1

To make mechanical watch tick slower, watch tick rate must be changed, oscialtion of balance wheel must be SOMEHOW changed, how would speed change oscialtion of balance wheel, due to relativistic effects?

I dont understand mechanism between speed and parts inside mechanical watch that will somehow mysteriously start ticking slower?

This video show how watch works.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751

4 Answers4

5

It is a very common mistake to assume that moving watches slow down, one that is no doubt due to the ambiguous phrase 'moving clocks run slow.' What time dilation actually means is that the time interval between two events occurring in the same place in one frame is shorter than the time interval between the same two events in any other moving frame. Let me repeat that the time interval is shorter . So a time interval between two events that occur in the same place might be 5s, say, in their rest frame, while in another frame it will be longer, say 6s, depending on the relative speeds of the two frames. So you can see that it is the actual time that differs between the frames. An accurate watch in the first frame will measure 5s not because it is running slow but because the duration is 5s, while accurate watches in the second frame will show that the duration is 6s not because they are running faster but because the duration is longer.

Marco Ocram
  • 26,161
  • So if watches mechanism dont change tick rate, both watches will show same time when watch from rocket return to earth? – user707264 Jan 06 '22 at 10:22
  • 1
    No you cannot say that because two clocks tick at the same rate they will always show the same time- that is simply wrong. If two watches start together at event A then go their separate ways before meeting again at event B, the times they will display will depend upon the length of the path they have taken through time since leaving A. If one has followed a path 5s long and the other a path 6s long then they will be a second out when they meet... – Marco Ocram Jan 06 '22 at 11:17
  • 2
    It is exactly analogous to the case in which two cars have identical mileometers, each of which accurately shows one extra mile on its display for every mile travelled by the car. If the two cars at at point A with the same mileage, then travel different routes to point B, their mileometers will no longer show the same mileage if they have followed routes of different lengths. – Marco Ocram Jan 06 '22 at 11:19
  • A watch that goes off in a rocket then returns to Earth will show less time has elapsed on its journey compared with a watch that stays on earth. That is not because the travelling watch has run slow, but because the duration of its journey is actually less. Suppose the stationary watch shows 20 hours and the travelling watch shows 18 hours- that is because the watch has been travelling for 18 hours, not because it is running slow. The distinction is subtle but crucial if you are to understand time dilation properly. – Marco Ocram Jan 06 '22 at 11:22
  • "Suppose the stationary watch shows 20 hours and the travelling watch shows 18 hours- that is because the watch has been travelling for 18 hours, not because it is running slow. " this is mind blowing for my IQ and my logic, i understand only Newton world..but I bet that 99.9% of people who dont study physics, dont understand relativity.. – user707264 Jan 06 '22 at 11:28
  • @JurgenM This is perfectly normal. You need to learn SR to understand it! If "intuition" or "logic" or "IQ" were sufficient, we would not need science. – m4r35n357 Jan 06 '22 at 11:55
  • @m4r35n357 What IQ you must have to understand relativity, 150 and above? I graduated engineering, to me SR physics seems very very harder to understand, you physics guys are on different level then normal people.. – user707264 Jan 06 '22 at 12:06
  • @JurgenM Why the obsession with IQ? The spacetime interval is just like Pythagoras with a minus sign - look it up! What have you been using to learn this? – m4r35n357 Jan 06 '22 at 12:11
  • @m4r35n357 So that mean that duration of 1 second is different in diffrenet situations? – user707264 Jan 06 '22 at 12:16
  • Yes! Have you heard that time is relative (depends on the observer)? I say again that it is up to you to learn this! You question has been answered several times now (the watch does not slow down). – m4r35n357 Jan 06 '22 at 12:30
  • @m4r35n357 i understand that speed is relative, but was thought time is absolute. if time is relative that mean speed also change due to time,becuase we have different number in denominator...speed=length/ time that change – user707264 Jan 06 '22 at 12:45
  • 1
    @JurgenM speed, time, distance and direction are all relative. You don't need to be especially clever to understand SR- but you do need to stop trying to understand it in purely Newtonian terms. It is rather like trying to understand the geometry of a sphere in terms of the geometry of a plane- you cannot build a conceptual model of the former from the latter. – Marco Ocram Jan 06 '22 at 13:29
  • @m4r35n357 Why he say that clock don not tick at same rate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txv7V_nY2eg – user707264 Jan 06 '22 at 21:57
  • I am not going to watch a 7 1/2 minute video looking for your point! You already have my answer. – m4r35n357 Jan 07 '22 at 11:08
  • @m4r35n357 in frame that moving compere to watch, watch has lower tick rate and in frame in rest of watch tick rate is not slow down...so you cant say that clock tick rate is not slow down... – user707264 Jan 07 '22 at 20:21
  • @JurgenM you are missing the point. The rate at which the watches tick is the same. The number of ticks is different, because one watch experiences a longer elapsed time than the other. – Marco Ocram Jan 07 '22 at 22:19
3

