0

There is a well known 2 mirror clock time dilation thought experiment in STR. However it is a bit unclear to me due to its unrealistic nature. By unrealistic I mean that experiment implies that stationary observer can immediately "see" the photon trace from side without photon actually hitting the detector (eye). As far as I know you cant see photon from side without it being absorbed by detector.

So I made a variation of this experiment, your answers to which, I hope would clarify some things about STR (for me at least). experiment setup

The rocket with two photon emitters S1, S2 is moving at constant speed V (close to light speed) relative to R1 photon receiver which we will consider "stationary". Outside the rocket the only source of EMR are S1, S2 photon emitters.

The questions are:

  • Will photons emitted by S1 and S2 (we consider distance between them is 0) be received at R1 simultaneously from R1's reference frame.

  • Does it matter what kind of clocks I use for S2 emitter?

  • Suppose I use same type of photon clock but horizontal (relative to movement direction), will S1 and S2 photons arrive simultaneously from R1 frame?

  • Does STR imply that all kind of clocks work the same, so if I'm viewing all possible clock types from reference frame A and they agree between themself, they all must agree when I will be viewing them from frame B, or any other frame.

  • There is not (and never has been) a requirement that anyone "see" the light pulse. The path is inferable by the fact that it leaves the emitter and arrives at the detector. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Feb 01 '18 at 01:41
  • I'm not sure I understand this, but I think you're saying that S1 and S2 are in (for all practical purposes) the same location, in which case everyone has to agree on whether their photon emissions are simultaneous. Obviously, two simultaneous emissions from the same location are going to both hit R1 (or anything else) simultaneously. Is there something else you're trying to get at? – WillO Feb 01 '18 at 06:25
  • @WillO Yes, there is something I'm trying to get at. At your answer https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/276603/65748 you said in bold text "even if the vertical clock is not there." which made me worried. Also 'dmckee' said "The path is inferable", which I understand as "we imagine", so do time dilation must be imaginable. So I want to hear explanation of my experiment from STR point of view. If I do analogous explanation, we "infer" that photon between mirror trace a longer path, so S1 emitter ticks slower, so S1 and S2 get out of sync and their signals ARE NOT received at R1 simultaneously – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 09:05
  • @WillO After some discussions here on stackexchange I realized that what I wanted to know designing this experiment, is - do SRT imply that all clocks are identical. I mean all elementary particles and everything in universe "use" same universal clocks, which undergo same changes in all conditions. – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 14:25
  • If S1 and S2 get out of synch, a traveler on the ship can infer that he's moving, which is forbidden by relativity, so of course they stay in synch. – WillO Feb 01 '18 at 14:36
  • @WillO not necessary. If you sit in a rocket and your sensors detect changes, it just means that there is relative movement between you and something that effects your sensors. So the traveler on the ship can conclude that something is moving to him and it effects his clock rate. Like if you have a magnetic clocks, and they start to tick slower cause a magnetic field is approaching you (or you approaching it) – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 14:49
  • @WillO AS far as I know there is no, perfect clocks, which are unaffected by 4 known forces. – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 14:55
  • yes, and the clocks will also get out of synch if somebody smashes one with a hammer. but not ever just because of motion. – WillO Feb 01 '18 at 14:59
  • @WillO I didnt get your point, "If S1 and S2 get out of synch, a traveler on the ship can infer that he's moving" How he can infer it? – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 15:06
  • 1
    The traveler cannot infer it alone. As Will said it is "forbidden by relativity". If your frame is moving at a constant velocity and you've no outside sources to compare with then you shouldn't be able to tell you're moving at all. The sources are moving with your ship and, as such, would defy this logic. – Lio Elbammalf Feb 01 '18 at 15:16
  • @LioElbammalf Ok, I see now the point, first the whole idea of my experiment was to stop thinking in abstract idealized environment. There are no known places in universe where there is no effect of 4 known forces. But ok lets idealize this situation, there are no outside sources, then there is no reason for change (nothing that can effect ship) even if the ship is moving. In other words ship has nothing to move relative to, if there are no outside sources. – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 15:33
  • Then what are you expecting the difference between S1 and S2 to be? And what are you expecting to cause this difference? – Lio Elbammalf Feb 01 '18 at 15:45
  • @LioElbammalf in idealized world with no external sources and ideal clocks, there is no reason for S1 and S2 get out of sync, and will be no difference. But my whole point is that there is no ideal clocks, whose work is unaffected by external sources. – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 15:58
  • @LioElbammalf So far I always seen clocks in SRT based on length divided by speed of light. I can imagine other clocks as well... – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 16:25
  • @AlexBurtsev, the diagrams you've seen probably seem a bit unrealistic because they draw the photon moving in lines, rather than drawing animations using wave-fronts (a minimum of two from each source, to represent a leading and trailing edge), which would become a bit visually messy, but would better demonstrate why the mirror clock slows down under movement. – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 16:25
  • @Steve No changing line to wave wouldn't make it better, visualizing moving photon with anything is wrong, we don't' know if it moves at all, all we know it can be emitted in some space and we can detect identical photon in other space and between those events system has undergone other changes (time passed like most people say). In other word we can't visualize photon path in any way. – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 16:32
  • @AlexBurtsev, I don't see your point. We don't have to visualise the photon's path. We visualise the wavefront, and we know it moves because we observe causes and effects in different places - and for example, placing a detector in front of a moving wavefront will produce effects, but placing it behind the wavefront (after we infer it has already moved past that place) will not produce effects. – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 16:52

