Theory of time dilation

[kalesh]

Hi all,

I hope this is the correct place for posting this thread, if not could someone move it please.

There are a few things that I have been thinking about, these may reform the way we look at time and hopefully someday will enable faster than light travel and maybe time travel as well.

I am only posting a part of my thoughts in this post, more will come either as replies to this post or as new topics.

I am posting here so members of this forum may help me unravel the jumble of thoughts in my head and also help with some eguations I get stuck with.

 

Time as a fourth dimension.

Time is now generally taken as the fourth dimension of spacetime. Now has anyone ever heard of speeding up one of the three dimensions of space? I think not. Cars speed up, spacecraft speed up, everything may speed up(or slow down) but space itself never speeds up or slows down.

 

Now space makes up three dimensions of spacetime, so if three dimensions of spacetime can never speed up or slow down, why should the fourth? This tells us that time never speeds up or slows down. Now I am not arguing with the results of so many experiments that have proved that "time slows down". In fact my arguments go hand in hand with all of them. I'm just trying to give a new viewpoint on time and time dilation.

 

So if time doesn't slow down then what causes time dilation?

Well the person travelling speeds up. Let me explain this more clearly.

Imagine a 2-D senario as below.

 

 

A person is travelling with velocity V in dimensions x and y.The velocity has two components Vx and Vy. Now if the person accelerates from V to V1 both the components Vx and Vy also increase.

Now lets adapt this to 4d spacetime. For ease of understanding I am combining the three dimensions of space into 1 dimension namely space and leaving time with one namely time.

 

 

The same applies to objects starting from rest but it is much easier to understand it when assuming it already has a velocity.

Using the diagram above imagine a spaceship travelling at velocity V through spacetime. The components of velocity V are Vspace and Vtime. Lets assume Vspace=0.1c and Vtime=1second/second. Now the spacecraft exerts energy to accelerate from V to V1. Lets assume at V1 Vspace=0.2c and Vtime=2seconds/second. I know isn't accurate but you get the idea.

 

Now to elobrate on that look at the diagram below. The spacecraft in the paragraph above travels from point A to point B at speed V1 (lets forget about space and work only on time). At speed V1 Vtime=2seconds/second. and the distance as seen in the diagram is 90s (90 seconds). since time=distance/speed T=90/2 = 45 seconds. So it takes the spaceship 45 seconds to travel from point A to B in time. Now consider a "stationary" object (its still travelling in direction of time). its Vspace=0 but Vtime=1second/second. so using time=distance/speed it takes the stationary object 90 seconds to reach point B from point A. Since we can only see something that is at the same time as we are (just as we can only see something within our visual range in space). Since the spaceship takes 45 seconds to reach point B and stationary object takes 90 seconds, when they meet at point B a watch on the spaceship will measure 45 seconds and one on stationary object will measure 90 seconds.

 

 

I have more ideas and discussion both about time and or items related to relativity, I will see responses to this post and decide if I should post the rest in this forum.

I'll highly appreciate it if someone who can understand what I have said above can elobrate on it so other readers can also understand it, as I am not very good at explaining things.

Waiting for your replies, comments, questions.

Regards Kalesh.

[swansont]

Now space makes up three dimensions of spacetime, so if three dimensions of spacetime can never speed up or slow down, why should the fourth? This tells us that time never speeds up or slows down.

 

Length contraction — the spatial dimensions do change. Time dilation has been observed/measured, over and over again.

 

 

I know isn't accurate but you get the idea.

Thing is that scientific theories are accurate — they make concrete predictions so that can be tested and, in principle, falsified. IOW, you need general equations describing the behavior.

[kalesh]

Length contraction — the spatial dimensions do change.

Yes they do change but I haven't heard anyone say space moves. I will come to length contradiction and gravity increase that are connected to this theory later on.

 

Time dilation has been observed/measured, over and over again.

 

I have said in my previous post and say again. I am NOT trying to dispute that time dilation does not occur. What I am trying to do is to explain HOW and WHY time dilation occurs.

 

Thing is that scientific theories are accurate — they make concrete predictions so that can be tested and, in principle, falsified. IOW, you need general equations describing the behavior.

