# Testing relativity

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
Testing relativity

Well I hove this on my mind for some time , so lets start J. I have never bean quid intrigued by physics s I haven’t given it much thinking or studding the formulas I have viewed them for some equations to calculate something nothing more. I would like to know witch equation is used to determine the time difference do to object acceleration (I can’t find the “t” symbol in E=mc^2) And how it is even consider a valid experiment to use atomic clock to measures the Einstein “time travel” witch atomic clocks ?

Maybe I give a example of this :

Imagine a clock using sound waves to measure time if a pilot is fling in a plane with such a clock the atoms of a clock will start moving faster however the speed of sound remains constant. If the pilot accelerates then the clock gets inaccurate if the receiver of sound waves is located in the same direction like the vector of acceleration then the time on this clock will look like its slows down. If the receiver is in the direct opposite of the vector of movement then the time will accelerate (similar to the Doppler effect ) , if its in any other direction it will slow down depending on the position of the recever and sender. However if the pilot brakes the sound barrier and the clock is directed not in the opposite to the vector of movement time will stop on the clock.

Here is the question how can this pilot with this sound wave clock came that time accelerates or stops using such a method ? And how can scientist came atomic clock in motion are not subject to this illusion ?

Can someone explain this to me .

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
t=delta(t)/SQRT(1-v^2/c^2)

t=delta(t)/SQRT(1-v^2/c^2)

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
The time experiment with

The time experiment with the atomic clocks involved getting a atomic clock on Earth, while another one was moving relative to it in a plane. The clock in the plane ticks slower than the one on the ground. But if you were in the plane, you would think the clock is ticking normaly.

They simply used the forumla I gave above to predict just how much the clocks would be off, based on the speed of the plane.

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
Thanks for the formula

Thanks for the formula .

The other point is that the atomic clock while in motion must get a illusion of time difference or :

1) The speed of light/EM radiation is NOT constant

2) Light/em radiation can be accelerated

3) The Doppler effect is impossible

Let this little diagram explain more then I can :

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

I AM GOD AS YOU
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
Offline
Time is relative, it

Time is relative, it doesn't exist as it's now yet written ......

Time is still an illussion ....

Math is a primitve explaination, but a nice start ,

.... it did get us to the moon ! Big fucking deal, so far ....

, to the farthest Star, we are the same ....

GOD is Math of course ....

, counting beers , ..... lost track ..... god is everything we know, you know ???

What ya want ? Okay, I will work on it , Me/You GOD .....

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
A its nice to have a random

A its nice to have a random refreshing element on this topic XD.

However the question remains how someone can use a constant speed wave to determine time in a accelerating object without getting in the Doppler effect.

This is beyond my comprehension.

O maybe DG will swing his mighty brain over here to explain every thing

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
carx wrote: A its nice to

carx wrote:

A its nice to have a random refreshing element on this topic XD.

However the question remains how someone can use a constant speed wave to determine time in a accelerating object without getting in the Doppler effect.

This is beyond my comprehension.

O maybe DG will swing his mighty brain over here to explain every thing

The Doppler effect is only for things accelerating away or towards you. If it's in the same frame of reference, then you don't get it.

deludedgod
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
I don't really understand

I don't really understand what the problem is. The experiment you refer to is called a light clock. The purpose of the light clock is to measure how the velocity of the observer affects its frame of  reference. The observer with a higher velocity will experience that their clocks tick slower, that is, if the events are colocal, within that observer's frame of reference at a higher velocity, their clock will tick slower than in the inertial frame, like this:

The time interval between two events t within the inertial frame is denoted t, and within the frame moving at a velocity v with respect to the observer observing t, then that interval is denoted t'.

The observed interval t' relative to t is:

t'= Lorentz factor x (t)

The Lorentz factor will describe how the increased velocity of the observer v relative to the inertial frame will change the observed interval t' relative to the inertial observer with their observed interval t. As Pineapple pointed out, the Lorentz factor is (1/r(1-v^2/c^2)

The Doppler effect simply measures the observed change in frequency of a wave from an observer depending on how the source and observer are moving relative to each other. This principle is quite simple. When the observer is moving relative to the source away from it, less wavefronts will pass it over a time period, hence it will observe a lower frequency hence a higher wavelength, and the opposite if it is moving relative to and towards the source, since more wavefronts will be passing it per second since it is moving towards the source of the wavefronts. The same holds true for if the source moves towards or away from the observer.

As for the consistency of light in all frames of reference, that is absolute, as fundamental to physics as the conservation laws. The Galilean transformations should in principle work under any transformation, but Maxwell's equations explicitly forbid the perpindicular oscillation of a magnetic field relative to an electric field to be stationary.

Your question does not seem to be so much about the theory as about the test. THe answer is that the clocks don't use sound waves to measure time. There are two clocks typically used. One is in the respective inertial frame, the other is typically placed on an aircraft. Both of these clocks are Ceasium atomic clocks. They will measure only the time interval taken for the atoms to resonate (My apologies for not being able to give more details, I don't know much about atomic clocks). The environmental factor of being stuck in a plane doesn't matter. Since they are only measuring the interval for a certain number of resonations, how many resonations in a time period alters via time dilation due to the clock being in motion. There is no physical effect on the atoms themselves or their resonations. In fact, there is no way to make the atoms resonate any faster. THat is why these clocks are so accurate. There is no chemical inaccuracy that will throw them off balance. The only thing being measured is the relative time frame which is what alters how fast the clocks tick relative to each other. The reason atomic clocks are used are for precisely that purpose- the only thing that can make them tick relatively faster or slower to the inertial frame is Relativity. Analogous to radioactive decay, there is no way to speed up or slow down the process chemically. It is for this reason that the atomic clocks define the arbitrary notion of seconds, minutes, hours and days in modern metrology.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
Yep DG my problem is with

Yep DG my problem is with the test. And My point is Atomic clocks are relialoble if not accelerated or decelerated. However if a atomic clock gets accelerated like on a plane it starts to get a time error and this is do to this

### “Speed of propagation

Any electric charge which accelerates, or any changing magnetic field, produces electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic information about the charge travels at the speed of light.

Speed of EM radiation = C .

OK I try to illustrate my point if you travel in a ship with haze 0.5 C speed and you shot a laser/EM wave depending on the vector of shooting to the vector of the movement of the ship. (Locke on my little drawing for more information ) the light/EM wave will hit the end with the combing speed of the ship and the light so its ether C + 0.5C or C - 0.5C do to the fact that the ship is :

A) running away from the beam with 0.5C

B) running to meat the beam with 0.5C

And you get the Doppler effect just like you would drive a car away from a megaphone or driving to meat it.

So a EM impulse from the radio active isotope is the sender and if the clock mows depending on the vector you get a corrupted data ( the illusion of time speeding up or slowing down ).

PS : I cant find you essay on post-modernism can you give me a link to it please.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.