Simple explanation for time dilation

[DanMP]

Nothing is time dilated in its own frame.

How could it be? And who claimed that?

 

This is not the point. Here is:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

 

The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth. So we have 3 clocks that counted different amounts of nanoseconds between the same START and STOP.

 

So, same fame, different clock rates ... How the clock/atoms knew how to behave?

Edited February 8, 2016 by DanMP

[Strange]

So, same fame, different clock rates ... How the clock/atoms knew how to behave?

 

They didn't "know" anything. It is because measurements are made from a different frame of reference.

 

Feel free to ask the same question again and get the same answer. But it might be more productive to learn what the theory says.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Strange

[geordief]

Is the explanation in the video correct when it says that the bodily processes proceed at the speed of light ?

 

This is a quote from the video. (around 5 min 36 seconds)

 

 

"....so for any bodily activity to occur on earth the photons in your body have to travel a certain very tiny distance....."

 

Is that rigorously true? If so I think I would find it very helpful. I think it would actually be even more helpful if that "finding" can be generalised to all matter (not just living matter).

[DanMP]

They didn't "know" anything. It is because measurements are made from a different frame of reference.

 

If they didn't "know" anything, how they knew that the measurements are made from a different frame of reference?

 

 

 

... the photons in your body have to travel a certain very tiny distance....

 

See here why the distance varies (in SR):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KHjpBjgIMVk

 

This is valid for all matter.

[Strange]

 

If they didn't "know" anything, how they knew that the measurements are made from a different frame of reference?

 

The nature of space-time means that measurements made from different frames of reference will vary.

In other words, it is the measurements that change, not the atoms.

[DanMP]

 

The nature of space-time means that measurements made from different frames of reference will vary.

In other words, it is the measurements that change, not the atoms.

 

We don't measure time directly, from space-time. We use instruments, made of atoms, that count certain repetitive and reliable events. So, in other words, the "behaviour" (speed) of the atoms inside the instrument changes, not the measurements. Measurements are done in the same way, by counting the events mentioned above.

Edited February 8, 2016 by DanMP

[swansont]

Questions like: how the atom knows that it should run slower/faster, according to time dilation we calculate?

 

Don't anthropomorphize nature. She hates that.

 

This is like the old joke about how does a vacuum know to keep hot stuff hot and cold stuff cold. It doesn't. That's how nature behaves.

[Strange]

 

We don't measure time directly, from space-time. We use instruments, made of atoms, that count certain repetitive and reliable events. So, in other words, the "behaviour" (speed) of the atoms inside the instrument changes, not the measurements. Measurements are done in the same way, by counting the events mentioned above.

 

When you measure something from your frame of reference, the speed of the instrument is zero. So I don't see the relevance of your comment.

GPS clocks on orbits are running faster than "my" clock. How they know to do it?

 

It is obviously not "them" because 10,000 different observers will observe the clocks running at different speeds. The clocks (or the atoms) can't "know" and "pretend" to be running at multiple different speeds at the same time.

[geordief]

 

 

 

 

 

See here why the distance varies (in SR):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KHjpBjgIMVk

 

This is valid for all matter.

Thanks , that is great fun but I am not trying to understand time dilation per se. It is the particular assertion in the video shown on the OP that interests me as I have mulled over this possibility many times in the past and this is the first time I have come across this assertion.

 

It boils down (I think) to that (in the body at any rate according to him) there are processes ongoing that run at the speed of light.

 

Now I know atoms do not move at the speed of light but if there is any physical process in the body (or any other physical environment) that depends on the speed of light for it to function I would "bank" that information and ,as they say it would be "food for (my) thought"

 

So ,is it yes or no? Is the speed of light absolutely inbuilt into all physical processes ?

 

If we could create an em radiation free region of the universe would that region just "cease to exist" ? Is such a "region" totally impossible

Edited February 8, 2016 by geordief

[Janus]

We don't measure time directly, from space-time. We use instruments, made of atoms, that count certain repetitive and reliable events. So, in other words, the "behaviour" (speed) of the atoms inside the instrument changes, not the measurements. Measurements are done in the same way, by counting the events mentioned above.

The longer you cling to the idea that Relativistic effects are due to some influence that causes a mechanistic change in objects, the longer it will be before you will understand Relativity.

 

Relativity is about the very nature of time and space, not about mechanistic influences affecting how fast clocks run.