Hey cool it. This is a theory in development, and is not complete yet. I posted part of it to see reaction of people here and to get ideas on it.By the way what I meant by "not accurate" is that the numbers I am using for explanation has just been picked and not calculated. If someone is so inclined to make the calculations then he can make accurate calculations and check.

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Any more replies anyone?

[timo]

The meaning of the term "time" in time dilatation is not the same as in time being a spacetime dimension. It´s one word for two different things, one being the name for the 4th coordinate needed to uniquely label different points in spacetime (so it´s something like the x-,y- and z-coordinate) and the other one being related to length of trajectories in spacetime (something like the circumference of a circle).

 

Your idea in general seems correct but it is missing a few crucial points (in addition to the incorrect math). Some random comments:

- You assume that both objects reach the same point t=90 s. This is only partly correct since just because they both reach points which have the same time coordinate doesn´t mean they reach the same point. In fact, assuming they both started at the point with the same space and time coordinates it is easy to realize they don´t reach the same point since one object did move in the space direction while the other didn´t. You need to make a turn in space direction midways to get back to the same point.

- The 90 s is called "coordinate time" and is related to the meaning of time as a dimension. It is to some extend arbitrary. The 45 s (or the 90 s for the other guy) is called "eigentime" or "proper time" and related to the length of curves. It is not arbitrary. It is what physicists call "invariant".

- Time dilatation means that two observers start and end a path through spacetime at the same points (equal time coordinates and equal space coordinates and of course some equal coordinate time for the distance) but measure different eigentimes because they took a different path.

- Correct velocities (for massive particles) in your notation have to obey [math] c^2 v_t^2 - v_x^2 = c^2[/math]. You should use physically correct velocities obeying this "normalization condition". It´s not too much additional work and it gives your post some predictive power and makes it easier for others to understand what you are saying.

- In this reply I assumed you wanted to know to what extent your understanding is compatible with the mainstream view (i.e. Relativity). In this case, this subforum was the correct one to post in. In you wanted to propose "a new theory" to the world, then the speculations forum had probably been more appropriate since we have the agreement (it´s a silent agreement since no one bothered posting a rule concerning this, yet) that the physics forums should only be mainstream physics.

[swansont]

Hey cool it. This is a theory in development, and is not complete yet.

 

Then it should have been posted in "Speculations"

[kalesh]

- You assume that both objects reach the same point t=90 s. This is only partly correct since just because they both reach points which have the same time coordinate doesn´t mean they reach the same point. In fact, assuming they both started at the point with the same space and time coordinates it is easy to realize they don´t reach the same point since one object did move in the space direction while the other didn´t. You need to make a turn in space direction midways to get back to the same point.

 

The assumption is made that the spacecraft does make a turn to move back to the same point in space, however that was left out intentionally to reduce confusion.

 

- The 90 s is called "coordinate time" and is related to the meaning of time as a dimension. It is to some extend arbitrary. The 45 s (or the 90 s for the other guy) is called "eigentime" or "proper time" and related to the length of curves. It is not arbitrary. It is what physicists call "invariant".

 

 

Thanks I will look into that and see how it fits.

 

- In this reply I assumed you wanted to know to what extent your understanding is compatible with the mainstream view (i.e. Relativity). In this case, this subforum was the correct one to post in. In you wanted to propose "a new theory" to the world, then the speculations forum had probably been more appropriate since we have the agreement (it´s a silent agreement since no one bothered posting a rule concerning this, yet) that the physics forums should only be mainstream physics.

 

Your assumption is correct, Right now I want to know how much is compactiable with mainstream relativity and to see what changes need to be made. If it seems compatible enough then I will later try to get it out into the world.

[Klaynos]

The assumption is made that the spacecraft does make a turn to move back to the same point in space, however that was left out intentionally to reduce confusion.

 

Sorry I've not been fully following this thread, just had a quick browse, one minor note. If the spacecraft makes a turn then it suffers an acceleration and you can't use special relativity any more. You need to use general relativity.

[timo]

If the spacecraft makes a turn then it suffers an acceleration and you can't use special relativity any more. You need to use general relativity.

This is a commonly accepted statement but imho an incorrect one. It slightly depends on where you draw the line between GR and SR.

Most people tend to draw the line such that they call all the stuff you learn in school or basic university lectures SR and everything beyond that GR - in this case you might argue that you cannot fully apply SR for a particle that accelerates.

Others draw the distinction line at the point where you allow arbitrary coordinate transformation - it´s a question of taste whether you´ll need arbitrary coordinate transformations here so there´s no definite answer.

I tend to make the choice whether it´s SR or GR dependent on whether I need any form of non-trivial spacetime geometry (i.e. gravity) like those described by the Einstein equations - you certainly don´t need gravitational interaction for this example of time dilatation.

[Jacques]

Originally Posted by Klaynos>

If the spacecraft makes a turn then it suffers an acceleration and you can't use special relativity any more. You need to use general relativity.

Does it mean that GR cover all SR ?

If the spacecraft suffer an acceleration in its speed, I think that SR apply at each infenitisimal time, and we need to make the integral of each delta time dilatation... Is GR doing the equivalent to that ?

[Klaynos]

This is a commonly accepted statement but imho an incorrect one. It slightly depends on where you draw the line between GR and SR.

Most people tend to draw the line such that they call all the stuff you learn in school or basic university lectures SR and everything beyond that GR - in this case you might argue that you cannot fully apply SR for a particle that accelerates.

Others draw the distinction line at the point where you allow arbitrary coordinate transformation - it´s a question of taste whether you´ll need arbitrary coordinate transformations here so there´s no definite answer.

I tend to make the choice whether it´s SR or GR dependent on whether I need any form of non-trivial spacetime geometry (i.e. gravity) like those described by the Einstein equations - you certainly don´t need gravitational interaction for this example of time dilatation.

 

I see, thanks for the correction, my GR knowledge is not too great I'm afraid

[spunnery]

I have said in my previous post and say again. I am NOT trying to dispute that time dilation does not occur. What I am trying to do is to explain HOW and WHY time dilation occurs.

 

HAI KALESH

if i say there is no time dilation ,which u r trying to explain in ur upcoming theory.

Time Dilation -my perspective

As far as I am concerned I believe laws as simple as of Sir Isaac Newton’s should govern the universe. So is there anything wrong in reviewing the immediate output of special relativity’- time dilation’, which requires a complex mathematics to establish a fourth dimension.

So let us begin with the popular moving clocks. Let us consider first about a standing(not moving)clock, which use light rays to measure the time. The rays will start from a source and in a time ‘t’ it hits a mirror just opposite and then in another ‘t’seconds it hits back the source. Let the mirrors are placed at a distance ‘h’ apart. Let the light travel at a constant speed of 299793 km/sec. Here the distance traveled by light between two mirrors is ‘h’ meter.

Now consider the clock is moving at a small velocity. Between mirrors, the light has to travel the hypotenuse of the triangle with velocity of clock multiplied by time taken for light to travel a distance ‘h’ (distance clock moved in that time ‘t’) as base and ‘h’ as altitude. Since the velocity of clock is negligible compared to that of light, the base of triangle will be negligible. In other words, we can say the time taken by the light to travel ‘h’ meters is a very very small fraction. This small fraction if multiplied with the small velocity of clock will give a small fraction, which can be considered as negligible. This indirectly means that altitude and hypotenuse are same which is equal to ‘h’, and the clock will show same time.

 

What if clock is moving @ a speed nearer to that of light. The small fraction of time mentioned above, multiplied with the high velocity of clock will give a considerable amount, which means the base of triangle becomes bigger. Hence the hypotenuse also will be considerably bigger than the altitude ‘h’. So in the given time ‘t’, with its constant velocity, the light ray will not reach the opposite mirror. This doesn’t mean that the clock is running slower, but it has to be calibrated to tick at correct time. i.e. The ‘h’ of faster moving clocks(velocity nearer to that of light) has to be set to ‘h1’,which in turn will give a hypotenuse distance ‘h’, and will give right time compared to that of a standing clock.

Any confusion? Draw a sketch and see!

If time dilation is flawed, is there anything to backup the so-called space warps and geodesic deviations? Do you think we have to discuss anything about special relativity?

Now with all the respect given to a genius of the century (in imagination-not in mathematics), Shall I call him ‘the man who stopped the clock of science for a century.

[Klaynos]

It's quite simple to explain how and shy really, it's because photons take a finite time to get from a to b for you to be able to observe events, and the path difference between teh first photon getting to b and the second at the end of the measurement periode is big enough to be quite noticeable.

 

(I've not actually read the last post)