Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #41  
Old 18-06-2006, 01:04 PM
Dujon's Avatar
Dujon
SKE

Dujon is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Blaxland, N.S.W.
Posts: 634
An interesting subject.

I think, though, that an important point is being overlooked.

Visualise the impossible and simplify things a bit: A man leaves, or passes, the Earth at a steady but significant proportion of the speed of light. He is reading a book. The camera in his cabin captures his every move and transmits it via some sort of radio link. The receiving station back at his departure point records faithfully his every move (there will be a significant doppler shift in the transmission frequency, but for this exercise this can be ignored).

Let us say that, because he is reading about a complex subject or a copy of Playboy, he reads just one page per minute. So, after reading 60 pages he presses a button on his chair arm rest and then instantly returns at the same rate (I did say that this was impossible).

So, at the point he presses that button, what has the receiving station seen?

Well, assuming all the electronics are functioning correctly, it has just received an image of page 30. Why? because it takes the radio information a finite amount of time to arrive at the observation station.

What happens when our man turns back to the observation point? Exactly the same thing but in reverse. In other words his turning of the pages of his book will become closer to the one-per-minute mark but will not reach that frequency until such times as he (improbably) comes to a sudden halt or, again, speeds past our hypothetical observer.

But, but, but! Yes, by the time he returns he has indeed turned over 120 pages of his book. Both parties would agree on that. However the clock which our man wore on his wrist has recorded just two hours (one turn of the page per minute) as would be expected. The clock at his departure/arrival site though has measured double that.

Who is right? Obviously both are.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 18-06-2006, 06:08 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
With the greatest of respect may I ask why when he pushes the button at page 60 the camera in the same room does not at that instant photograph a scene recording "page 60". The camera will not record page 30 for it is on page 60. It would seem to me that any transmission of information at the point of pressing the button, irrespective of how long the transmission takes to reach the recipiant, the information will be that recorded and transmitted ie a photo of the man in a room with a book open at page 60. I can not see how the recipant will receive a photo of page 30 when a photo of page 60 was sent.
Did I miss something and barking up the wrong tree?
I know what you say about the clocks is excepted stuff but I dont accept it (as otheres believe it to opperate) that it happens other than as an observational matter as I have said elsewhere around here and I am prepared to be called a fool for my belief, what I think or do wont change anything so hence my attitude .. I dont have a degree that a University will recall when they hear me rattle on .. so I dont really worry .. I am going to look at what you said about the clocks and try and see what others see
alex.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 20-06-2006, 11:58 AM
Doug
Registered User

Doug is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 645
Well, at the risk of being irreverently irrelevant, what about time dilation with repect to the life of a photon?
Consider a photon being sent from here to a point 4 lightyears away, on a course that will cause it to be reflected back (by a conveniently placed mirror) to its point of origen relatively speaking. The lucky little chap will have travelled for 8 years, (4 ly there, 4 ly back) we will have aged 8 years, the photon will have aged 8 years, and red shifted the approprate amount. Now if the photon has not aged 8 years, but only a few months, then for that photon, it only travelled a few light months. But then in that case the amount of red shift would not be a faithful measure of distance because it would be a measure of distance measured under time dilation and not otherwise.

Cheers,
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 26-06-2006, 10:50 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
In trying to recall one of the various examples used to explain “time dilation” I came up with my own light speed and time relationship. I have often said that the “time dilation” is an observational thing and not a reflection of reality. My example seeks to “relate” speed and time carefully so as not to confuse persons looking for time dilation when they do not find it. (I have posted this on astronomydaily.com also as I have voiced my opinion about the time thing there also)

In a star system not far away there are 9 stars (3 rows of 3) forming a “square” in one plan of space. The stars are 1 light year apart from each other. See the drawing herewith to see the layout.
O1 is a nearby planet from where our experiment/observation is launched, and CP1 Cp2 and CP3 are stars of known distances apart.
Three space ships leave O1 their mission to pass by CP1 CP2 and CP3, so as to calibrate their “speed” to their on board clocks. They reason that if they cover “one light year distance in 12 months they are travelling at light speed… this gives them a firm basis for calculations of time during the experiment.
When they pass CP3 their calibrations are complete and their respective speeds is such that they will each arrive separately at stars S1 S4 and S7 they will arrive travelling at light speed all at the “same time”. (each clock is in step with the other notwithstanding they are a light year apart.)
Each of SS1 SS2 and SS3 set their clocks so that if they arrive at the “correct” time the clocks will have counted down and start on zero as the first star is passed and then count off the years as the experiment progresses.
SS1 will pass S1 , S2 and S3.
SS2 will pass S4 ,S5 and S6 .
SS3 will pass S7, S8 and S9.
When SS1, SS2 and SS3 pass S3, S6 and S9 they are to complete a 180 degree turn so they all meet at S6 , parallel and travelling to return to O1.

