Time dilation - Page 2

Starcrazzy · #21 08-06-2006, 10:00 PM

Thats exactly where the whole problem lies...we can't have all the information available to us (the uncertainty principal)..No one view is privilaged..The guy on the train has no reason to believe the train is moving..the ball still obeys all the laws of motion as if the train were not moving...ya see??the guy may know the train is going 100, but the ball doesn't..it just follows the laws of motion...so which laws are actually effecting the ball...it can't be the forward speed of the train or else it would hit the wall and bounce around like a crazzy flubba ball...as long as the train doesn't change acceleration, there is no change in its LOCAL experiance...but the guy watching from the ground can't say the same thinmg can he...if he were to try and make a physical calculation he would have to factor in its forward movement...so the equation he would observ would be a different one to the guy on the train...bbut NEITHER are privillaged..its all relative to the speed of the observer...RELATIVITY

Starcrazzy · #22 08-06-2006, 10:11 PM

Most people i know don't try and understand relativity, they just move onto the more tangable sides of physics, but to deny relativity is to deny so much of our current view of reality..Observation is only a small part of it, the effects of relativity are well documented and tested and is one of the most tested theory's in modern science and still it stands..after all this time..if only einstein could have got rid of the idea of a static universe we may be alot closer to the answer..It is quite simple (sort of) the faster you go, the less time you experiance (relative to someone who is standing still) well, as still as is possable, becasue absolute rest is a fantasy..

Starcrazzy · #23 08-06-2006, 10:15 PM

the ageing at different speeds is not impossable to test at all...it has been tested ,any times..they have even put matching atomic clocks on 747's and one on the ground and sent the plane around the world and compared the clocks..and alass, what do ya know, there's a differance, only a fraction of a fraction of a second, but remember these clocks won't lose half a second over 1 century let alone a few hours...so time dilation is a real consequance of relativity and very very tes table..

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #24 08-06-2006, 11:44 PM

Yesterday I read an interesting piece!

If a ship could travel faster than the Speed of Light it would see itself arrive at a later time!!!!

The Ship travelling at faster than speed of light would arrive, then the light from it which left at the same time obviously (which is travelling at the speed of light) would arrive at it's proper time, later than the first craft.

Hmmmmmm.

So, you could see yourself coming after you arrived. What a paradox!

xelasnave · #25 09-06-2006, 12:30 AM

How does the clock know it is in a jet?

and the clock on the ground does it know it is on the ground and the other clock is flying by? One can accept two humans not being able to keep a grip on things but these clocks are inanimate so how is the principle extended from humans to clocks?

And the uncertainty principle is a problem for me thats for sure I never know where I am going or if I have arrived when I have got there..

alex

Starcrazzy · #26 09-06-2006, 12:52 AM

ok.ok..the clock records the passing of TIME..it uses the spining of an atom as its measuring stick..1 second is like 9789999999999 revolutions of the electron of a certain atom around its nucleas..so after that a certain amount of revolutions of a NATURAL particle (which you and i are made up of bajillions of) 1 second ticks by..so if the atoms in your body obey the time of the clock on the airplane or better still the spacecraft travelling at cl;ose to C, then your body will age according to this timeframe..the very escence of matter is tied to time..and time is relative..c is not..

robagar · #27 09-06-2006, 09:01 AM

Uh, you're completely missing the point of relativity: No particular observer has a better view of "reality" than any other. Standing back doesn't give you a better view.

Special relativity is very well supported by experiment (see here for a long list). For my money the best time dilation one is the study of cosmic ray muons. Basically, muons decay quickly and shouldn't live long enough to make it to Earth's surface. But because they are very fast moving the particles "internal clock" is slowed by time dilation, from our point of view. So they have enough time to make the journey throug the atmosphere and are observed down here.

Each moving observer really does have their own time. There is no "real" universal time. It's not a matter of perception!

robagar · #28 09-06-2006, 09:04 AM

The clock on the plane *doesn't* know it's moving - as far as it's concerned, it's ticking along as normal, which it is

Starcrazzy · #29 09-06-2006, 09:11 AM

exactly..

Starcrazzy · #30 09-06-2006, 09:14 AM

i never said that standing back gives you a better view..i said no one view is privilaged...each observer can be at the same place in time but have experianced less or more time relative to the other..but they would each feel the exact same time has passed...think i just confused myself..lol

xelasnave · #31 09-06-2006, 09:20 AM

So the physical premise for the effect is that "speed" (a product of distance covered related to time and therefore T appears in the sums) has an effect on the speed of the particles in the atom? I guess this is how gravity gets drawn into the picture... it seems to be reduced to an expression of "acceleration". I find it difficult to accept that increasing speed has any effect on the "timing" of the atom which I see as an "artificial" extention. Now this is not saying that waht you put forward is not the truth I simply am saying it is a truth that so far I can not accept. I certainly am not saying I am right and the "others" are wrong..emphatically... but I think followers of the premise have made a fundamental error in applying what the principle of relativity says.. I think it is a proposition that is limited to the "human" observation and as such is simply a statement that things look a little different depending on where you are standing.. I really dont think the experiment where the clocks were carried is conclusive... one experiment and one draws a conclusion

... mmm lets see you get a new drug on the market with one experiment

. I say it may be a case where it was easy for the researchers to find what they found because that is what they expected to find ( almost a placebo effect)... the differences in the clocks demand many runs and samples should be taken if such is to be used as evidence.
Mind you I suppose as matter speeds up it will encounter more "gravity rain" maybe that "slows" the atom.