3 Answers3

2

The difficult thing to overcome when first approaching special relativity is the idea of a "True" time.

The clock in S2 will be effected just as much as the results of the light bouncing between two mirrors

You won't have a difference between when the S1 and S2 emit light because, to an observer on the ship moving at a constant velocity, they are both clocks measuring the same thing. To an observer at R1 the signals from S1 and S2 will also be identical, neither will agree with a clock that was in R1's frame of reference.

  • 1
    I agree. All he's basically done is define another identical "mirror clock" for S2 (implicitly and undrawn) which is synchronised with the first mirror clock which S1 uses, so they may as well just both use the same clock. – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 16:21
  • I has overcome True time idea long ago, I disagree with idea of "True" clocks. Look at this answer (and question) https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/276614/65748. What if the clocks are not length based and are unaffected by length contraction. – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 16:23
  • @Steve I didn't defined another "mirror clock" I didn't said what kind of clocks are for S2! Suppose that its clocks based on spin of electron. – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 16:26
  • @AlexBurtsev, length contraction is not a real effect - it is more of a perceived effect when using Doppler ranging for moving objects, and it is symmetrical. Time dilation is a real effect that can be experienced asymmetrically, and it's got nothing to do with the length of the clocks, it's because the speed of light (between two relative points) changes in such a way as to introduce an isotropic delay in all directions. As for the type of clock used by S2, it doesn't seem to matter, because movement through space appears to affect all processes in a very fundamental way. – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 16:42
  • @Steve I don't want to start this cause it involves long terminology sync for what we name real. But if you think Time dilation real, you must also think that length contraction is real, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Measurement_versus_visual_appearance – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 16:52
  • @AlexBurtsev, it depends what you mean by "real" (even apparent effects are "real" in a sense, if real is in contrast to imaginary), but I'm trying to select terminology that conveys the most appropriate meaning. In this case, I'm saying time dilation is "real" because it is capable of inflicting persistent effects differentially upon each object (and those objects carry those effects forward in a way that can be observed later)... – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 16:59
  • ...whereas length contraction is a bit more like the Doppler effect itself (i.e. it's purely to do with the relation of how the objects are moving, it is symmetrical for both objects, it occurs whilst they move, and when they stop moving all its effects disappear). – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 17:00
  • @Steve good explanation, well you see I suspect the same could be happening with time dilation, and the persistent effect (different "ages" of objects (amount of changes they have undergone)) when objects stopped moving relative to each other - has nothing to do with SRT. But don't take me serious I'm studying SRT only for 2 days -) – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 17:11
  • @Steve Also look at this answer https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/276614/65748 indirectly length contraction here causes persistent effect. Without length contraction, there would be no reason for time dilation in case examined in this post. So if you say time dilation has persistent effect, and its because of length contraction, you must agree length contraction has persistent effect. – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 17:17
  • @AlexBurtsev, I've looked at that answer, but I know whenever large amounts of maths starts to be quoted that it will be devoid of "explanation", because maths can be both a tool of those who apply an explanation, and the refuge of scoundrels who have learned the mathematics by rote and lack an explanation. – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 17:21
  • @AlexBurtsev, I haven't said length contraction causes time dilation. – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 17:22
  • @Steve I'm not a math guy, haven't read it, but the text at the beginning explains the math behind well enough. Right you didn't said LC cases TD, but its what most people say. Again I'm not a fan of SRT I don't' want to defend it. I'm defending logic. – Alex Burtsev Feb 01 '18 at 17:23
  • @AlexBurtsev, I'm quite sure all the maths in there is correct, but it doesn't mean it explains its own concepts. In particular, it may refer to length contraction, but it does not need to distinguish whether the contraction is intrinsic or apparent, because that distinction would not bear on how that particular situation is quantified. Whereas when someone asks "is length contraction real?", they are asking a question in which the distinction bears, precise quantification does not bear, and the answer to which will inform how they reason about the situation in general. – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 17:39
  • @AlexBurtsev, I also don't agree with what many people here say. I don't think one need be critical of SR - it is simply that most people talk rubbish about it and make illogical claims of it, rubbish that only becomes clear when they are forced to talk English. – Steve Feb 01 '18 at 17:45
1

It gets confusing when comparing light clocks to mechanical clocks, etc. I hope this helps.

enter image description here enter image description here

As you see above, Jack is at rest, meaning he has neither accelerated no decelerated, and thus has not changed his frame of reference. Jack uses 2 synchronized clocks to measure how much slower Jill's clock is ticking. The results are also noted above.

Now imagine that Jill's rocket is very long and that there is also a clock located at the rear end of the rocket. The distance between these clocks is the same as the distance between Jack's clocks.

Jill takes off to the left, stops, and then accelerates to the same speed previously noted, and heads back to pass by Jack. From Jill's perspective, both her clocks still seem to be synchronized. However, from Jack's perspective, he sees that Jill's rear clock is ahead of the one at the front.

Now if Jill uses her two clocks to measure how fast one of Jack's clocks is ticking, the clock time offset between her two clocks will in turn have her measurements indicate that Jack's clock is ticking slower than her clocks, and do so even though Jack has not altered his frame of reference.

With this being the case, dozens of rockets that are identical to Jill's rocket, could have left jack and then returned and passed by him, but all do so at different speeds. They all, when measuring one of Jack's clocks, would in turn get different results. But there is only one Jack, not multiple Jack's.

Sean
  • 692
  • 3
  • 13
0

There is a well known 2 mirror clock time dilation thought experiment in STR. However it is a bit unclear to me due to its unrealistic nature. By unrealistic I mean that experiment implies that stationary observer can immediately "see" the photon trace from side without photon actually hitting the detector (eye). As far as I know you cant see photon from side without it being absorbed by detector.

I am not sure I have understood you well, but in SR an observer does not look at the moving clock (light clock) from side. Since you call it "unrealistic" I'd try to shed some light:

In special relativity an observer is not a single person or human being, who sits on a bench and observes moving clocks. Stationary observer is the whole reference frame, or the team of observers. These observers stay apart from each other at certain distance and each has a clock. These clocks have been previously synchronized by Einstein signalling method (there is also Reichenbah's, which is self - consistent). They record space and time coordinates of events in immediate vicinity, or straight in front of each of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(special_relativity)

A stationary observer of reference frame $S$ conducts measurements this way: He places light clock $C_1$ at coordinate $x_1$ of his frame and light clock $C_2$ at coordinate $x_2$ of his frame.

Let these light clocks have digital oscillation counters.

Then this observer sends a beam of light from clock $C_1$ towards clock $C_2$ when clock $C_1$ shows 0. He assumes, that one - way speed of light is c (Einstein synchrony convention). Since he knows distance and speed of light, he synchronizes these clocks, so as they show the same time in reference frame $S$.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation

Imagine light clock $C'$ passes by clock $C_1$ first at moment of time $t_1$ and clock $C_2$ at moment of time $t_2$ then. At these moments, readings of the moving clock and the corresponding fixed clock of reference frame $S$ next to it are compared.

Fig.1 Fig.2

Let the counters of moving clock measure the time interval $\tau _ {0}$ during the movement from the point $x_ {1}$ to the point $x_ {2}$ and the counters of clocks $C_1$ and $C_2$ of the fixed or “rest” frame $S$, will measure the time interval $\tau$. This way,

$$\tau '=\tau _{0} =t'_{2} -t'_{1},$$

$$\tau =t_{2} -t_{1} \quad (1)$$

But according to the inverse Lorentz transformations we have

$$t_{2} -t_{1} ={(t'_{2} -t'_{1} )+{v\over c^{2} } (x'_{2} -x'_{1} )\over \sqrt{1-v^{2} /c^{2} } } \quad (2)$$

Substituting (1) into (2) and noting that the moving clock is always at the same point in the moving reference frame $S'$, that is,

$$x'_{1} =x'_{2} \quad (3)$$

We obtain

$$\tau ={\tau _{0} \over \sqrt{1-v^{2} /c^{2} } } ,\qquad (t_{0} =\tau ') \quad (4) $$

This formula means that the time interval measured by the fixed clocks is greater than the time interval measured by the single moving clock. This means that the moving clock lags behind the fixed ones, that is, it slows down.

The animation below depicts light clocks.

enter image description here

Sure, from the point of view of "stationary" observer $S$ beam of light moves by hypotenuse, though in "moving" frame $S'$ beam of light jumps up and down.

Good link: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512013