Another Relativity Question........

Let's assume you have three clocks sitting next to each other. They are relatively stationairy and they're synchronized. Let's call these clocks A, B, and C.

Suddenly, clocks A and C both fly away from clock B at a speed of .45c, while clock B remains stationairy. Clock A and C are both flying in opposite directions of each other. After 1 second of clock B, clocks A and C turn around and fly back towards clock B at the same speed of .45c. When clocks A, B, and C are together again:

A) What time do each of the clocks indicate if when they started flying apart they were all synchronized to read 0.00 seconds?

B) Are clocks A and C synchronized at all times, or not?

Tom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The two clocks would be synchronized and read a slower time than clock B. During the flight, each clock would be going relatively slower through time than each other. This seems contradictory, but it's only relative. As soon as they turn around they rejoin the reference frame of clock B and synchronize, then they fly to clock B and do it again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alpha,

It doesn't seem contradictory, it is contradictory.

How can the clocks A and C be synchronized and unsynchronized at the same time? Each clock can only give one unique reading, right?

Tom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i've got a paper here somewhere, who mentions this in a longer fashion

i'll look for it and put it here

 

No, you're trying to think from an absolute reference frame, which you can't do.
From A's point of view, the other clocks are running slower. Same thing from C's point of view. Each one seems slower to each other. But when they slow down to turn around, they enter the same reference frame as B and their clocks synchronize as they do. It's not really a contradiction, it just seems that way. It's hard for most people to wrap their head around relativity, but even when you do it can still trip you up.

 

Alpha,

How do they synchronize? Which clock, A or C, decides to slow down or speed up to synchronize with the other?

How can one clock be slower and faster than the other at the same time? The clocks can only have one unique reading at a time.

Tom

 

A) What time do each of the clocks indicate if when they started flying apart they were all synchronized to read 0.00 seconds?

These results will depend on acceleration and deceleration of clocks A and C. You must also specify which frame you are referring. I presume you are always using clock B as your rest frame with all measurements derived from that frame ?

B) Are clocks A and C synchronized at all times synchronized, or not?

Relative to what ? Again, are you assuming clock B as the rest frame which all measurements are derived ?

 

Q,

Yes. And for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there is no acceleration or decceleration.

Relative to clock B. However, if clock C indicates 0.79 seconds as clock B indicates 1 second, clock C will always indicate 0.79 seconds regardless of which frame you are looking at it from. (Note: The perception of time may change based on a relative frame of reference, but the appearance of the "second hand" of the clock does not.)

Tom

 

Prosoothus, watch out with assuming...

otherwise, how would they ever reach .45c?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you'll mean that the acceleration and deceleration is infinitely high, so at the one moment A and C are stationary and the very next they move at .45c

anyway, Alpha, stop falling over obvious parts of the question!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm with the others that A and C wil both show a time that is less than B and A & C show the same time.

ps. Alpha: both A and C will be destroyed by the forces applied on the clocks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I had a quick look at this, analysis suggests:

If the positions of A and C where shifted for the duration of 1 second away and 1 second back (to travel the distance it went originally) Then clock B is going to be at 2.00 seconds.

Theory suggests that if these clocks weren't bound by quantum entanglement rules, where gravity and mass had no effect, and there was no background energy to cause friction. Then the clocks would all say 2.00 Seconds.

Reality suggests that the friction of the universe, the fact that clocks have moving parts that during that instance of acceleration could be at any given position would suggest that clocks A and C would seem to have a time loss. (As for how much, that would need more than just a simple calculation.)

This assumption is presumed from an experiment done with two clocks and an aircraft where a few seconds was lost. But most people didn't take into account for magnetic shifts, like landplate alignment, and altitude to have effects on how the clock would react in the air.

Even a version of the EPR experiment using Mozarts 40th Symphony travelling at 4.7 times the speed of light, didn't do any more than send Mozart compressed into Picaseconds.

Perhaps if you want a true answer you might like to have a search for that experiment.

 

Enqrypzion,

I tried to simplify the situation because otherwise it would be more complex to calculate the individual time dilations for the individual speeds from 0 km/h to .45c.

I agree with you. The only problem is that relativity claims that there is no absolute frame of reference, and that all the results of relative frames of reference are correct. For example, in the clocks C's frame of reference, clock A is moving away from it at a speed of .90c. According to relativity, for C's frame of reference, clock A should be running slow (1 second for clock A should equal 2.29 seconds for clock C). However, as you and I have concluded, when you look at clocks A and B we find that they are synchronized and there is no time dilation.

By the way, let me go out on a limb: I predict that clocks A and C will not be completely synchronized, there will be a slight variance. This variance is directly proportional to the speed of clock B relative to the absolute frame of reference. In other words, the greater the speed of clock B in the absolute frame of reference, the greater the variance between clock A and C.

Tom

 

Stryderunknown,

From reading your post, I can see that your not a firm believer in relativity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I agree with you that time doesn't slow down at high speeds, only reactions do.

You suggested that this "perceived" time dilation is the result of spacial friction. I'm not sure what causes it, but I leaning towards the fact that the omnidirectional speed of light (electromagnetic radiation) is only c in the absolute frame of reference. In a moving frame of reference the speed of light would be smaller or greater than c, depending on the speed and direction of the frame and the light. Since electromagnetic radiation is used to measure time in atomic clocks, the slowing down or speeding up of the electromagnetic radiation in these clocks at high speeds can influence their measurements.

Tom

 

I can't find the paper, but Prosoothus, I think you are missing a part: the paradox, as I remember it, is about the relativity principle and the Lorentz equation who contradict each other.

stryder, do you have some more information on those effects on clocks?, (website, from you, etc) cause, as James R pointed out, all the parts gain kinetic energy so the explaination of Paul Marmet can't be correct.

 

c'est moi,

I explained the paradox you are referring to in a private message I just sent you.

Tom

 

Stryder,

I have no knowledge of the EPR being used for such an experiment. I thought it was only meant ot show the strange implications of Heisenberg.
Anyway: Mozart's 40th symphony at 4.7c... I must witness THAT! amazing....
To be honest it makes your story somewahat less credible to me: what value must I give to the picasecond now? (or did you mistype .47c?) Also, how does a symphony travel?

and what is "the friction of the universe"?
i would appreciate some clarifications here.

Prosoothus,

Well, maybe that is the entire clue! If all reactions slow down (or speed up for that matter) in an moving frame of reverence, there is no way of telling what it the real time. What if time is defined by the progress of those reactions?

And I think we should ask an expert in what situations electromagnetic radiation does not travel at c. (I know it is possibille in principle and Feynmann has something to say about it. (I have nothing to quote here, though).

Merlijn

 

Prosoothus,
I'm glad you mentioned about reactions "Slowing down", as it would appear from the position of either A or C while moving that the universe was slowed, although you would find that if you look at those clocks at the same instance, they too would be as slow as the universe around it.

I mentioned spacial friction because all matter has entanglement that can have small gaps allowing radiation to pass through, at speed it's more likely to come up against more friction, as any radiation isn't likely to make it directly through the holes.

This can be proven with a simple experiment of turning a bicycle wheel infront of a torch light, the faster the wheel turns then the centre of the wheel appears solid because the spokes are passing at speed creating a blur.


C'est Moi,
I'm afraid I had no papers or URLS to quote, as at the time I was just analysing what would be the case.

What I can say is that a wave function hitting a object at speed, can change it's amplitude similar to how Horizontal and Vertical frequencies are used to tune a picture in on a television.

I suppose you could add to the experiment, a radiation bombardment that is vertical, and another that is horizontal to see what differences occured.

Merljin,
I might have mistyped the speed info, From what I remember I worked out how fast information was travelling in picaseconds.
Mozart just happened to be what got picked.

As for mentioning "Friction", the universe is filled full of energy. It swamps everything and it can cause friction (Again I mentioned Horizontal and Vertical frequencies, that could interact with the amplitude/wave functions of all quanta travelling)

Hope that's understandible.

 

They are not synchronized and unsynchronized at the same time. When they are first synchronized, they are in the same frame. When one clock changes inertial frames, the two are no longer synchronized. This is not contradictory, but it is admittedly counter-intuitive, which is not the same thing. "Contradiction" ensues when multiple solutions emerge from a theory which cannot all be true. Relativity has no such contradictions. That is, when you want to determine what time which clock reads according to such-and-such a reference frame, you get a unique answer.

 

errr... i'm lost

okay... from what alpha says he sounds right... i think? if you go start at one point and go 167658.741 miles away from your starting point (the actual distcane traveled at the speed of .45c in 2 sec.) you time will be slower than the time at your starting point because of our expanding universe... (relativity) but when you return to
your starting point your time will synchronize with the starting time. right??? it is one of those absolute/relative things.

so to answer your question...

a) clocks A,B, and C have a time of 0.02

b)yes

 

Tom2,

So you are saying that they are synchronized, then they are unsynchronized, and then they are synchronized again.

Interesting....Now in order for them to be unsynchronized, one clock must be slower than the other. Which clock is slower: A or C? How can one be slower when they are both moving away from clock B at .45c???

You forgot one important thing about clocks: They not only measure the present time, they record past times. If one of the clocks was truly slower than the other, time would have to speed up for it in order for it to resynchronize with the other clock. As far as I know, Einstein's time dilation formula doesn't allow time to speed up, just slow down. And if time can only slow down, a slower clock can never synchronize with a faster clock.

Tom

 

JimmyJames,

Actually, no. Time dilation isn't dependent on the direction the clock is travelling. Therefore, the time dilation should be the same regardless of whether the clock is moving away, or towards its starting point(as long as its speed doesn't change).

Tom