|
|
First off I apologize for lengthiness, but I want to be thorough... please read the entire postI was just reading up on time dilation on wiki, and saw that the formula for determining time dilation in special relativity is essentially delta t times the Lawrentz factor.
in other words for time dilation,
t / [(1 - v^2 / c^2)^1/2]
The lawrentz factor describes things like time dilation, length contraction and relative mass, but I think there may be a problem with the application of it. The lawrentz factor is
c / [(c^2 - v^2)^1/2]
but it is commonly reduced to
1 / [(1 - B^2)^1/2]
where B = v / c
this reduction is done by simply pulling out a c^2 from under the square root, and then canceling it with the top c.
Here is the problem.If we are dealing with a vector problem, as most time dilation theories do, (i.e. traveling out at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and coming back at the same speed therefore reducing the aging process) the reduced equation essentially assumes absolute values of the vectors. Here is an example.
NO ASSUMPTIONS PLEASE KEEP READING
Let us assume for the problem a reference point of (0,0,0) coordinates in space on an X,Y,Z axis.
The direction we will travel from point (0,0,0) to planet A will be in a positive Z direction at a rate of 2.0E8 meters per second with no X or Y components. Assume the distance is such that it takes 5 days on a spacecraft to get there.
Using the unreduced formula, the Lawrentz factor for the trip there will be
3.0E8 / [((9.0E16)-(4.0E16))^1/2] = 3.0E8 / 2.24E8 = 1.34
on the trip back we have
-3.0E8 / [((9.0E16)-(4.0E16))^1/2] = -3.0E8 / 2.24E8 = -1.34
the -3.08 on top must be negative because the speed of light and the velocity we determined are relative to a positive z vector, but now we are headed in a negative z direction... so a factor describing relative time and speed to a stationary point must maintain that relativity. The -3.0E8 and -2.0E8 on the bottom were both squared according to the equation, and thus lost the signs attributed to them, leaving them at 9.0E16 and 4.0E16 (i know this is basic, but i must point it out to avoid argument)
if we add the lawrentz factors, the total difference in relative time is 0
5days(1.34) +5days(-1.34) = 0
Finally, If we did this same equation with the reduced formula (where c had been canceled out), we would get 1.7 days fewer on both the trip there and the trip back, leaving us 3.4 days quot;youngerquot; than our brothers at point (0,0,0)
How has nobody noticed this flaw...To me, this is similar to the Doppler effect. If you hear an ambulance going away from you the pitch decreases. When it comes closer to you the pitch increasesIf you had a telescope and you were able to watch the spaceship fly away from point (0,0,0) it would take you 1.7 days to observe 1 day of behavior on the ship... the light is stretched out... but if you watch the way back, it will only take you about .746 days to observe one day of behavior, because the light would be compacted and closer together... regardless, the entire trip could be observed in exactly 10 days. It would just appear to take 6.7 days for them to get there and 3.3 days for them to get back...can anyone echo if I am on to something here? and why it hasn't been noticed before?
First-off, it's quot;Lorentzquot;.
Originally Posted by A(s) To me, this is exactly like the Doppler effect. If you hear an ambulance going away from you it sounds like it is getting quieter but it is not. When it comes close to you, it sounds like it is getting louder but it is not.
Careful - Doppler has to do with pitch, not amplitude. Amplitude does vary with distance, and pitch/frequency varies with relative velocity (i.e. approaching/receding).
Regards,
Bill
well pitch is frequency, which is cycles per second,
light waves more cycles per second = more densely perceived time
same as higher pitch = more densely perceived sound
In sound this is shown in the crests and troughs being closer together or further apart at the same speed
with light this would be shown with photons being closer together or further apart at the same speed
Originally Posted by A(s) by faster i mean more cycles per second, not higher speed
I realize what you meant to say, but quot;quieterquot;/quot;louderquot; means something else.
Regards,
Bill
thank you I will edit that
Originally Posted by A(s) In sound this is shown in the crests and troughs being closer together or further apart at the same speed
with light this would be shown with photons being closer together or further apart at the same speed
Not exactly - what you said of sound would be true of light as well.
Regards,
Bill
so it might move off the visible spectrum because frequency increases or decreases, but the photons would still be released closer together or further apart depending on the direction of travel
A(s): can anyone echo if I am on to something here? and why it hasn't been noticed before? Is it maybe just possible that you're wrong ? This has been scrutinised for over 100 years and you'd think any problems of the kind you point out would have been found.
Of course it is possible that I am wrong, but i would expect a better reason other than nobody else has realized it
if you have the equation of a line as y = (x^2 -1)/(x-1) even though it reduces to y = x+1 does not mean that they are the same line... one line has a hole or does not exist at x=1... the other exits at all values.
cancellation is a very dangerous thing if used incorrectly
to apply my previous statement directly to this problem... Y = b/ (b^2)^(1/2) does not equal 1 if b is negative... it equals -1
Come on: c stands for the speed of light; it's not a vector quantity.
The quot;Lorentz factorquot; is:
Originally Posted by A(s) First off I apologize for lengthiness, but I want to be thorough... please read the entire postI was just reading up on time dilation on wiki, and saw that the formula for determining time dilation in special relativity is essentially delta t times the Lawrentz factor.
in other words for time dilation,
t / [(1 - v^2 / c^2)^1/2]
The lawrentz factor describes things like time dilation, length contraction and relative mass, but I think there may be a problem with the application of it. The lawrentz factor is
c / [(c^2 - v^2)^1/2]
but it is commonly reduced to
1 / [(1 - B^2)^1/2]
where B = v / c
this reduction is done by simply pulling out a c^2 from under the square root, and then canceling it with the top c.
Here is the problem.If we are dealing with a vector problem, as most time dilation theories do, (i.e. traveling out at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and coming back at the same speed therefore reducing the aging process) the reduced equation essentially assumes absolute values of the vectors. Here is an example.
You're not dealing with a vector problem. The quot;cquot; and quot;vquot; in those formulas are only meant to be speeds, i.e. v is just the absolute value of the velocity vector, and c is just a constant speed. If someone changes speeds, then if you want to calculate the time elapsed on their clock between two coordinate times and , and their speed as a function of time in your chosen coordinate system is v(t), then the total elapsed time is
ok, well even still, if the relative direction of the speed of light has no bearing, what if you pull out v^2 out of the square root. the negative velocity might apply.
gamma = plus or minus c / [v(c^2 / v^2) -1)]if v is negative, you still get a negative value
how are vectors irrelevant... with the doppler effect, you don't take absolute value and say that as a source of sound is approaching, the pitch decreases
Originally Posted by A(s) how are vectors irrelevant... with the doppler effect, you don't take absolute value and say that as a source of sound is approaching, the pitch decreases
Time dilation is not based on the doppler effect, so how is this relevant? Clocks moving at the same speed are slowed down by the same factor, regardless of their direction.
i suppose i am just wrong then... they seem really simmilar though |
|
Post at 2011-5-25 13:06
| This Author's Posts Only