As a supplement to Marco Ocram's excellent answer: we are all moving not only in space, but also in time. We have no choice about that: even if we think we are "at rest" in space, we'll be moving forward through time. But different observers may be moving in different directions in spacetime. If we assign $(x, t)$ coordinates to the path of a watch, with the beginning of the path at $(0,0)$, then after one of our seconds a stationary watch will have coordinates $(0, 1)$ whereas a moving watch will have coordinates $(v, 1)$. The vectors $(v, 1)$ and $(0, 1)$ clearly point in different directions and have different lengths. If you mark out 1 unit intervals along the $(v, 1)$ (moving) line, they won't have the same time or space coordinates as they would along the $(0, 1)$ line.

The only complication to all of this is that time and space are not the same thing, and so in practice the "distance" is calculated with $x^2 - t^2$ rather than $x^2 + t^2$. Time comes into it with a "negative" sign (actually the choice of signs for time and space are arbitrary, but they have to be opposite).

This also explains why when you bring the moving watch back it will show a shorter time. The "moving" watch goes around two sides of a triangle, where the "resting" moves along the third side (only in time, not in space). The moving watch travels a longer spatial distance. Time and space have opposite signs, so this corresponds to a shorter temporal distance, i.e. the watch that moved will show less elapsed time.

Eric Smith
  • 9,064
0

The tricky thing is: it is not the watch that ticks differently, it is time itself.

Let us consider the situation you proposed on the comments: you are on a fast rocket and there is a clock on Earth. What do you see? You see your watch ticking just as usual, while the clock on Earth (which you are looking at e.g. with a telescope) is ticking slower. However, if I am on Earth, I'll see the clock ticking as usual, while I'll see your watch ticking slower.

But not only we'll see the clocks and watches ticking slowly. We'll see everything happening slowly. I'll see you moving slowly, I'll see things dropping to the ground slowly, you'll see me moving slowly, everything slows down.

It is not the watch that changes. It is time itself. Time is not something absolute that governs everything and everyone. It is relative. Time depends on where you are and what you are measuring.

I have written some other posts on this problems. You might be interested in this, this, and this.

0

Your video shows - very nicely - the balance assembly swinging to and fro due to the balance spring. It has a mass (actually a moment of inertia - look at those weights round the rim) that determines how fast this happens.

Suppose I set it up in a laboratory swinging to and fro once every second.

You observe this while travelling past me in a fast train (or plane, or space-ship). Because you are moving you will see the mass of the balance wheel increased by a $\gamma$ factor. The spring properties are the same (under certain assumptions...) so - according to you - the balance assembly takes longer to accelerate through its cycles and the watch ticks more slowly.

RogerJBarlow
  • 10,063
  • Members wrote that watch dont ticks at slower rate... – user707264 Jan 06 '22 at 15:25
  • If a watch ticks at a certain rate in its rest frame, it will be measured to tick at a slower rate when observed in a frame in which it is moving – RogerJBarlow Jan 06 '22 at 15:53
  • then that must explain to them... – user707264 Jan 06 '22 at 16:03
  • Transverse mass should increase as γ squared for it to cause a frequency decrease of 1/γ. But transverse mass increases as gamma. If we transform the force too using the correct formula, then we get a correct frequency. – stuffu Jan 06 '22 at 17:13