alex

xelasnave · #32 09-06-2006, 10:49 AM

Er I was typing and missed a few of the posts. Thanks for the links Rob. AND thank you all for your tollerance of one seeking to chalenge the unchalengable and understand the mystery of the Universe. Still would like to understand the physical link between the clock and speed much better.
alex

xelasnave · #33 09-06-2006, 11:05 AM

Still within that link I found this.
quote
Experiments Which Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR
It is clear that most if not all of these experiments have difficulties which are unrelated to SR. In some cases the inconsistent experiment has been carefully repeated and been shown to be in error (e.g. Miller, Kantor); in others the experimental result is so outrageous that any serious attempt to reproduce it is unlikely (e.g. Esclangon); in still other cases there are great uncertainties and/or unknowns involved (e.g. Mirabel, Nodland), and some are so recent that no consensus has yet developed (e.g. Nodland, Anderson). In any case, no reproducible and generally-accepted experiment is inconsistent with SR, within its domain of applicability. Yes in the case of a few anomalous experiments there is an aspect of this being a self-fulfilling prophecy (being inconsistent with SR may be considered to be an indication that the experiment is not acceptable). Note also that few if any standard references or textbooks even mention the possibility that some experiments might be inconsistent with SR, and there are also aspects of publication bias in the literature -- some of these papers appear in obscure journals. Some of those papers exhibit various levels of incompetence, which explains their authors' difficulty in being published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals; the presence of major peer-reviewed journals here indicates it is not impossible for an anomalous experiment to get published in them.
end quote.
In fairness it goes on given that qualification to deal with the results. So I dont think I am alone in questioning many of the "experiments" put forward.
I mean lets face it if you are doing a thesis as part of your degree on the subject you are not going to attack it like I could be interpreted as doing.
The clocks ..the differences is measured in nano seconds... I know scientist can read low numbers but doesnot anyone feel this is a big judgement to make on such a small observable "difference". To someone familar with the precission of atomic clocks are better qualified to comment but I am suspicious of the result.

alex

robagar · #34 09-06-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

thank you all for your tollerance of one seeking to chalenge the unchalengable and understand the mystery of the Universe.

no worries

the world would be very dull if we all agreed on everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Still would like to understand the physical link between the clock and speed much better.
alex

you and me both!

The lovely thing about SR is the simplicity of the maths, but getting a physical gut feeling for the way it works is another thing entirely...

xelasnave · #35 09-06-2006, 12:29 PM

I think it is the simplicity of the math that to me "fools" folk

. I am a nuts and bolts kinda guy

so of course it will perplex me. I mean one gets a little less confident in ones intelligence when presented with something all seem to "get" as a group but individually people will say and I quote a past remark from someone who helps me understand the concept..." but no man can understand space time"... and others when I reach the point of "well how does this work in the real world" I get told I should go to the Quantum Mechanics side of the room

. AND there are experimenters journalists commontators (with invalid input

) who in seeking to jump on the band wagon cloud the issue further for folk like me.
Still how nice to have a question that presumably will keep me occupied until the end of my days. Already in my pursuit I recon I have read more than if I had of taken the subject at Uni... which leaves me realising I now I know less than when I started

..even though I actually know more

. But relatively I know little.
Thanks again

josh (Luke) · #36 12-06-2006, 05:26 PM

Far out!
You guys are brainy fellas that for sure! Wish my brain could more easily compute the kinda stuff youre talking about
I never got as far as the rest of you as i really do have some difficulties focusing my mind when mathmatics are involved. It really does seem that the more you learn the less you know ie. with greater knowledge come greater questions, those questions seem to increase exponetially until questions asked become impossible{seemingly} to answer with provable facts.. until truly great questions are asked and we are left... well having an almost "spiritual" experiance. Well thats where i left off with this one, but i think that feeling is my mind going into damage control

Thanks for keeping this topic going, i know ive learned alot by reading your posts.
Thanks all

xelasnave · #37 12-06-2006, 06:00 PM

Hey Josh I have no degree in Science or Math. My highest "scientific" achievement was to top the "trial leaving certificate" at my school in general science... that would not guarantee a last place in a combined sciences class. Having an aptitude for science I did Law so thats how smart I am.????
I love this stuff but regretably feel I miss the point, thats on a good day on a bad day I feel it is everyone else who has missed the point...
It has kept me reading since involving myself in this thread and although I could add more of my distorted views I think I will leave it for now.
alex

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #38 14-06-2006, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

Yesterday I read an interesting piece!

If a ship could travel faster than the Speed of Light it would see itself arrive at a later time!!!!

The Ship travelling at faster than speed of light would arrive, then the light from it which left at the same time obviously (which is travelling at the speed of light) would arrive at it's proper time, later than the first craft.

Hmmmmmm.

So, you could see yourself coming after you arrived. What a paradox!

Ahhh, any comments on this Paradox?

AGarvin · #39 14-06-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by ballaratdragons
Yesterday I read an interesting piece!

If a ship could travel faster than the Speed of Light it would see itself arrive at a later time!!!!

The Ship travelling at faster than speed of light would arrive, then the light from it which left at the same time obviously (which is travelling at the speed of light) would arrive at it's proper time, later than the first craft.

Hmmmmmm.

So, you could see yourself coming after you arrived. What a paradox!

Ahhh, any comments on this Paradox?

If it were possible it would violate causality and totally stuff up some of our fundamental understanding of the universe, but since it's not possible according to relativity ........

PS. Love the 12"er.

Johno (John) · #40 14-06-2006, 08:28 PM

There was a whole issue of Scientific American recently dedicated to time. I think it was April or May (I've lent the mag to someone else so I can't be sure). It was extremely interesting and one article discussed the twin paradox with some helpful diagrams. It's worth getting a copy if you can.