 

An analogy would be two men standing in a room and comparing the relative positions of two objects on the floor. The first man looks at them and says that object 1 is 3 feet to the front of and 4 feet to the left of object 2. The second man says that object 1 is 5 feet directly in front of object 2. They disagree because the two men face in different directions and thus their individual notions of left, right, front and back differ. It is not because the rotation of the second man with respect to the first causes some mechanistic alteration to his measuring devices.

In Relativity, We have space-time, which has applies no unique distinction between "space" and "time". This distinction is made by the reference frame. It is like space is measured as left/right and time is measured as front/back, and the relative positions of events in space and time depends on the reference frame. Two different reference frames (in relative motion or different gravity potentials) measure separation along the time and space axes differently, because their time and space axes are oriented differently from each other. An observer in frame A moving with respect to frame B measures a time interval as having a different duration than an observer in frame B no more because his motion has an effect on his measuring equipment than the fact that Man 2 measures a different Left-right distance between the two objects than Man 1 did in the earlier example was caused by something affecting his measuring device.

[geordief]

The longer you cling to the idea that Relativistic effects are due to some influence that causes a mechanistic change in objects, the longer it will be before you will understand Relativity.

 

Relativity is about the very nature of time and space, not about mechanistic influences affecting how fast clocks run.

 

An analogy would be two men standing in a room and comparing the relative positions of two objects on the floor. The first man looks at them and says that object 1 is 3 feet to the front of and 4 feet to the left of object 2. The second man says that object 1 is 5 feet directly in front of object 2. They disagree because the two men face in different directions and thus their individual notions of left, right, front and back differ. It is not because the rotation of the second man with respect to the first causes some mechanistic alteration to his measuring devices.

In Relativity, We have space-time, which has applies no unique distinction between "space" and "time". This distinction is made by the reference frame. It is like space is measured as left/right and time is measured as front/back, and the relative positions of events in space and time depends on the reference frame. Two different reference frames (in relative motion or different gravity potentials) measure separation along the time and space axes differently, because their time and space axes are oriented differently from each other. An observer in frame A moving with respect to frame B measures a time interval as having a different duration than an observer in frame B no more because his motion has an effect on his measuring equipment than the fact that Man 2 measures a different Left-right distance between the two objects than Man 1 did in the earlier example was caused by something affecting his measuring device.

Sorry if I sound hypothetical (and thick) but are you saying that the effects of relativity are not consequent on the speed of light being constant regardless of the inertial frame of reference?

 

Suppose the MM experiment had given the expected results would we have had (a different version of) SR and GR anyway?

Edited February 8, 2016 by geordief

[DanMP]

Please explain Hafele–Keating experiment (below), considering that we don't measure time directly, we use instruments, made of atoms, that count certain repetitive and reliable events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth. So we have 3 clocks that counted different amounts of nanoseconds between the same START and STOP.

So, same fame, different clock rates ... Why exactly?

And please use Ryan's rewarded ideea (see above). The topic here is about a simple-explanation-for-time-dilation, an extension of the light-clock examples (see in the beginning) ... not about how to apply/solve/understand a mathematical model. The mathematical model is good to give results, but we, physicists, should understand what happens with atoms in different circumstances, how the prolonged paths folowed by light (and by any real or virtual particle that travels with the speed of light) affects atoms/molecules. See (again) this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=KHjpBjgIMVk

imagining that one ship is the nucleus and the other an electron.

Edited February 8, 2016 by DanMP

[Strange]

The mathematical model is good to give results, but we, physicists, should understand what happens with atoms in different circumstances

 

Nothing "happens with the atoms". Otherwise you need to explain how multiple different things can happen with them at the same time.

 

(Requesting this be moved to Speculations as you are plugging your own "theory".)

[DanMP]

Nothing "happens with the atoms". Otherwise you need to explain how multiple different things can happen with them at the same time.

 

(Requesting this be moved to Speculations as you are plugging your own "theory".)

 

This is not my theory. It is Ryan's and, although it was rewarded, it is naive and incomplete, as you just noticed

 

My theory is different, better, more consistent, and maybe I'll post it on Speculations, if you are interested to folow the idea above.

[Janus]

Sorry if I sound hypothetical (and thick) but are you saying that the effects of relativity are not consequent on the speed of light being constant regardless of the inertial frame of reference?

