Time Dialation

[SimonFunnell]

One of the citied proofs of relativity is an experiement using atomic clocks to prove time dialation.

 

My question is, how do scientists know this is time dialation and not the atom simply raising or lowering the speed of their 'tick'?

 

 

[ajb]

My question is, how do scientists know this is time dialation and not the atom simply raising or lowering the speed of their 'tick'?

Using the standard explanation of time dilation, as far as the atom itself is concerned it 'ticks' just as it always has done. This has to be the case as other wise the atom would have to adjust its 'timing' to suit the timing of the scientists, but also all other potential inertial observers. This is just impossible.

[SimonFunnell]

I am not sure I understand, for example:

 

Lets suppose I have two clocks side by side that keep the same time for many years. One day I decide to move one of the clocks so it is now above the clock it was previously at the side of. Now, at the same time, by complete coincedence, the clock I move now starts to run slower than the other.

 

I could deduce from this that moving the clock caused time to slow down for the clock, but this would be fallacious reasoning as we know its just the clock running slower.

 

I am assuming the case is different for time dialation, that there must be reasoning and evidence that suggest time dialation as opposed to the atom vibrating at a slower/faster speed.

[ajb]

I could deduce from this that moving the clock caused time to slow down for the clock, but this would be fallacious reasoning as we know its just the clock running slower.

Right, so you do this for many many clocks and this will help remove any experimental errors.

 

 

I am assuming the case is different for time dialation, that there must be reasoning and evidence that suggest time dialation as opposed to the atom vibrating at a slower/faster speed.

The main thing is that the theoretical predictions of both special relativistic time dilation and gravitational time dilation agree very well with the observations/experiments.

 

Another thing you could think about is the following. In the special relativistic case, you have to compare the time of some event as measured by two observers in relative motion. Now add a third observer. How can the first observer (say) adjust his clock to get consistent results for both the other two observers? Then add more and more observers.

 

This reasoning, I hope, suggests that noting special can happen to the clock of a given observer as that observer sees it.

[swansont]

It works for many different clock designs, so unlikely that it's some physical effect.

[SimonFunnell]

Thank you sincerely for taking the time out to answer my question, however I most aplogise and reinterate the question in the hope of getting a solid answer I can understand.

 

Atomic clocks keep time by using the vibrations of an atom.

 

We have one on the earth, one flying round the earth in a plane, the clocks lose sync, this is a common explanation if this experiement.

 

Now the most obvious explanation is that flying the plane around the earth is causing the atom to vibrate a higher or lower speed accounting for the difference between two. This is very simple and ordinary, intuitive and obvious, however...

 

I am now presented with a different explanation (relativity) that is not only very complicated in comparison to the above, it also requires you to essentially believe that time itself is flowing differently for each clock (time dialation). That is kind of extraordinary and non-intuitive.

 

Given occams razor surely one would choose the simpler of the two as an explanation.

 

However this is not the case, at some point the scientific community must have dissmissed the simple notion I have put forward in favour of the complex one, I assume.

 

My question is, when did this discussion, and consequently the decsion to choose the more complex explanation over the simple one, take place? Who was the discussion between? This must have happened as I find it hard to believe that no one would ever think of this.

 

Thanks again, sorry for being so persistent.

[imatfaal]

It also works on the expected decay time of short-lived particles - from the observer's frame they exist for a longer time before decaying if they are moving relative to the observer than if they are still with respect to the observer (as also longer than we would expect from our predictions if we do not allow for time dilation thru special relativity)

[Klaynos]

It's also important to understand that it isn't just a slowing down observed from different frames but that the measured difference is within the error bars of the numerical prediction.

[swansont]

Thank you sincerely for taking the time out to answer my question, however I most aplogise and reinterate the question in the hope of getting a solid answer I can understand.

 

Atomic clocks keep time by using the vibrations of an atom.

 

We have one on the earth, one flying round the earth in a plane, the clocks lose sync, this is a common explanation if this experiment. It's not a very complicated derivation.

 

Now the most obvious explanation is that flying the plane around the earth is causing the atom to vibrate a higher or lower speed accounting for the difference between two. This is very simple and ordinary, intuitive and obvious, however...

 

I am now presented with a different explanation (relativity) that is not only very complicated in comparison to the above, it also requires you to essentially believe that time itself is flowing differently for each clock (time dialation). That is kind of extraordinary and non-intuitive.

 

Given occams razor surely one would choose the simpler of the two as an explanation.

 

However this is not the case, at some point the scientific community must have dissmissed the simple notion I have put forward in favour of the complex one, I assume.

 

My question is, when did this discussion, and consequently the decsion to choose the more complex explanation over the simple one, take place? Who was the discussion between? This must have happened as I find it hard to believe that no one would ever think of this.

 

Thanks again, sorry for being so persistent.

 

Relativity is the simpler of the two explanations. We arrive at the prediction from the application of the idea that c is invariant, something we know from electrodynamics. It's not a complicated derivation.

 

What physical cause would have the atom vibrating faster or slower depending on its frame of reference, and independent of what kind of atom it is, or device used to measure the oscillations?

