Which physicist is correct?

[Alias Moniker]

There are a lot of well known thought experiments to explain the effects of time dilation in special relativity. One person remains on Earth, the other person travels in a rocket shit at near C. After 5 of the light years, the rocket ship returns to Earth and the other person has aged 105 +/- years.

If both of those people were physicists, which one would have the accurate data?

More applicably, let's say a physicist on Earth and a physicists on the ISS both observe the same astronomical event and we're going to use one result as the new "standard" for a system of measurement. The physicist on the ISS is experiencing time more slowly and because of the accuracy of time keeping and the distances of an astronomical event and the two observers from one another, we could assume a noticeable difference in their results. Which results would be considered "accurate" by the scientific body?

[Klaynos]

A couple of things. When you quite speeds you need to say what they are relative to. When you state distances, times etc. you need to state in which frame the are measured in.

 

But to answer your general question. They are both correct, there is no absolute frame.

[Strange]

If both of those people were physicists, which one would have the accurate data?

 

If you really mean "accurate" then it would simply depend which had the better instruments. The time experienced by each could be different but measured equally accurately.

[studiot]

Two comments.

 

 

 

There are a lot of well known thought experiments

 

There are also a lot of real world measurements of similar experiments these days as well as substantial hard engineering based on them.

 

 

 

More applicably, let's say a physicist on Earth and a physicists on the ISS both observe the same astronomical event and we're going to use one result as the new "standard" for a system of measurement. The physicist on the ISS is experiencing time more slowly and because of the accuracy of time keeping and the distances of an astronomical event and the two observers from one another, we could assume a noticeable difference in their results. Which results would be considered "accurate" by the scientific body?

 

One of the weirdest conclusions of relativistic time dilation is the necessity to abandon simultaneity as an absolute.

 

This means that two observers will not necessarily agree that two events they observe are simultaneous. ie one may see the two events as simultaneous, the other may not.

[swansont]

There are a lot of well known thought experiments to explain the effects of time dilation in special relativity. One person remains on Earth, the other person travels in a rocket shit at near C. After 5 of the light years, the rocket ship returns to Earth and the other person has aged 105 +/- years.

 

If both of those people were physicists, which one would have the accurate data?

 

More applicably, let's say a physicist on Earth and a physicists on the ISS both observe the same astronomical event and we're going to use one result as the new "standard" for a system of measurement. The physicist on the ISS is experiencing time more slowly and because of the accuracy of time keeping and the distances of an astronomical event and the two observers from one another, we could assume a noticeable difference in their results. Which results would be considered "accurate" by the scientific body?

 

You're asking the wrong question, I think. Accuracy would be whether or not they got the answer correct for their frame, and that's not inherent to the frame. If both travelers had good clocks, they would both have accurate data.

 

If the scientists wanted to share the data in order to do a comparison, they'd have to agree on a frame to use, as a matter of convenience. Any data from another frame would be transformed into the chosen frame. For example, timing often uses an earth-centered, inertial frame, so time is defined with reference to the surface of the earth (on the geoid). Any effects from not being in that frame are added in as corrections.

[MigL]

If the physicists were 'good' physicists, they would immediately recognize the problem and do the appropriate tranforms to relize they are both 'accurate'.

[Ophiolite]

Alias Moniker, your question, when translated, comes out like this:

 

"I know it's called the theory of relativity, but surely there must be an absolute."

[love sersh]

Are you talking about the TWIN PARADOX? It's due to the change in inertial reference. And if acceleration is considered, you should use GR to calculate.(both for the man in spacecraft)

Edited October 14, 2014 by love sersh

[xyzt]

Are you talking about the TWIN PARADOX? It's due to the change in inertial reference. And if acceleration is considered, you should use GR to calculate.(both for the man in spacecraft)

Not exactly. SR deals with the motion of accelerated objects , see "hyperbolic motion". You don't need GR in order to explain the twins paradox. SR suffices.