 

Suppose the MM experiment had given the expected results would we have had (a different version of) SR and GR anyway?

What I am saying is that both Relativistic effects and the fact that c is an invariant speed are a consequence of the nature of space-time. Don't put too much importance on the light. There is nothing special about light itself, it is simply the fact that it something that travels at c in a vacuum and is easy for us to measure that makes it convenient to use when discussing Relativity..

[geordief]

What I am saying is that both Relativistic effects and the fact that c is an invariant speed are a consequence of the nature of space-time. Don't put too much importance on the light. There is nothing special about light itself, it is simply the fact that it something that travels at c in a vacuum and is easy for us to measure that makes it convenient to use when discussing Relativity..

Thanks , that seems important to me .

[swansont]

This is not my theory. It is Ryan's and, although it was rewarded, it is naive and incomplete, as you just noticed

 

Then perhaps you can stop insisting that we couch our answers in terms of his video.

 

So, same fame, different clock rates ... Why exactly?

Because time runs at different rates in different frames, according to any given observer.

 

edit to add: Not the same frame.

[Phi for All]

 

This is not my theory. It is Ryan's and, although it was rewarded, it is naive and incomplete, as you just noticed

 

My theory is different, better, more consistent, and maybe I'll post it on Speculations, if you are interested to folow the idea above.

 

!

Moderator Note

Since Ryan's idea doesn't relate to mainstream Relativity, this thread also belongs in Speculations. And so far it's not meeting the standards that would keep it open more than these few pages.

 

Let's step up the rigor!

[MigL]

Dan's ideas are full of the typical 'rookie' mistake ( not that I haven't made my fair share ).

 

FRAMES MATTER ( yelling at the top of my lungs ) !

 

Any measurement made in the same frame will yield 'normal' results.

Measurements made from another frame will show dilation/contraction/mass gain.

Similarly for gravitational dilation

 

Are you riding on these atoms when you measure their speeds Dan ?

If not, then you are in A DIFFERENT FRAME.

 

I suggest you look up frame definitions, and get that straight in your head.

[ajb]

Questions like: how the atom knows that it should run slower/faster, according to time dilation we calculate?

This is more like philosophy. Anyway, as far as the atom is concerned it runs at just the same rate it always has done.

[DanMP]

The award for Ryan's idea was about 1/3 of Nobel Prize ... Why?

Ironically, he was somehow wrong (as Strange noticed) in explaining the rewarded kinematic time dilation, but his idea can be applied for gravitational time dilation. We also have longer paths (see the light clock explanation mentioned in the first post) and, in this case, observers from all inertial frames will agree which clock is ticking faster ... So, longer paths for light do mean time dilation, at least gravitational one.

Don't ignore what happens in atoms/molecules. This is the way to understand things, not by using space-time. In my opinion Einstein's relativity is like a 2D (only it is 4D) map of a 3D reality. Like a topographic map with contour lines, capable to show, for a trained eye, the mountains and valleys on a 2D paper, Einstein's 4D space-time / relativity can also help trained physicists get good results but it isn't the true reality and can be misleading. It's like saying that we get tired walking from A to B not because that’s a mountain in between but because we are crossing many contour lines. This is not physics.

edit to add: Not the same frame.

Yes, the same frame
See the site: "The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth".

[Strange]

Don't ignore what happens in atoms/molecules. This is the way to understand things, not by using space-time.

 

Please show your calculations and how they compare with the results from GR (i.e. reality).

[DanMP]

Please show your calculations and how they compare with the results from GR (i.e. reality).

 

I'll show my theory later, at Speculations.

 

Using my theory, the invariance of c can be explained, rather than postulated. That's "all". So, mathematically speaking nothing is changed That's a nice thing, but there is much more than that.

[Strange]

I'll show my theory later, at Speculations.

 

This is speculations. So come on.

 

So, mathematically speaking nothing is changed

 

So there is no way of distinguishing your theory from current theory?

 

So it isn't a new theory at all. It seems that all you have is a story that you think "explains" the current theory. What a waste of time.

[DanMP]

This topic is about time dilation. My theory is much more, so I'll make a new topic for it. Not now, but probably soon, although I'm not very pleased by your reactions. I still expect some answers.

My theory makes predictions (I wrote 5 in my article), so it can be proved. It is different from GR like a 3D map is different from the 2D one I mentioned above. Same results, different understanding.