[SimonFunnell]

 

Relativity is the simpler of the two explanations. We arrive at the prediction from the application of the idea that c is invariant, something we know from electrodynamics. It's not a complicated derivation.

 

What physical cause would have the atom vibrating faster or slower depending on its frame of reference, and independent of what kind of atom it is, or device used to measure the oscillations?

 

Could you provide a convient link to the history of science regarding this subject, if there is one? I am happy to read or watch a video, it obviously started with Einstein and relativity but what about other people and the papers they produced since Einstein and up to the experiment? While I am thankful for the answers provided this maybe more useful than technical replies at this stage.

 

If there is not a convient link could someone put together a number of links that sort of explain the history, or, and I know its asking a lot because not everyones going to have the time, provide a summary I could use to investigate further?

 

Thanks very much.

[studiot]

Try this

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Perfect-Theory-Geniuses-Relativity/dp/1408703106

[Strange]

Could you provide a convient link to the history of science regarding this subject, if there is one? I am happy to read or watch a video, it obviously started with Einstein and relativity but what about other people and the papers they produced since Einstein and up to the experiment?

 

It actually started with Maxwell (and therefore Faraday). His equations showed that the speed of light is invariant. Einstein took this as the starting point and worked out the consequences as the theory of special relativity. Many others were developing the same thing at the same time, most notably Lorentz and Poincare.

 

The main tests are summarised here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

More modern tests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

Anf for GR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

 

(There are copious references at the end of those.)

Now the most obvious explanation is that flying the plane around the earth is causing the atom to vibrate a higher or lower speed accounting for the difference between two. This is very simple and ordinary, intuitive and obvious, however...

 

But that isn't really an explanation, it is just an ad-hoc interpretation of what we observed. Was there any theory that predicted that this behaviour of atoms? Is there any mechanism that would cause atoms to vibrate at higher or lower speed? And that would affect every other mechanism in exactly the same way?

 

On the other hand, there is a theory that predicts and explains what happens...

Edited February 15, 2016 by Strange

[ajb]

It actually started with Maxwell (and therefore Faraday).

It really starts much further back. Galileo and Newton realised that all measurements of velocity were relative and that the notion of absolute rest is ill-posed. However, they both took a global view to time as some fixed universal clock. This is the bases of Galilean relativity which underpins standard classical Newtonian mechanics.

 

It was the realisation that Galilean relativity did not apply to Maxwell's equations that kick-started the hunt for some wider notion of relativity...

 

Now the most obvious explanation is that flying the plane around the earth is causing the atom to vibrate a higher or lower speed accounting for the difference between two. This is very simple and ordinary, intuitive and obvious, however...

There is no mechanism for this. You could try flying two planes round the world at different speeds. How would each clock know to 'adjust' to both the ground and the other clock?

 

 

I am now presented with a different explanation (relativity) that is not only very complicated in comparison to the above, it also requires you to essentially believe that time itself is flowing differently for each clock (time dialation). That is kind of extraordinary and non-intuitive.

The biggest difference here is that relativity gives us the mechanisms for time dilation and these all agree very well with what we observe.

[SimonFunnell]

 

It actually started with Maxwell (and therefore Faraday). His equations showed that the speed of light is invariant. Einstein took this as the starting point and worked out the consequences as the theory of special relativity. Many others were developing the same thing at the same time, most notably Lorentz and Poincare.

 

The main tests are summarised here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

More modern tests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

Anf for GR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

 

(There are copious references at the end of those.)

 

But that isn't really an explanation, it is just an ad-hoc interpretation of what we observed. Was there any theory that predicted that this behaviour of atoms? Is there any mechanism that would cause atoms to vibrate at higher or lower speed? And that would affect every other mechanism in exactly the same way?

 

On the other hand, there is a theory that predicts and explains what happens...

 

I just somehow imagined that this issue would have come up when people were looking at this problem, and that consequently I could learn about it. I kind of find it hard to believe that it has never been discussed.

 

Its true i am not providing an explanation for why the atoms may vibrate at a higher or lower speed, but surely this question would have come up at some point, and disscussed?

 

It can be quite difficult to find information about really specific points hence coming to this forum hoping to speak to a person who could actually clear this up for me.

 

If I am honest I am skeptical about relativity. Given the choice between, say, is relativity "sophisticated mathematics that works" or "a deeper insight in the nature of reality", I would favor the former over the latter.

 

Of course thats my opinion, and other people may have theirs, thats why I would like to get down to the facts about a few specific points. Time dialation is one of those points and I will be making posts regarding other points. I am then going to compile this into a video with the results....in fact I might create a post that explains what I am trying to achieve with the video and provides links to the individual posts....

 

Again, while I am thankful for the links and what look interesting reads, I would really like to hammer away one final time at this single following point:

 

Has what I have brought up, namely alterative interperations of this particular phenomna, been discussed in full? If so, by whom and in what papers?

[ajb]

I just somehow imagined that this issue would have come up when people were looking at this problem, and that consequently I could learn about it. I kind of find it hard to believe that it has never been discussed.

I think this is because time dilation was predicted, in the context of special relativity, before it was experimentally observed. The theory has been shown to match observations very well.

