Time Dilation

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jun 17, 2004
849
2
0
#1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Overview

Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that another's clock which is physically identical to their own is ticking at a slower rate as measured by their own clock. This is often taken to mean that time has "slowed down" for the other clock, but that is only true in the context of the observer's frame of reference. Locally, time is always passing at the same rate. The time dilation phenomenon applies to any process that manifests change over time.

In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity time dilation is manifested in two circumstances:

* In special relativity, clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation (the putatively stationary observer) are found to be running slower. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformations.

* In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field-- such as in close proximity to a planet --are found to be running slower. This gravitational time dilation is only briefly mentioned in this article but is described elsewhere (see also gravitational red shift).

In special relativity, the time dilation effect is reciprocal: as observed from the point of view of any two clocks which are in motion with respect to each other, it will be the other party's clocks that is time dilated. (This presumes that the relative motion of both parties is uniform; that is, they do not accelerate with respect to one another during the course of the observations.)

In contrast, gravitational time dilation (as treated in General Relativity) is not reciprocal: an observer at the top of a tower will observe that clocks at ground level tick slower, and observers on the ground will agree. Thus gravitational time dilation is agreed upon by all stationary observers, independent of their altitude.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_d...itational_time_dilation_combined-effect_tests

Experimental Confirmation
Velocity and gravitational time dilation combined-effect tests:

* Hefele and Keating, in 1971, flew cesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came in to play. The clocks were expected to age quicker (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. The gravitational effect was the larger, and the clocks suffered a net gain in elapsed time. To within experimental error, the net gain was consistent with the difference between the predicted gravitational gain and the predicted velocity time loss. In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom, report their limited replication of this experiment. The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the cesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip (London-Washingon D. C. return), but the clocks were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity.

* The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time-dilation effects so they run at the same (average) rate as clocks at the surface of the Earth. In addition, but not directly time-dilation related, general relativistic correction terms are built into the model of motion that the satellites broadcast to receivers -- uncorrected, these effects would result in an approximately 7-metre oscillation in the pseudo-ranges measured by a receiver over a cycle of 12 hours.
 
Jun 17, 2004
849
2
0
#2
Basically if you take two identical synchronized clocks, one stays stationary while the other travels at a high velocity, after the trip the clock that travelled will show less elapsed time than the stationary clock. Time moves slower the higher the velocity.

With gravity as a variable it's different, if you take two identical synchronized clocks and one stays on the ground while the other travels to a weaker gravitational pull, the second will show more elapsed time than the clock on the ground.

In combined velocity and gravity effect tests, the clocks that traveled had a net gain of time showing that gravity had a greater effect on time dilation.

The following is the formula for velocity time dilation, technically if a high enough velocity is input then you get a negative result, meaning you could reach point B before you even leave point A. However I highly doubt humans could ever reach a high enough velocity. Technically possible but highly improbable, Einstein himself showed this in special relativity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Overview
 

MKB

Sicc OG
Dec 19, 2002
999
0
36
37
#4
If I am understanding what you are saying right you must travel faster than light. But it is impossible to reach the speed of light because the faster you move the heavier the object becomes so you could never actually travel back in time. However if you are traveling close to the speed of light you will age slower than someone who is at a stationary speed. Experiments have been done with atomic clocks traveling in high speed air crafts where they were able to see that the time on the clock that was moving with the plane was less then the one left on earth.
 

MKB

Sicc OG
Dec 19, 2002
999
0
36
37
#5
Wow I just read the whole thing I never knew that gravity has an affect on time dilation I only knew that velocity did. What equation are you talking about when you say you can reach point A before you even leave point B?
 
Jun 17, 2004
849
2
0
#6
nhojsmith said:
yea shits pretty crazy but is only a theory, the opponents of this line of thought say that its not possible because you arent acocunting for the time it takes to stop and change directions in the supposed model.
Did you actually read my post? Time dilation itself is NOT JUST A THEORY. A byproduct of special relativity and travel involving velocity and/or gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_d...itational_time_dilation_combined-effect_tests

"* Hefele and Keating, in 1971, flew cesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came in to play. The clocks were expected to age quicker (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. The gravitational effect was the larger, and the clocks suffered a net gain in elapsed time. To within experimental error, the net gain was consistent with the difference between the predicted gravitational gain and the predicted velocity time loss. In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom, report their limited replication of this experiment. The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the cesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip (London-Washingon D. C. return), but the clocks were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity.

* The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time-dilation effects so they run at the same (average) rate as clocks at the surface of the Earth. In addition, but not directly time-dilation related, general relativistic correction terms are built into the model of motion that the satellites broadcast to receivers -- uncorrected, these effects would result in an approximately 7-metre oscillation in the pseudo-ranges measured by a receiver over a cycle of 12 hours."
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#7
Time Dilation = Traveling into the future.. Near the speed of light, a week to you is years gone by on land. At the speed of light time stops completely and this is the cosmic speed limit according to Einstein. After this speed one requires infinite mass (which is impossible).. I can't wait until we learn of concepts on how to travel backwards in time, or create new dimensions. Quantum Theory is pretty crazy too, particles that are able to be in two places at one time, anti matter, and all kinds of crazy shit..
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#8
Is this true for digital clocks as well as mechanical clocks? I think high rates of speed and different levels of gravitational pull could be affecting the internal mechanics of the clocks.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#9
nhojsmith said:
a fact?!?!?!?!!?

