1
$\begingroup$

In MTW, "Gravitation", there is a brief section (p. 26 and Fig. 1.9) discussing that clocks may be characterized, trial by trial, as having been "good" in the trial under consideration, or having been "bad" (i.e., presumably, not "good") in that trial:

Let $t$ be time on a "good" clock (time coordinate of a local inertial frame); it makes the tracks of free particles through the local region of space time look straight. Let $T[~t~]$ be the reading of the "bad" clock; it makes the world lines of free particles through the local region of space time look curved (Fig. 1.9). [...]

This description doesn't seem quite rigorous (e.g.: What does it mean for a track or a world line to be "made to look" in some particular geometric sense at all ??), it seems to be restricted to clocks in regions admitting inertial frames, and instead of being stated in terms of explicit geometric notions it refers to "free particles" (i.e. a notion which would require explicit, comprehensible definition in the first place).

Therefore:

Is there a rigorous, explicitly geometric, general characterization for whether a given clock had been "good", or not, in some particular trial ?

For definiteness and to fix the notation, consider clock $~\mathcal C := (~C, t_{\mathcal C}~)$,
consisting of "clock face $C$" and "clock readings $t_{\mathcal C}$",
in the trial from $C$ having taken part in coincidence event $\varepsilon_{C J}$ until $C$ having taken part in coincidence event $\varepsilon_{C Q}$,
with $\mathcal S_C := \{ C_J, ... C_K, ... C_P, ... C_Q \}$ the ordered set of indications of clock face $C$ corresponding to the ordered set of events $\{ \varepsilon_{C J}, ... \varepsilon_{C K}, ... \varepsilon_{C P}, ... \varepsilon_{C Q} \}$ in which $C$ took part in the course of the trial under consideration,
and the corresponding "readings" of clock $\mathcal C$ expressed as (monotonous) function $t_{\mathcal C}~:~ \mathcal S_C \rightarrow \mathbb R$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ The question asks for answers in a specific notation, but to me the notation seems both cumbersome and inadequate to discuss what is going on. Note that in the quote from MTW, they discuss inertial motion, and the notation given is clearly inadequate to talk about this. I also don't understand the point of listing indices like J, K, P, and Q. Why four such letters? Why not three, or five? $\endgroup$
    – user4552
    Commented Nov 4, 2014 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Ben Crowell: "[...] the point of listing indices like J, K, P, and Q" -- These examplify how to denote distinct events in which $C$ took part. Since, according to Einstein: "All our well-substantiated space-time propositions amount to the determination of space-time coincidences {such as} encounters between two or more recognizable material points", $\varepsilon_{C J}$ is for instance meant to denote the coincidence event in which $C$ and $J$ took part, but neither $K$, nor $P$, nor $Q$. $\endgroup$
    – user12262
    Commented Nov 4, 2014 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Ben Crowell: "The question asks for answers in a specific notation, [...]" -- If answers have been prepared using a different notation (or terminology), a map should be included (or may be added as comment), mapping any applicable symbol (or notion) used in the answer to precisely one symbol (or notion) I suggested. $\endgroup$
    – user12262
    Commented Nov 4, 2014 at 21:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Ben Crowell: "[...] in the quote from MTW, they discuss inertial motion" -- The quote mentions "time coordinate of a local inertial frame", thus apparently dealing with, and being restricted to, clocks "in inertial motion". My question aims at a generalization to clocks "in any (time-like) motion". "the notation given is clearly inadequate to talk about this." -- Hmm ... At least, the suggested notation allows to express interval ratios as real numbers, such as $$\frac{s^2[~\varepsilon_{C K}, \varepsilon_{C P}~]}{s^2[~\varepsilon_{C J}, \varepsilon_{C Q}~]}$$, etc. $\endgroup$
    – user12262
    Commented Nov 4, 2014 at 21:17

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Writing $\mathcal X_C^{n} := \{ \varepsilon_{ C \mathcal X }^1, ~..., \varepsilon_{ C \mathcal X }^n \}$ for any (variable) suitable ordered subset of $n \ge 1$ events in which $C$ took part, and abbreviating

$${\! \large \tilde\tau} C_K^P := \! \! \mathop{ \bf \text{ infimum } }_{ \large {\mathcal X_C^{n} } \subseteq \{ \large{ \varepsilon_{C K}, ~... ~ \varepsilon_{C P} \}} } \! \! \small{ \left[ \sqrt{ \frac{s^2[~\varepsilon_{C K}, \varepsilon_{ C \mathcal X }^1~]}{s^2[~\varepsilon_{C K}, \varepsilon_{C P}~]} } \! + \! \! \left( \sum_{ m = 1 }^{n - 1} \sqrt{ \frac{s^2[~\varepsilon_{ C \mathcal X }^m, \varepsilon_{ C \mathcal X }^{(m + 1)}~]}{s^2[~\varepsilon_{C K}, \varepsilon_{C P}~]} } \right) \! \! + \! \sqrt{ \frac{s^2[~\varepsilon_{ C \mathcal X }^n, \varepsilon_{C P}~]}{s^2[~\varepsilon_{C K}, \varepsilon_{C P}~]} } \right] },$$

a clock $\mathcal C := (~C, t_{\mathcal C}~)$ is called having been good in the trial from $C$ having taken part in coincidence event $\varepsilon_{C J}$ until $C$ having taken part in coincidence event $\varepsilon_{C Q}$ if and only if for any two indications $C_K, C_P \in \mathcal S_C$ of the clock in the course of the trial the corresponding "readings" satisfy:

$$ \begin{array}{rl} t_{\mathcal C}[~C_P~] - t_{\mathcal C}[~C_K~] & = \left( t_{\mathcal C}[~C_P~] - t_{\mathcal C}[~C_J~] \right) \left( \frac{ {\! \large \tilde\tau} C_K^P }{ {\! \large \tilde\tau} C_J^P } \right) \sqrt{ \frac{s^2[~\varepsilon_{ C K }, \varepsilon_{C P}~]}{s^2[~\varepsilon_{C J}, \varepsilon_{C P}~]} } \cr ~ & = \left( t_{\mathcal C}[~C_Q~] - t_{\mathcal C}[~C_K~] \right) \left( \frac{ {\! \large \tilde\tau} C_K^P }{ {\! \large \tilde\tau} C_K^Q } \right) \sqrt{ \frac{s^2[~\varepsilon_{ C K }, \varepsilon_{C P}~]}{s^2[~\varepsilon_{C K}, \varepsilon_{C Q}~]} }. \end{array}$$

Whether this definition is rigorous, as requested, depends of course on whether the required values of interval ratios are definite in the first place, before and without in turn requiring knowledge or presumptions about whether given clocks were good, or not.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.