SS1 will pass so close to O1 when passing S1 that O1 will observe them at the very moment they pass by (closer than 300,000 klms leaves the “gap” under one second). They will not see SS1 earlier than when it arrives for it is travelling at the speed of light and it will arrive at the same time as its image arrives. When SS1 passes S1 (and O1) they send a transmission showing their on board clock reads Time 0 years 0 days 0 seconds.
O1 were not sure when to expect SS1 but have decided that whatever time SS1 arrives at S1 O1 will set their clocks running from 0 years 0 days 0 seconds.

SS1 passes O1 and S1 and their clock is running perfectly showing they have taken 12 months from CP3 and as they pass S1 their clock is exactly on 0..
SS2 passes S4 and their clocks are 0 they send a transmission showing a photo of their clock at 0 however the transmission will not be received by O1 until another 12 months has passed.
SS3 passes S7 and their clocks are at 0. They send a transmission showing a photo of the clock showing zero. This transmission will not arrive at O1 until 2 years have passed.
At O1 they know that when each ship passes a star it means they must have taken 12 months to get to it from the other if they were in fact travelling at the speed of light.
When they complete “the run” past the stars they are to complete their 180 degree turn and so as all space ships line up for the journey home.

The following observations are recorded at O1

Day zero
O1 Observed SS1 at S1, set clock to zero zero zero and running.
Transmission from SS1 shows SS1 clock photo at zero zero zero

One year later.
Observed SS2 passing S4
Transmission received from SS2 shows their clock photo at zero zero zero

Two years later
Observed SS3 passing S7
Transmission received from SS3 shows their clock photo at zero zero zero

Observed SS1 passing S2 date zero plus one year
Transmission received from SS1 shows their clockphoto at one year, zero minutes, zero seconds when passing S2.

Two years and one hundred fifty and one half days ( .42927 of a day exactly) after Day zero a transmission is received from SS2 passing S5 showing a photo of their clock reading one year zero days zero seconds.
(Someone points out the crew must be getting younger but they are reminded that the image received was sent one year and one hundred and fifty and one half days ago and that the SS2 would in fact be half way between S5 and S6. by now)

3.2360679 years after day zero O1 receive from SS3 that they pass S8 and a photo of their clock showing it to read one year zero days zero seconds
4 years after day zero O1 receive a transmission from SS1 that they pass S3 and their clock photo shows two years zero days zero seconds
4.8284271 years after day zero O1 receive from SS3 that they pass S9 and a photo of their clock showing it to read two years zero days zero seconds.

4.8284271 years after day zero O1 received a transmission from SS2 passing S6 showing their clock reading two years zero days zero seconds.

The observers at O1 conclude that all ships are running to the same clock and are in correct positions to turn and return. Their clocks are correct because they checked them against distance (one light year between stars means that to cover the distance one must be travelling at C).
After each space ship passes the last star in its “run” it is to do a 180 degree turn and meet at S6 travelling back toward O1. They are to complete the turn manoeuvre in two years. The ships all meet at S6 and head home. They have decelerated to half light speed and have…2.2360679 light years distance to cover to get home. They decelerate further and land on O1 5 years later…they have travelled for 9 years each since passing S1/S2/S3
They have shown that their clocks ran at the same speed during the experiment as the clocks set on O1 on day zero zero zero. All agree that there is no evidence of time dilation.
So where has it gone??
Finally the only conclusion reached is that “time dilation” is present in observations simply because light travelled at a “speed” and as such we can not be privy to what happens everywhere in the Universe “instantly” it does not mean when someone travelles at the speed of light they age any different to any one else.
What have I missed no one got younger or older than expected????
alex
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (1.jpg)
34.7 KB11 views
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 27-06-2006, 08:50 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Gee I thought by now someone would have been able to tell me what I am doing wrong here . It is probably to lenghty to look interesting..dam but I could not make it shorter .
If I am not wrong doesnt that demand a rethink of the atomic clock experiment and others seekinjg to put forward what I believe to be an unrealistic proposition . Please put me out of my missery I would be as happy either right or wrong it just seems to me that there must be some trick played in other examples of similar kind .
The only time dialation parradox I see is that there is no paradox .
alex.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 28-06-2006, 05:09 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
clearly those who feel unqualified to comment will not and those qualified to do so feel it is beneath them and will let me wither, add to that it is plain boring I feel I will not see anything resolved. I was not seeking to be argumentative but felt my experiment offerred something to consider.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 28-06-2006, 05:48 PM
Doug
Registered User

