| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Jul 2005 09:54:19 AM |
| Object: |
Time dilation |
ON TIME DILATION AND DOPPLER TIME
Vertner Vergon
Abstract
We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving
contradiction. We also find it is contrary to empirical experience. In
examining Doppler time we find it has none of these deficiencies. We
therefore conclude that the erroneous concept of time dilation be
replaced with the concept of Doppler time variation.
We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going to its
source -- Einstein's paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. We
refer to his gedanken experiment of moving clocks. One of two identical
clocks remains at rest while the other moves away and returns. When
Einstein perceived the difference of the clock readings in his
calculations, he stated the moving clock "was slow by ...". The
immediate perception by the public was that he meant if a clock was
"slow by" - it had to have run slower. He also said the moving clock
was "behind" the inertial clock by ... . These two statements do
not mean the same thing. If one clock is running slower, then it is
running slower, and that has only one meaning.
On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to
alternative explanations, eg, the moving clock could have traveled a
shorter world line -- or may have traveled faster than observed. In
either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper) rate but for a
shorter duration than the inertial clock and thus be behind. At any
rate the accepted version is that the clock ran slower and thus was
born the concept of time dilation.
This concept is usually stated by an illustration that says if one were
to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, they would observe it to
run slowly. It must be emphasized that this running slowly occurs
regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That is to say it
matters not whether the spaceship is receding or approaching, time runs
slower. Also to be emphasized is that this slowness of time is not just
a matter of observation but actually takes place -- for when the clock
returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary (or Earth) clock.
Since this is the case, we are inevitably drawn to only one conclusion,
the moving clock has to be running slowly in its own coordinate system.
Here we are faced with an unforgiving contradiction for basic
relativity states that all clocks keep proper time in their respective
coordinate systems. It is inconsistent that a clock can actually run
slowly in its own coordinate system - and also, the while, keep
proper time. This contradiction requires that the time dilation
concept, i.e., t' =3D t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) be discarded.
The question arises, is there something to take its place? The answer
is yes.
To lay the foundation for this replacement we note that any known
constant frequency is a clock. The scientific community has chosen the
excited cesium atom as the standard. This is an arbitrary choice. Next,
we note that the cesium clock (or any other constant frequency atom)
will never vary in its rate, so they will always keep proper time.
However, observations of these clocks will show a variation due to the
Doppler effect. We declare this variation in frequency is a variation
in observed time. Since the frequency is a clock, an observed variation
in the frequency is an observed variation in time. Call it Doppler or
what one will, that is merely a description of the mechanics. In the
final analysis it is a variation in observed time.
Next, we examine a counter argument which states that the relativistic
Doppler rate is the result of the following: If one takes the
non-relativistic Doppler rate and modifies it by the time dilation
they, come up with the relativistic Doppler rate. This, supposedly,
confirms time dilation. Upon further examination, we perceive that even
if we were to accept that explanation, what we have is the situation
whereby an approaching clock is observed to run fast -- not as fast as
non-relativistic mechanics would have -- but fast. This is contrary to
time dilation which requires an approaching clock to run slowly. That
a reversal in direction results in a reversal of time rate is to be
expected since time variation is the result of velocity vectors - and
vectors are directional.
If a theory conflicts with empiricism, it has to be discarded.
Next we point out that we need not necessarily accept the above
explanation. We note that above, the non-relativistic Doppler is
modified by applying time dilation. We also note that time dilation is
written t' =3D t v(1 - v2/c2), where v(1 - v2/c2) is the
Lorentz transformation.
Now non-relativistic Doppler in direct approach is written (where V =3D
v/c and nu is frequency).
nu'/nu =3D 1/1- V
Next, we apply time dilation:
nu'/nu =3D (1/ 1 - V) x t v(1 - V2).
It is immediately apparent how clumsy this equation is. Frequency times
time is n/t x t =3D n (where n is a number) To avoid this problem we may
write:
nu'/nu =3D (1/1 - V) v (1 - V2)
Now the argument presents itself that the equation immediately above
does not represent the application of time dilation but does instead
simply apply the Lorentz transformation to the frequency as it does to
other parameters in transposing from one coordinate system to another.
Thus relativistic Doppler is simply that - and not modified by time
dilation.
It can easily be shown -- using the famous "Twin Paradox" as an example
-- that utilizing the observed Doppler time rate will yield -- when the
clocks are reunited -- a difference in the readings commensurate with
the time dilation rate. And to restate, it can be shown that using the
Doppler time rate will yield the time dilation effect. And that is the
proper way to refer to it -- "time dilation effect". The reason: The
net time differential when the movement of the clock is complete is the
same as though dilation time was operative throughout, whereas it was
Doppler time operating.
What then? What is the explanation for the "effect", but not the
actuality of time dilation? Particle accelerator operators and Ives &
Stillwell claim to have "directly observed" time dilation.* What they
have observed is transverse Doppler rates. It so happens, by some
extraordinary coincidence, that the transverse Doppler rate is the same
as the time dilation rate.
And now to display the Doppler time resolution of the Twins Paradox:
What is displayed here is the round trip Twins' experience with no
paradox. The upward arrow signifies outward bound, the downward arrow
signifies inward bound. The double arrows signify the ship being
observed going outbound while in fact it is traveling inbound. (second
chart). This, of course, is due to the time it takes light to travel.
The velocity is sqrt(.75c). At this velocity the so called time
dilation rate is 1/2 . The distance to far-point is sqrt(3 light
seconds). So the elapsed time for the ship is one second due to the
fact the distance traversed is a coordinate system in relative motion
to the ship and to the ship is .5 v3 light second due to the
foreshortening effect.
( For seconds or years, the figures hold.)
This means that four years on earth would be only two years on the
ship. The time rates shown in the second chart are the time rates of
the ship as observed by earth. Both charts are Doppler time rates. They
have to be. Any invariable frequency -- clock or atom -- will be
observed at Doppler rates. The same is true for observations of earth
by the ship (first chart). It will be noted there is a parity of rate
observations as required by the principle of relativity.
Notice, there is no time dilation rate observed (1/2 in this case) --
but when the trip is concluded the difference in the clock readings is
as though the ship's clock had run at half time to the earth clock,
i=2Ee , run at dilation time. When Einstein saw that differential in his
calculations (1905 paper) he said the moving clock "ran slow" by ... .
This created the impression that time really ran uniformly slower for
the ship's clock. The tables below show this isn't so. Time runs
slower and faster depending on direction but the net result is as
though it had run uniformly slower.
It is worth repeating that according to the time dilation concept a
clock in the approach mode runs slowly- but astronomers observe
clocks in the approach mode, and they are running fast. Consequently,
there is no time dilation. There is, however, a time dilation effect,
i=2Ee., there is a transit time differential on the two clocks -- and it
was created by Doppler time. However, quantitatively it appears to be
created by time dilation.
ASTRONAUTS TABLE
ELAPSED x DOPPLER =3D OBSERVED TIME
TIME ON TIME/ ON EARTH
SHIP FREQUENCY
(in seconds) (t/f)
/|\
| 1.00 x .268 =3D .268
| 1.00 x 3.732 =3D 3.732
\|/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2.000 4.000
total elapsed time
ASTRONOMER'S TABLE
ELAPSED x DOPPLER =3D OBSERVED TIME
TIME ON TIME/ ON SHIP
EARTH FREQUENCY
(in seconds) (t/f)
/|\
| 2.00 x .268 =3D .536
/|\ | 1.732 x .268 =3D ,464
| \|/
| .268 x 3.732 =3D 1.000
\|/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
4.000 2.000
total elapsed time
Note: Not only is there a parity of rate observations, but the length
of time each twin is an observer is equal to the time he is observed.
Thus there is a time commonality of observation. This, in a space-time
chart given in Spacetime Physics (by Taylor and Wheeler), is labeled
the "line of simultaneity".
__________________________
=B7 Both Ives & Stillwell and accelerator operators made right angle
observations of fast traveling radiation-emitting atoms or particles
and found that the radiation shifted in accordance with time dilation
calculations (which happen to be the same as transverse Doppler).
