The Student Room Group

I need time dilation help please?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by AlbertXY
I know , it is your present information that makes this so, it is not my contradiction, it is sciences contradiction.


The contradiction was explicit in your writing and referenced nothing I said or any 'present information'. However, it sounds like you are simply communicating what you mean poorly.


The speed of light is the same for all observers, but if observers are disagreeing on the length of a second, they are disagreeing on the speed of light, they in their reference frame will record a different speed because they have a different length of a second than we have if they used the Caesium to record time and time events.


Saying the speed of light is the same for all observers means that they agree on the speed of light; they observe/record it to be the same no matter how they are moving.

It can be shown (and it has been shown many times) that people in different reference frames do record the same speed of light. If your model predicts that they would record different speeds, your model disagrees with experiment and cannot be considered science.

If I fire a beam of light forwards and stand still, I see it travel at 299 792 458 m/s forwards. If I fire a beam of light forwards and then move backwards in my rocket at 150 000 000 m/s, I still see the beam travel forwards at 299 792 458 m/s. This is confirmed by experiment.


We both have to agree that the length of a second is an invariant or we have to disagree on speed. I do not thing we can disagree on speed.


One second is invariant by definition, but observers in different reference frames record different numbers of seconds between the same events.
Reply 201
Original post by Kyx
no no no

Speed = distance over time. If they agree on speed, but not distance, then they must also disagree on time.



You can't disagree about a distance, I know d/t , that is the whole point.



d/t1=x

d/t2=x


+ve(c)=1s

-ve(c)=1s



t net difference = 0


now if t2 is different than t1 the speed will be measured different.
Reply 202
Original post by AlbertXY
You can't disagree about a distance, I know d/t , that is the whole point.



d/t1=x

d/t2=x


+ve(c)=1s

-ve(c)=1s



t net difference = 0


now if t2 is different than t1 the speed will be measured different.


if time = 1 and distance = 1, speed = distance/time = 1/1 = 1

if time = 2 and distance = 2, speed = distance/time =2/2 = 1
Reply 203
Original post by Implication





One second is invariant by definition, but observers in different reference frames record different numbers of seconds between the same events.



You can't be understanding because you just said it. If your second is different you measure speed different.
Reply 204
Original post by Kyx
if time = 1 and distance = 1, speed = distance/time = 1/1 = 1

if time = 2 and distance = 2, speed = distance/time =2/2 = 1



No, you are considering it wrongly,



f time = 2 and distance = 1, speed = distance/time =?
Original post by AlbertXY
You can't disagree about a distance, I know d/t , that is the whole point.



d/t1=x

d/t2=x


+ve(c)=1s

-ve(c)=1s



t net difference = 0


now if t2 is different than t1 the speed will be measured different.


The whole point of SR is that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. This is a fact that has been experimentally confirmed explicitly and implicitly literally millions of times. It does seem counterintuitive for the reason you say: 'if speed is constant, what the fluff happens with distance and time? They're intimately related!'

And the answer is that time dilates and length contracts. Obviously, as you seem to be trying to demonstrate with your arithmetic, if only time dilated we would have a problem!
Reply 206
Original post by AlbertXY
You can't be understanding because you just said it. If your second is different you measure speed different.


The actual speed is the same, regardless of units. I could say that the speed of light is 3 blurgs, and I will always measure it as 3 blurgs NO MATTER WHAT!
Reply 207
Original post by AlbertXY
No, you are considering it wrongly,



f time = 2 and distance = 1, speed = distance/time =?



1/2 = 0.5

:smile:
Original post by AlbertXY
You can't be understanding because you just said it. If your second is different you measure speed different.


No, because you measure distance differently too.
Reply 209
Original post by Kyx
The actual speed is the same, regardless of units. I could say that the speed of light is 3 blurgs, and I will always measure it as 3 blurgs NO MATTER WHAT!



I said the actual speed is the same, but according to observers with different rates of time, the measurement d/t is different.
Reply 210
Original post by AlbertXY
I said the actual speed is the same, but according to observers with different rates of time, the measurement d/t is different.


lets assume that everyone has the same units for time :smile: and distance :smile:

Then the speed of light will ALWAYS be 3x10^8 m/s , no matter what
Reply 211
Original post by Kyx
lets assume that everyone has the same units for time :smile: and distance :smile:

Then the speed of light will ALWAYS be 3x10^8 m/s , no matter what




Yes if they all had our units of measurement.


However try considering what the speed would be if we all had a second that was half the rate, does the m/s then not double?
Reply 212
Original post by AlbertXY
Yes if they all had our units of measurement.