Doug is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 645
Alex, I feel underqualified to answer so I will; but not yet....................fools rush in and all that.
Your poser requires some digesting, and I'm supposed to be preparing an article on some post processing issues. distractions....... distractions......... A quick look at your post, it seems to be similar to a thought I had years ago when I was clear headed enough to think, but too young to keep focussed....so many 'hevenly bodies ' to contemplate and all that .
best,
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 28-06-2006, 09:59 PM
Starcrazzy
Registered User

Starcrazzy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wollongong
Posts: 300
i started to read your post and only got this far.."I have often said that the “time dilation” is an observational thing and not a reflection of reality. "

time dilation is a well documented, highly experimented and tested aspect of reality and a direct consequence of relativity.

They teach this in high school physics, i have the text book in front of me and will quote the opening paragraph of the chaptyer devoted to "time dilation"

Time dilation can be generally stated as follows: the time taken for an event to occur within its own rest frame is called the proper time (t0).Measurment of this time, (tv) made from any other inertial referance in relative motion to the first , are always greater..digest that for a moment...ARE ALWAYS GREATER...back to the textbook,...
The degree of time dilation varies with the velocity.
It can be more simply stated as :moving clocks run slow.

The text book goes on to show the formula's (quite simple ones really but to hard to type, the symbols just aren't on the keyboard) for working out the exact time dilation factors when givin speed and distance are factorised..

Why do we keep trying to reinvent the wheel??
Time dilation is as a real as any other thing we can "observe"..It can't be denied, or at least, while no other theory has been put forward that can account for the annomolies observed in respect to travelling clocks..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 29-06-2006, 12:06 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003

Thank you Doug dont read it just look at the pictures .
Thank you Starcrazzy for your interest and input .
Well if it is so simple to explain and you have the text book in front of you I sure would appreciate being shown what the heck I have not taken into account .
I have looked at the travelling clock experiments I do not think a couple of nano seconds offers conclusive proof, I can not quote to you the % variation upon which this conclusion is draw but it is unsatisfyingly minute, the other examples of experimental observation relates to estimating the time associated with a "dieing" subatomic particle whose lives are extrodinaryily short and again I feel a rather a dubious conclusion . The only testimony to the age of these particles is what the theory dictates.. the theory also predicts many more than they find, again hardly conclusive and open to other alternatives no doubt. So I really dont think it is a closed case well certainly not for me .
The reason why I have done this is to try and understand how playing these mind games (I refer to the mind exercises like the train and the platform stuff) the contructers of the formulas arrived at them.
To me I have related things in such a way that I thought there could be no doubt that we are dealing with perception not reality.
My inclusion of the following was to draw attention to that aspect..

Two years and one hundred fifty and one half days ( .42927 of a day exactly) after Day zero a transmission is received from SS2 passing S5 showing a photo of their clock reading one year zero days zero seconds.
(Someone points out the crew must be getting younger but they are reminded that the image received was sent one year and one hundred and fifty and one half days ago and that the SS2 would in fact be half way between S5 and S6. by now.

