21
$\begingroup$

What causes time dilation? Acceleration or velocity?

I've seen multiple comments on this forum that assert velocity is the cause, but that doesn't seem right to me. You can't have velocity without acceleration. It's the inertial force with acceleration that breaks the symmetry. My understanding is that the asymmetry is where the inertial frame changes. Measuring time between two objects with different inertial frames is where you have time dilation. When the acceleration ends, the object is effectively at rest in a new inertial frame and has velocity relative to another object in the original inertial frame.

In other words, acceleration (changing reference frames) is the cause...velocity and time dilation is the effect.

Am I right about this? If there are flaws in my logic I'd like to find and correct them.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You can't have velocity without acceleration. Really? Recall that $v_f=v_i+at$ if $a=0$ then $v_f=v_i$ (constant (and not necessarily zero) velocity, no acceleration). $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Dec 17, 2013 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ What you can't do without acceleration is to break reciprocity. The "twin paradox" is the standard example of this. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 17, 2013 at 20:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let me rephrase..."You can't have velocity between two objects that initially shared the same reference frame without acceleration." You need to have HAD acceleration to HAVE velocity. $\endgroup$
    – Jay
    Commented Dec 17, 2013 at 20:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CarlWitthoft Sure, read the wikipedia entry on the Twin Paradox. That describes how the twin experiment can be refined such that no forces need be involved at all. The two space ships can pass arbitrarily close to one another and transmit the value of the clock from the first ship to the second ship. Relative inertial motion alone causes time (and length) dilation. The reason the time dilation is not symmetric is because the outgoing frame of reference is abandoned for a returning frame of reference. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 2:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Say we know the distance between points A and B (4LY) and they are stationary relative to one another. We can easily synchronize the clocks at A and B using the speed of light. A sends a radio signal at T = 0 to B. When B receives that signal it starts its clock and adds the 4 year propagation delay to it. At T = 0 our twin also passes A at 0.8c towards B. In our frame it will take him 5 years to get there. In his frame, the trip will last 3 years (Lorentz factor 5/3). When he arrives at B his clock will read 3 years while the synchronized clock at B will read 5 years. Return isn't necessary. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 2:59

4 Answers 4

24
$\begingroup$

We need to untangle this a bit but first: the cause of time dilation is the geometry of spacetime which is such that there is an invariant speed c.

Now, remember that velocity or speed is not a property of an object; there is no absolute rest.

Further, consider the case of three objects in uniform relative motion with respect to each other.

If I choose one of those objects and then ask you "what is the relative velocity of this object?", the only proper response you could give is "velocity relative to which of the other objects?"

So, we can't speak of the relative motion of an object but rather the relative motion of a pair of objects.

What we can say is that, for two objects in relative uniform motion with respect to each other, the other object's clock runs slow according to each object's own clock. This is called relative velocity time dilation.

It is important to realize that in the case of relative time dilation, the two relatively and uniformly moving clocks are spatially separated except at one event. Comparing the readings of the two clocks when spatially separated requires additional spatially separated clocks synchronized and stationary in their respective object's frame of reference

But, we find that clocks synchronized in one object's frame are not synchronized in the other relatively moving object's frame. Thus, the relative velocity time dilation is symmetric without contradiction. We can't say that one or the other clock is absolutely running slower.

Now, within the context of Special Relativity, acceleration is absolute, i.e., an object's accelerometer either reads 0 or it doesn't.

And, a fundamental result in SR is that a clock along an accelerated worldline through two events in spacetime records less elapsed time between those events than a clock along an unaccelerated world line through the same two events.