However try considering what the speed would be if we all had a second that was half the rate, does the m/s then not double?


That is irrelevant since the actual speed is not changing.
Reply 213
Original post by Implication
No, because you measure distance differently too.



NO, all observers would agree that a yard stick is a yard.
Reply 214
Original post by Kyx
That is irrelevant since the actual speed is not changing.



It is relevant when you consider who's defining the speed, are you to say that the speed of light we measure is even remotely correct ? how do you know it is even fast? fast relative to what?

The Universe defines the universe it is not of us to define speed to being absolute to a time frame made by us.


If you did the maths you would find that presently the speed of light is faster than time,
Original post by AlbertXY
You can't disagree about a distance, I know d/t , that is the whole point.



d/t1=x

d/t2=x


+ve(c)=1s

-ve(c)=1s



t net difference = 0


now if t2 is different than t1 the speed will be measured different.


Original post by Implication
No, because you measure distance differently too.


To clarify, you're doing the wrong calculation. Technically speed is the derivative of position with the respect to time, but over small enough changes in position we can approximate it as the change in position - distance - over the change in time. In this case assume xx is the position of light. Then

c=dxdtΔxΔt.c=\frac{\mathrm{d} x}{\mathrm{d}t} \approx \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}.

In your notation, you can write this as

c=dtc=\frac{d}{t}.

Now consider two different observers in difference reference frames. The first observer, Alice, measures the speed of light to be cc and the distance and time to be d1d_1 and t1t_1 respectively. The second observer, Bob, also measures the speed of light to be cc (by the postulate of SR, as confirmed experimentally). He measures the distance and time to be d2d_2 and t2t_2. Where is the contradiction here?

d1t1=c=d2t2\frac{d_1}{t_1}=c=\frac{d_2}{t_2}.

We only need t1=t2t_1=t_2 if d1=d2d_1=d_2, but this is manifestly not the case for different reference frames! There are infinitely many variations that leave the speed of light invariant. For example, if d2=2d1d_2=2d_1 and t2=2t1t_2=2t_1,

d2t2=2d12t1=d1t1\frac{d_2}{t_2}=\frac{2d_1}{2t_1}=\frac{d_1}{t_1}

and there is no problem.
Original post by AlbertXY
NO, all observers would agree that a yard stick is a yard.


But they don't, as confirmed by the experiments twelve other people have already told you about.
Reply 217
Original post by AlbertXY
It is relevant when you consider who's defining the speed, are you to say that the speed of light we measure is even remotely correct ? how do you know it is even fast? fast relative to what?

The Universe defines the universe it is not of us to define speed to being absolute to a time frame made by us.


If you did the maths you would find that presently the speed of light is faster than time,


Exactly what the Michelson-morley experiment was trying to determine. The speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s relative to EVERYTHING!
Reply 218
Original post by Implication
To clarify, you're doing the wrong calculation. Technically speed is the derivative of position with the respect to time, but over small enough changes in position we can approximate it as the change in position - distance - over the change in time. In this case assume xx is the position of light. Then

c=dxdtΔxΔt.c=\frac{\mathrm{d} x}{\mathrm{d}t} \approx \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}.

In your notation, you can write this as

c=dtc=\frac{d}{t}.

Now consider two different observers in difference reference frames. The first observer, Alice, measures the speed of light to be cc and the distance and time to be d1d_1 and t1t_1 respectively. The second observer, Bob, also measures the speed of light to be cc (by the postulate of SR, as confirmed experimentally). He measures the distance and time to be d2d_2 and t2t_2. Where is the contradiction here?

d1t1=c=d2t2\frac{d_1}{t_1}=c=\frac{d_2}{t_2}.

We only need t1=t2t_1=t_2 if d1=d2d_1=d_2, but this is manifestly not the case for different reference frames! There are infinitely many variations that leave the speed of light invariant. For example, if d2=2d1d_2=2d_1 and t2=2t1t_2=2t_1,

d2t2=2d12t1=d1t1\frac{d_2}{t_2}=\frac{2d_1}{2t_1}=\frac{d_1}{t_1}

and there is no problem.


Your problem is because you insist that the observers have different rates of time, if t1 is different to the rate of t2 then the result of speed is different.
Reply 219
Original post by Kyx
Exactly what the Michelson-morley experiment was trying to determine. The speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s relative to EVERYTHING!


Nope . if you are travelling at 1 mph towards a light source, the light is reaching you faster than if you stood still.

Quick Reply

Latest