Now that is perception, sure the clocks would appear to be slower but that is simply because of the increasing distance..if you look at what is going on on board and what the observers see of that moment and how long it is before they get to see it... well there is no need to assert clocks run slow to not leave the observer with that impression.
I found the only use of the space time geometry was to calculate the time the transmissions took to travell to O1 from each ship.
Can you see why I conclude it is a matter of observation by the course I have followed? I can not find another conclusion than the one I have come to.. again thanks for your interest and input and if you can see the specific flaw in my approach please let me know.
alex
alex
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 29-06-2006, 11:51 AM
AGarvin
Registered User

AGarvin is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 100
Trying to understand many of the concepts behind relativity frequently raises these types of questions, but the fact is that no matter how many ways you think of to take pictures of clocks in misguided thought experiments, time dilation is a very real property of the physical universe as we understand it, and pretty much the entire professional physics community agrees and has agreed for decades. These "unsatisfyingly small" amounts that are cited as experimental proof can be exceedingly large amounts in the world of physics.

Time dilation centres around the invariance of the speed of light for all frames of reference and this has been included in a whole bevy of areas from the Lorentz Transformations to Schwarzchild geometry, and these are not thought experiments, but solid mathematical theories, many of which are backed by observational or experimental proofs.

Yes, future research may have us alter or even rewrite areas, but there is a much bigger picture here than simply arguing it is wrong because it is not understood.

Last edited by AGarvin; 29-06-2006 at 07:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 29-06-2006, 12:47 PM
Starcrazzy
Registered User

Starcrazzy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wollongong
Posts: 300
yes..these unsatisfyingly small amounts of change are more then enough to prove the theory...the laws of physics are quite often dealing with very small numbers....but i put it to you like this...if i could defy the laws of gravity by floating a mere 2 inches off the ground indefinatly, you may call this "unsatisfyingly small" amount , but it would be enough to completely rewrite evry textbook and and cause a rethink on all of newtons laws relating to gravity..If i could build a machine that could teletransport 1 single atom around the world to appear in another place instantaneously, i would have made an incredible discovery and probably win the nobel prize...would that still be an unsatisfyingly small amount to prove to you that the scienece is possible??where would the line be drawn...what is satifying??transporting an atom?an apple?a person??a planet??what is considerd large??a planet may be huge to you and me, but in the scheme of things doesn't even rate a mention..nor a does a mere galaxy for that matter...
Time dilation is more then an observable annomaly...
The changes may be minute, but if you start to relate themn to a space journey by humans where we travel close to C for a considerable amount of time, the numbers start to add up into quite sugnifcant factors..so much so that century's will pass on earth while mere years have passed aboard the ship..and this obviously opens a can of worms with regard to paradox's and so forth...like this, in the century's that pass on earth, one of the crews offspring may invent a new type of propulsion system that would enable the great great grand kids of the original crew to actually beat there great great grand daddy to the destination...

Or ponder this one for a while...A man travelling at C looks in a mirror in friont of him...does he see a reflection??

Enjoy
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 29-06-2006, 12:59 PM
Starcrazzy
Registered User

Starcrazzy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wollongong
Posts: 300
ok..ive had a close ;look at your space ship experiment...the flaw (imho) is this...they are all travelling at C..try sending the picture back to earth where they all started from and recalculate...then you will find the annomoly...you have nothing to "relate" the speed to if thay are all travelling at C becasue they are all in the same innertail frame of referance...
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 29-06-2006, 01:13 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Thank you both for your input.
I appreciate the delecate manner in which you each have dealt with the matters. I trust I am not alone in the frustration of not understanding these concepts as you both sound knowledgable in the area and I suspect have been earlier presented with similar questions.
I take the point of "smallness" very well put in both cases. I further suspect part of the problem arises from the use of "examples" and "mental exercises" to relate these complex concepts to laymen (such as I ) via the popular book sold on a newstand not out of the University Book shop.
Thanks again for your interest, input and help
alex
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 29-06-2006, 01:15 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
further thanks for the mirror at c thing I hope you have an answer after I give it my best
alex
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 29-06-2006, 01:45 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Sorry Starcrazzy I missed your last post re problem with my example thank you I will go over it with that in mind.
Re Mirror reflection etc at c where is the light that illuminates the mans face?
alex
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 29-06-2006, 02:19 PM
Starcrazzy
Registered User

Starcrazzy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wollongong
Posts: 300
well, thats the problem isn't it..if he is travelling at C how can any light reflect from his face onto the mirror??in order to be just in front of him it would need to go faster then C, and we know this isn't possible(don't start me on this subject..lol)so for that matter, could the man see his own hand held out in front of him...arrrggghhh...this is where all the confusion comes from....this isn't the answer by the way...i will give a detailed answer later...after your head has exploded (like mine)..