 

Its true i am not providing an explanation for why the atoms may vibrate at a higher or lower speed, but surely this question would have come up at some point, and disscussed?

 

The question you must always ask is 'as measured by?'.

 

Do the electronic transitions change rate when an atom moving? For your specific example, do the people on the plane itself see the transition rate being any different to that on the earth?

 

 

If I am honest I am skeptical about relativity. Given the choice between, say, is relativity "sophisticated mathematics that works" or "a deeper insight in the nature of reality", I would favor the former over the latter.

Many of us, and I would say all physicists do not see that there is a distinction in what you have said. The mathematics allows us to describe and understand nature giving us deeper insight.

 

Has what I have brought up, namely alterative interperations of this particular phenomna, been discussed in full? If so, by whom and in what papers?

I do not think there are any alternative descriptions of time dilation that are taken seriously by the physics community. You are better of trying to understand the accepted and well tested theory of special relativity.

[Strange]

If I am honest I am skeptical about relativity. Given the choice between, say, is relativity "sophisticated mathematics that works" or "a deeper insight in the nature of reality", I would favor the former over the latter.

 

The thing about relativity is that it does provide "a deeper insight in the nature of reality".

Also, the mathematics of special relativity is very simple.

 

Has what I have brought up, namely alterative interperations of this particular phenomna, been discussed in full? If so, by whom and in what papers?

 

There were initial attempts at a "mechanical" explanation, I think. The nearest thing to a successful theory that I am aware of is Lorentz Ether Theory. This is identical to Special Relativity but introduces an undetectable "ether" as the mechanical explanation. As this includes an undetectable element that makes no difference, and is therefore unnecessary, the theory loses out to Occam's Razor.

 

As far as I know, it also can't be generalized to include gravity.

[studiot]

Simon, I apologise that my link in answer to your post#10 question concerned general relativity, I got sidetracked.

 

Perhaps that is why you have not replied to my post #11.

 

Please note that the book referred has much useful background you might still like to conside for your pastiche.

 

Meanwhile back to the nitty gritty.

I think that you are following a common misconception.

 

That is you are trying to separate space and time.

 

You cannot do this they are inextricably linked for moving objects.

 

By inextricably linked I mean that affecting one affects the other.

 

In Mathematical Physics we describe this link by stating an 'equation of motion'

 

Since there are different types of motion, there are several different corresponding equations of motion, appropriate to the circumstances.

 

This is true even in pre relativistic mechanics and also true that Maxwell's equations lead to the so called wave equation which is an equation connecting , yes you guessed it

space and time.

 

Of course Einstinian mechanics are also equations of motion.

 

Please feel free to indicate if you wish to develop this theme further.

 

In answer to your direction question in your post# 14

 

The first and most famous experiment was by Frisch and Smith

 

American Journal of Physics 31 No 5 p 342 1963

 

A second equally important but less famous was by Greenberg

 

Physical Review Letters Vol23 No 21 p 1267 1969.

[SimonFunnell]

 

The thing about relativity is that it does provide "a deeper insight in the nature of reality".

Also, the mathematics of special relativity is very simple.

 

 

There were initial attempts at a "mechanical" explanation, I think. The nearest thing to a successful theory that I am aware of is Lorentz Ether Theory. This is identical to Special Relativity but introduces an undetectable "ether" as the mechanical explanation. As this includes an undetectable element that makes no difference, and is therefore unnecessary, the theory loses out to Occam's Razor.

 

As far as I know, it also can't be generalized to include gravity.

 

 

Simon, I apologise that my link in answer to your post#10 question concerned general relativity, I got sidetracked.

 

Perhaps that is why you have not replied to my post #11.

 

Please note that the book referred has much useful background you might still like to conside for your pastiche.

 

Meanwhile back to the nitty gritty.

 

I think that you are following a common misconception.

 

That is you are trying to separate space and time.

 

You cannot do this they are inextricably linked for moving objects.

 

By inextricably linked I mean that affecting one affects the other.

 

In Mathematical Physics we describe this link by stating an 'equation of motion'

 

Since there are different types of motion, there are several different corresponding equations of motion, appropriate to the circumstances.

 

This is true even in pre relativistic mechanics and also true that Maxwell's equations lead to the so called wave equation which is an equation connecting , yes you guessed it

space and time.

 

Of course Einstinian mechanics are also equations of motion.

 

Please feel free to indicate if you wish to develop this theme further.

 

In answer to your direction question in your post# 14

 

The first and most famous experiment was by Frisch and Smith

 

American Journal of Physics 31 No 5 p 342 1963

 

A second equally important but less famous was by Greenberg

 

Physical Review Letters Vol23 No 21 p 1267 1969.

 

That great thanks, this looks interesting and I will investigate the information and resources provided to see if I can get a better understand of things.

[DanMP]

Has what I have brought up, namely alterative interperations of this particular phenomna, been discussed in full? If so, by whom and in what papers?

 

Did you read this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93360-simple-explanation-for-time-dilation/page-1#entry903983 ?

Read from here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93360-simple-explanation-for-time-dilation/page-5#entry906396