Since, in this case, an accelerated clock and an unaccelerated clock are co-located at two different events, the two clocks can be directly compared and, in this case, the time dilation is absolute - the accelerated clock absolutely shows less elapsed time than the unaccelerated clock.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, this article is informative: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2013 at 1:36
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Marvelous! I have been struggling to understand this for years. Then absolutely (no pun intended), it's acceleration, not velocity that leads to the earth bound twin aging more rapidly than their space traveling counterpart. Why can't the textbooks offer such a clear and concise explanation? Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – docscience
    Commented Jan 22, 2015 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ In the last two paragraphs, I think you meant General Relativity rather than Special Relativity? You also seem to strongly imply that only acceleration is why the traveling twin is younger than the stay-at-home twin. Acceleration isn't needed at all to explain why the traveling twin ages less -- you can do it with just SR. You can use "magic" engines that can instantly jump to/from light speed and the traveling twin will be younger upon return. It also isn't that a sudden jump in velocity (i.e. - an acceleration) causes the effect either because the difference is due to relative velocities. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 31, 2021 at 6:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jschultz410, I meant Special Relativity. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 31, 2021 at 21:20
4
$\begingroup$

Let me present a slightly different perspective to Alfred's answer, although I'm basically saying the same thing.

I suspect you've got hung up on the idea that velocity causes the relativistic effects like time dilation, but the underlying cause is something different. All the weird effects in SR are caused by a fundamental symmetry of spacetime, which is that the proper time, $\tau$, is an invarient i.e. it is the same for all users.

Suppose we take any two spacetime points $(t_1, x_1, y_1, z_1)$ and $(t_2, x_2, y_2, z_2)$ then the 4-vector joining them is $(\Delta t, \Delta x, \Delta y, \Delta z)$, where $\Delta t = t_2 - t_1$ and so on. The proper time is defined as:

$$ c^2\Delta\tau^2 = c^2\Delta t^2 - \Delta x^2 - \Delta y^2 - \Delta z^2 $$

Or more concisely:

$$ \Delta\tau^2 = \eta_{ab} \Delta x^a \Delta x^b $$

where $\eta$ is the Minkowski metric and we adopt the usual convention of setting $c = 1$.

The quantity $\Delta\tau$ is an invarient and all observers looking at the two spacetime points will measure the same value for $\Delta\tau$ regardless of where they are or how fast they are moving or accelerating.

To see why velocity has an effect on time and space consider this:

Start in your rest frame and measure some infinitesimal time interval $dt$ with your stopwatch. In your frame the interval between starting and stopping the stopwatch is just $(dt, 0, 0, 0)$ and therefore the proper time $d\tau$ is just equal to your stopwatch time $dt$. (I've sneakily switched from $\Delta$ to $d$ because if you're considering accelerated frames you need toi integrate $d\tau$ to get the $\Delta\tau$)

Now consider some frame that moves between you starting and stopping the stopwatch. It doesn't matter whether the frame moves at constant velocity or whether it accelerates in some manner. Because in this frame the stopwatch has moved while it was timing the interval will be of the form $(dt', dx', dy', dz')$ i.e. in this frame the spatial parts of the interval won't be zero. But we require that $d\tau' = d\tau$ because the proper time is an invarient. Equating the two proper times gives us:

$$ dt^2 = dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 -dz'^2 $$

And because the spatial terms are nonzero this means $dt^2 < dt'^2$ i.e. the times in the two frames are different and we have time dilation.

Note that I haven't restricted how the two frames have moved relative to each other, only that they have moved. So you can't say the time dilation is due to velocity or due to acceleration, just that it's due to relative motion.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If anyone's still interested, I've just answered a related question here. The discussion there explains where time dilation comes from. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 30, 2014 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ Note that I haven't restricted how the two frames have moved relative to each other, only that they have moved. So you can say the time dilation is due to velocity or due to acceleration, just that it's due to relative motion. Isn't "relative motion" another word for velocity? And wouldn't a change in "relative motion" be another way of saying one of the objects is accelerating? $\endgroup$
    – Jay
    Commented Apr 30, 2014 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ Man...I just can't get the formatting right. Sorry. $\endgroup$
    – Jay
    Commented Apr 30, 2014 at 17:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Jay: relative motion can be any motion not necessarily at constant velocity or constant acceleration or constant anything. See the question I linked for a fuller discussion of this. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 30, 2014 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ But how does this explain the twin paradox? In that paradox, dx, dy, and dz between the launch and the return are zero, and therefore, according to this, the two twins should see the same dt, that is, they age the same amount ? That is different from all existing explanations. $\endgroup$
    – fishinear
    Commented Oct 10, 2019 at 13:51
0
$\begingroup$

Consider this.