No probs xelan..I deffinatly don't profess to understand the theory's completely..not many could say they do, but without experiments like your space ship one, no-one would be able to understand any of it..its all mathmatical..don't abandon your space ship experiment, just modify for the earth bound frame of referance, and you will be onto somethin there i think..if not least, another way of explaining the annomoly...
cheers
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 29-06-2006, 02:46 PM
Dujon's Avatar
Dujon
SKE

Dujon is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Blaxland, N.S.W.
Posts: 634
Mr Evans, sir.

That's one of the corner stones of the Theory of Relativity. That theory suggests that anyone anywhere will measure the speed of light (in a vacuum) as constant. This, of course, assumes that the universe is the same throughout its whole structure.

Thus the shaving spaceman will see his reflection just as you do each morning when you look in your bathroom mirror - regardless of the source of the light.

Who is to say that you are not travelling at the speed of light at this very moment? I would guess that someone in a galaxy far, far away - from their viewpoint - would say you are. By the same token you would say the same about them.

Imagine two cars travelling on a moonless night, both without headlights, passing each other. By pure chance both drivers activate a cigarette lighter as they pass by. Who is going at what speed? You can say, "Well my speedometer tells me I'm doing such-and-such a speed" just as can the other driver.

Now stick them out in space - doing exactly the same thing but without a reference point. By that I mean that neither driver has a speedometer that can tie them to a fixed point.

Who is doing what speed then?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 29-06-2006, 05:29 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Doctor Starcrazzy
I need a quiet place to do it, just with my example working thru that got me twisted enough and that is very straight forward really but thats why I built it very step by step and as I thought tie all the necessary bits together. As I said someplace else or here I will go home, I have 2 boxs of chalk, blank walls and non one to care what I put upon them.. I can map the whole Universe if thats what it takes leave it with me but the mirror thing sounds only a cosmetic problem
Doctor John
You said "Who is to say that you are not travelling at the speed of light at this very moment? I would guess that someone in a galaxy far, far away - from their viewpoint - would say you are. By the same token you would say the same about them"
I expect that this is the suggestion I would read into red shift upto 12,000 klms per second I believe mmm considerably faster than light .. thats all I need how does ones get their head around that .
I appreciate the cars passing in the night and the need of the speedo etc in my example I sought to tie everyone up with a reliable reference against the most "absolute" reference I could include..this being.. known distance (between the stars) and a method of relating the passing of each ship of a star by the work back observation of their clocks which are really the speedos with the needle stuck on c...
When the ships pass their first star their clocks are running and will be checked during the passing of the stars, their time related to the speed which is necessary to make the distance within the time and thus send an appropriate photo. All I am saying is my limited appreciation of the problem suggest to me the first thing to nail down is methods of "cementing" those relationships.. that was I thought a sucsessful construction.. (a guy on astronomydaily was concerned about the difference each star would bend space time and thought that a larger dot may represent a larger star.. so the model needed work to be consummer friendly so I changed the "massive" stars for some non interfering foam spheres.. Starcrazzy has suggested some work of possibly more productive outcome and I have yet to consider how on the next trip we can keep the crews clean shaven ...
again thank you all for the interest and input and thanks for the home work
alex
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 29-06-2006, 07:39 PM
Shawn
Mostly Harmless

Shawn is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cairns
Posts: 1,349
Thought Id join this thread, and chuck into the hat this statement.....Light speed is not constant universally, time is something we created for our conveinience, the two must not be campared nor confused. I agree that distance over time equals speed, and every othe convolution on that formular. but If I suggest , time not constant totally in relation to the observer, Light speed not constant universally, then the equation has no answer. the twin paradox proves that doesnt it ?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 29-06-2006, 07:48 PM
Shawn
Mostly Harmless

Shawn is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cairns
Posts: 1,349
For example, observation, someone bought up the bouncing ball on a train scenario, the stationary observer would see the ball covering a greater distance to the chap that was bouncing it, hence by simple math the ball is going faster....NO... Get a High speed camera and pan that shot, and you wouldnt even know he was moving, hence no change,,,the same rules apply,,we have an extremely narrow window of observation,,,the change on the scale we are discussing is considerable... we can not see it , we make asssumption on our narrow view of things...just a thought
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement