfully, you should use a constructive criticism as an opportunity to improve instead of fighting that you are always right :) | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 17:24 | comment | added | WillO | @safesphere: You are taking it as given that allowable transformations must preserve the geometry of Minkowski space. I am taking it as given that Einstein's postulates hold. These are essentially equivalent starting points. One can derive the length contraction in the language of geometry or in the language of the Einstein postulates; either way, the reasoning is the same (though expressed differently). If I'm saying "this is so because relativity says so", you are saying "this is so because preservation of the metric says so" ---- but then we are saying the same thing. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 16:54 | comment | added | safesphere | @WillO I respectfully disagree. My point is that your answer overlooked length contraction and did not have any math to show how different orientations of clocks work in the hyperbolic geometry of the Minkowski space. Your answer was essentially based on faith that Relativity says so and therefore it must be do. You provided no proof that it is indeed so. Furthermore, in the current question Alex challenges the principle of relativity as suspectedly invorrect. So your answer that it is so because Relativity says so is not helpful. You need to show why and how exactly Relativity still stands. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 16:43 | comment | added | safesphere | @AlexBurtsev You are correct that time dilation does not affect the system itself, but it affects the way the system looks to other observers. For example, decaying particles appear to live longer when they move fast. Their decay time is still the same in their own frame, but to us they appear to live longer, because we see their time dilated. Time dilation and length contraction are simply projections in the hyperbolic geometry. A projection is how an object appears to others, it does not change the object itself. The effects are real though, as faster moving muons do live longer. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 16:36 | comment | added | WillO | @safesphere: The correct answer is that the length of the light clock oriented in the direction of the flight is contracted due to the length contraction effect of Special Relativity. It is for this reason the clock period does not depend on the angle. No, that's exactly backward. The reason the clock period doesn't depend on the angle is the principle of relativity (as quoted from Einstein in Alex Burtsev's comment). (If it did depend on the angle, you'd know who was moving.) From this, one derives the length contraction. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 16:35 | comment | added | WillO | @AlexBurtsev: Lots of people say all kinds of crazy things on the Internet. It's best to stick to ignore most of them. Your quote from Einstein is the basis of relativity, both as he understood it and as it is understood today (at least by everyone who understands it). If you find a source that says otherwise, it is almost surely written by a crank. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 16:19 | comment | added | Alex Burtsev | @safesphere I'm reading right now what Einstein himself wrote in 1905, hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/… and it looks different from how it is interpretated nowdays. He wrote: "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion." However lots of people say time dilations do change how systems undergo change. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 16:09 | comment | added | safesphere | @AlexBurtsev STR is nothing but a hyperbolic geometry in the Minkowski space. As such it is mathematically consistent. Any "paradoxes" in it are simply lack of understanding. It can be faulted no more than the Euclidean geometry in the Euclidean space. The interesting stuff begins only when space is non-trivial. For example, in a closed cylindrical universe two twins flying in the opposite directions see each other's time dilated, but meet after a half a circle at the same age (due to symmetry). | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 15:56 | comment | added | safesphere | @WillO Your answer there is unclear, because it does not explain why "the length of the light-beam's round-trip journey" in the direction of the flight would result in the same time dilation. For example, how would this length involve a square root? The correct answer is that the length of the light clock oriented in the direction of the flight is contracted due to the length contraction effect of Special Relativity. It is for this reason the clock period does not depend on the angle. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 15:48 | comment | added | Alex Burtsev | @WillO Thanks, I read it, need some time to chew on it, your idea barely fits my mind, | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 15:43 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 12, 2018 at 3:12 | |||||
| Jan 31, 2018 at 15:35 | comment | added | WillO | see my answer here: physics.stackexchange.com/a/276603/4993 | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 15:35 | history | edited | Alex Burtsev | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 31, 2018 at 15:26 | history | edited | Alex Burtsev | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 31, 2018 at 14:43 | history | asked | Alex Burtsev | CC BY-SA 3.0 |