"the reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity"

do you understand what a fact is?
do you understand what experimental error and statistically significant results are??
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#10
XxtraMannish said:
Is this true for digital clocks as well as mechanical clocks? I think high rates of speed and different levels of gravitational pull could be affecting the internal mechanics of the clocks.
it's true for all clocks...
 

MKB

Sicc OG
Dec 19, 2002
999
0
36
37
#11
XxtraMannish said:
Is this true for digital clocks as well as mechanical clocks? I think high rates of speed and different levels of gravitational pull could be affecting the internal mechanics of the clocks.
They use atomic clocks. This means that they are measured from some type of radioactive decay. Take a look at this link. Atomic clocks are extremely accurate and since the difference in time is very small (unless you are moving at speeds near the speed of light) they are need for this experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
 

MKB

Sicc OG
Dec 19, 2002
999
0
36
37
#12
ParkBoyz said:
Time Dilation = Traveling into the future.. Near the speed of light, a week to you is years gone by on land. At the speed of light time stops completely and this is the cosmic speed limit according to Einstein. After this speed one requires infinite mass (which is impossible).. I can't wait until we learn of concepts on how to travel backwards in time, or create new dimensions. Quantum Theory is pretty crazy too, particles that are able to be in two places at one time, anti matter, and all kinds of crazy shit..
OK I thought you were talking about somehow moving into the past. But yeah this is time travel since you can travel into the future without aging as much.

ThaG said:
do you understand what experimental error and statistically significant results are??
4% is low. Especially for an experiment dealing with such small differences in time.
 
Jun 17, 2004
849
2
0
#13
nhojsmith said:
a fact?!?!?!?!!?

"the reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity"

do you understand what a fact is?
Do you have any idea what were talking about? Or even what that statement means? No, it sounds like you're very lost.

Special Relativity = THEORY.

Time Dilation = Observed FACT.

4% has nothing to do with whether or not Time Dilation occurred, it's a comparison between actual Time Dilation and the predictions Special Relativity theory had.

Do you get what's going on? They are comparing the RESULTS of Time Dilation to the PREDICTIONS Special Relativity had of time dilation. Even if the results were way way off from what was expected, it would only mean that the theory of Special Relativity is off on it's predictions. In NO WAY would it mean Time Dilation never happened.

Whether or not Time Dilation exists is not the question, they are just using it as evidence to try and prove some of the laws of Special Relativity. The theory of special relativity could only PREDICT what the results of time dilation would be.

Thus the statement, "the reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity".

Infact the statement is meant to imply the theory of Special Relativity was correct, having been so accurate with the predictions. And if you knew anything about scientific process you would know that there is always a margin for error since it's next to impossible for all variables can be controlled. Considering, 4% would have been caused by a very small undetectable variable, and such a small difference is EXPECTED.

Get it? Got it? Good, now we can move on in the discussion.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#14
FunK-3-FivE said:
Does anyone realize I'm talking about time travel and Einstein's special relativity?
It's time travel by state of mind, at least that's how I'm understanding it. Am I missing something? Cause 4:00 clock was created by humans. Otherwise there's just existence.
 
Jun 17, 2004
849
2
0
#15
nhojsmith said:
ok funk,

i am getting back on track, apologies for my 2nd post

my first post is still incorrect calling time dilation a theory, i concede.
It's alright, I can see how someone new to Time Dilation and Special Relativity would get confused.

nhojsmith said:
what i was talking about though is the twin paradox (ie. one twin stays on earth, the other flies away at near speed o light and returns and they are now different ages). i was under the impression that science is still uncertain as to what will happen when the space twin slows down and reverses direction and then heads back(something to do with the inertial frame), so i asserted that the twins being different ages was still a theory.

you obviously know at least as much as wikipedia so can you break it down for me or send me in the right direction. of course im fascinated by this, this thread has renewed by interest.
I'll repost again with some information and links, Quantum physics and Relativity and all this is quite complicated, and probably the most complicated of sciences.

As for the twin paradox, theres a misconception and a correct version. The twin paradox or clock paradox is basically a story example of Time Dilation.

The misconception as explained is that upon return each twin sees the other as younger (i.e. the perspective of twin A is that twin B is the younger one and the perspective of twin B is that twin A is younger one).

The correct version is what you stated and it's the version Einstein himself explained, one twin is older than the other and this is the perspective of both the twins. This is the version the clock experiments show (i.e. it can be observed upon return that one clock has aged more than the other and this can be observed from ALL points of perspective.)