The twin paradox, but with a twist.

The twin that accelerates is the one that is younger on return. Statement one

It doesnt matter which direction the accelerating twin goes. Ie if she leaves from the equator and goes due north from the earth and returns, it doesnt make any difference if she had gone due south and returned. Statement two

But what if there are triplets? one (a) goes due north, one (b) due south and one (c) stays on the earth. ( a and b's acceleration and velocity are identical except the one is opposite the other in sign (+/-) and we can by convention decide to make the + acceleration away from the earth in a due north direction)

so when a and b are back they are exactly the same age, but younger than c. If statement one and two are correct, this must also be correct - Statement 3

Even though the velocity difference between a and b was greater at all times than the velocty difference between a and c was or between b and c was.

Therefore it is not the velocity or even relative velocity per se, but the acceleration which causes the clocks to slow down such that when a certain RELATIVE velocity is reached, the clock travelling at the faster velocity compared to the ORIGINAL velocity is going slower than the ORIGINAL clock which has not accelerated. statement 4

Note. By different relative velocities, the two clocks as observed by different moving observes will not tick at the same rate.

Now the question is, between a and b , whose clock is going faster or slower? the answer is that if a and b leave from the same point at the same time, travel exactly the same distance and get back to the same orignial point at the same time and are the same age when they get back, both their clocks must have ticked at the same OVERALL AVERAGED dilated rate compared to the original clock, but not necessarily always syncronously. If A would observe Bs clock during the travelling and B would observe A's clock, then there are two components to the time dilation either observe. One is the time dilation due to relative velocity, and the other is the time dilation (or contraction) due to the relative acceleration ( deceleration) (which is not the same as the absolute acceleration) These two different dilations (and contraction) effects exactly cancel out, so that A and B arrive back the same age. statement 5

Now as c stayed on earth, and was subject the whole time to an acceleration too ( ie gravity) her clock is slightly dilated too.....( as there is no difference to clocks as to what causes the acceleration ie either gravity or rocket engine)

This then brings the following conclusion.....

A clock that has accelerated ticks more slowly than a clock which has not accelerated so there is time dilation at a higher velocity.

So during the acceleration, the clock will start getting slower and slower.

Now as a gravitational acceleration has the same effect on clocks as a rocket powered acceleration, and as a clock in a rocket powered acceleration will get slower and slower the longer the acceleration occurs, then a clock that exists say for 100 million years on the earth and is subject to gravity for the entire period and therefore an acceleration for 100 million years will tick more slowly now in 2015 than it did 100 million years ago.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't think your last paragraph is correct. It is true that a clock at the bottom of a gravity well ticks more slowly than one in free space far from any other energy. But the clock at the bottom of the gravity well does not progressively tick slower and slower over time. I think you are confusing the fact that constant acceleration does slow a clock (whether it be due to gravity or a rocket engine) with the idea that acceleration in a straight line also leads to higher relative velocities, which also dilates time for the traveling clock. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 31, 2021 at 6:53
0
$\begingroup$

In Special Relativity the time dilation is just a matter of convention in the time measurement between moving frames.
In General Relativity the time dilation is a physical phenomenon which involves a force field (either gravity or acceleration or wathever) that actually slows down the particles of a system. When particles interactions take place with lower frequency, Time (lifetime, aging etc.) is effectively slowed down.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In both SR and GR, the time dilation is a physical phenomenon. In the twin "paradox" in SR, the traveling twin/clock really will be younger upon return even without acceleration in the mix. In your second paragraph, the field doesn't "slow down the particles" (i.e. - decelerate them). Time itself in the system actually runs relatively slower. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 31, 2021 at 6:59

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