Its quite complicated and you would have to know more about relativity (it deals a lot with perspective of observation).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

As early as 1905 in his landmark paper on Special Relativity, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, Einstein predicted that a clock which is moved away and brought back will lag behind stationary clocks. Einstein called that result "peculiar", but the calculation is straightforward (see section entitled "Specific Example") and the example was not presented as paradoxical, despite his suggestion in the introduction to the paper that only relative motion between objects should matter. In 1911, Einstein restated this result in the following form:

If we placed a living organism in a box ... one could arrange that the organism, after any arbitrary lengthy flight, could be returned to its original spot in a scarcely altered condition, while corresponding organisms which had remained in their original positions had already long since given way to new generations. For the moving organism the lengthy time of the journey was a mere instant, provided the motion took place with approximately the speed of light. (in Resnick and Halliday, 1992)

The "twins" entered the discussion in 1911 when Paul Langevin posed a thought experiment in special relativity, where one of two twin brothers undertakes a long space journey with a high-speed rocket at almost the speed of light, while the other twin remains on Earth. When the traveler returns to Earth, he is younger than the twin who stayed put. Langevin explained the different aging of the twins as follows: "Only the traveler has undergone an acceleration that changed the direction of his velocity." According to Langevin, acceleration is here "absolute", in the sense that it is the cause of the asymmetry (and not of the aging itself). Consistent with Einstein, Langevin did not suggest that there was anything paradoxical about it.

Although special relativity predicts differential aging for the traveling twin as compared to the stay-at-home twin, it is not a paradox in the sense of an inherently contradictory result. The perception of paradox, referred to as the twin paradox (sometimes called the 'clock paradox') is caused by the error of assuming that relativity implies that only relative motion between objects should be considered in determining clock rates. The result of this error is the prediction that upon return to Earth, each twin sees the other as younger -- which is clearly impossible.
 
Jun 17, 2004
849
2
0
#16
I AM said:
It's time travel by state of mind, at least that's how I'm understanding it. Am I missing something? Cause 4:00 clock was created by humans. Otherwise there's just existence.
DING DING DING, that's why time dilation is possible in the first place is because it's all about perspective of observation. Time doesn't actually exist, it's only a concept of the human mind. Most people can't comprehend this stuff because well, human minds are supposed to. Anyways Relativity attempts to map out this perspective of observation.

What a trip huh?

And what I mean by perspective of observation is something like if you are stationary with your own clock and another clock circles around you really fast, it will appear from your perspective that the other clock's time is going by slower than a clock that you have. However if you were with the clock that is moving really fast and you looked at the stationary clock it would appear that the stationary clock's time is going by slower than yours.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#17
Shit, I thought I was WAY off....LOL....good shit though. I find this stuff really interesting, along with most other things in here. Glad you posted it too, I was reading it the other day and it didn't make much sense...but today I read it and it was clear to me....very odd...

But yeah, time isn't real...so if I walk around, isn't that technically time travel? cause i am traveling through time as time goes by...or something...if that doesn't make sense, let me know.

oh yeah, i made a comment to you in another thread, don't know if you saw it...but i'm gonna be in the uk in the fall, where are you at? do you know of any good places to check out in Edinburgh scotland, and in london? those are the 2 places i'm goni with my lady then to the lower parts of europe....
 
Jun 17, 2004
849
2
0
#18
I AM said:
Shit, I thought I was WAY off....LOL....good shit though. I find this stuff really interesting, along with most other things in here. Glad you posted it too, I was reading it the other day and it didn't make much sense...but today I read it and it was clear to me....very odd...
It's impressive that you understand it, period.

I AM said:
But yeah, time isn't real...so if I walk around, isn't that technically time travel? cause i am traveling through time as time goes by...or something...if that doesn't make sense, let me know.
Thats the basic gist of it, yeah, but it's much, much, much more complicated.

I AM said:
oh yeah, i made a comment to you in another thread, don't know if you saw it...but i'm gonna be in the uk in the fall, where are you at? do you know of any good places to check out in Edinburgh scotland, and in london? those are the 2 places i'm goni with my lady then to the lower parts of europe....
I'll PM you later
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#19
I AM said:
Shit, I thought I was WAY off....LOL....good shit though. I find this stuff really interesting, along with most other things in here. Glad you posted it too, I was reading it the other day and it didn't make much sense...but today I read it and it was clear to me....very odd...

But yeah, time isn't real...so if I walk around, isn't that technically time travel? cause i am traveling through time as time goes by...or something...if that doesn't make sense, let me know.

oh yeah, i made a comment to you in another thread, don't know if you saw it...but i'm gonna be in the uk in the fall, where are you at? do you know of any good places to check out in Edinburgh scotland, and in london? those are the 2 places i'm goni with my lady then to the lower parts of europe....
I was always under the impression that time was a 4th dimension, and has an interrelationship with space.. That time was created along with the big bang??
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#20
FunK-3-FivE said:
It's impressive that you understand it, period.
I haven't even read any information on the subject. It's from personal observation and a lot of deep thinking after smoking too much weed.

Thats the basic gist of it, yeah, but it's much, much, much more complicated.
Well that's cool, as I said above, I haven't read any information on the subject.

I'll PM you later
thanks mang.