ADDENDUM
ABSTRACT
Establishes the existence of superluminal velocities - and
consequently a showing that the concept of a traveling twin returning
younger than his bother is not valid.
In the above dissertation it was stated that the distance to Farpoint
was sqrt(3 light seconds) and that to the transiting space ship this
distance was foreshortened to =BD that. This is not quite true.
Whereas it is true the measurement taken by the ship would show a
foreshortening - it should be recognized that the space does not
really contract. What then?
The sqrt(3 light seconds) is 1.732 light seconds - and half that is
..866 light second. Since the ship transits the distance in one second,
the passenger calculates his velocity to be .866 light second per
second.
We recognize this is the result of a foreshortened measurement - but
that the proper distance remains 1.732 light seconds. Therefore, we can
state that the proper velocity of the space ship is 1.732 light seconds
per second. We recognize this as a superluminal velocity.
Thus we see that the true cause for the time differential between a
moving coordinate system and an inertial one is that the moving system
is traveling faster than measured. The faster velocity is the proper
velocity, the slower velocity is the relative velocity.
Measurement from the inertial frame is another matter. This measurement
is strictly a subjective one in which the distance to far point does
not foreshorten. Thus, in the example, the distance to be traversed is
1=2E732 light seconds and the velocity of the ship - though having a
proper velocity of 1.732 light seconds per second -
is perceived by the inertial observer at .866 light second per second
by the following considerations:
Einstein has already shown that a rod in a moving coordinate system
will measure as contracted or foreshortened so that will not be
repeated here. If we substitute the space ship for the rod, we conclude
that a measurement of the ship also contracts in length. Further, we
conclude that length is the same as distance - and since distance
contracts, velocity being distance per time, also contracts. So every
proper velocity has a corresponding relative velocity.
Applying that to our example, we conclude that to the inertial observer
the 1.732 light seconds per second proper velocity of the spaceship
foreshortens to a relative velocity of .866 light second per second -
and further, the time for transit of the 1.732 light second distance is
1=2E732 / .866 or 2 seconds.
But we are not through yet. This is the calculated time not the
observed time. The observed time develops as follows:
The calculated time for transit is 2 seconds. At the end of that time
the ship will have arrived at farpoint - but the inertial observer
will not be aware of that until the signal of that arrival reaches him.
At a distance of 1.732 light seconds to farpoint that will take an
electromagnetic signal 1.732 seconds.
Thus it will take 2 + 1.732 seconds from departure for the inertial
observer to observe the completed transit.
The observed velocity, then, is distance / time or 1.732 / 3.732 =3D .464
light second per second.
This is based on a relative velocity which is a derivation of a proper
velocity - and which undergoes the mechanism of observation.
If one will consult the Twins Astronomer chart above they will come up
with the same result.
The time for the outward (up arrows) observation is 3.732 seconds
elapsed time on earth - and the distance (being inertial) is 1.732
light seconds. This 1.732 / 3.732 yields an observed velocity of .464
c=2E
One last consideration. Now that we have established superluminal
velocities, what are the complications?
Let us again use the Twins example.
Consulting the charts we see that to the Astronaut the round trip is
two seconds, whereas to the Astronomer it is four seconds. (Let us
transpose seconds to years).
What happens when the Astronaut lands and strolls over to stand
shoulder to shoulder with the Astronomer? He must necessarily see the
same as does the Astronomer. What would that be? And would that violate
any laws of physics?
We again consult our charts and we see that the landing must take place
at the first line of ASTRONOMER'S TABLE which is two years into his
observations. This is so because Astronaut's journey is two years.
Now, what do they both see?
Line 2 (double arrow). Translated, that means they "see" Astronaut
still on his outward journey though he is actually on his way inward.
Yes, Astronaut observes himself on his outward journey.
This transpires for 1.732 years. At the end of that time both parties
observe (line 3) Astronaut on his way in at the observed velocity of
1=2E732 light seconds /. 268 seconds or 6.463 light seconds / second.
Thus, the inward journey will be observed by both for .268 years.
Regardless of first impressions, this violates no laws of physics. Let
me relate an analogy.
A pilot of a super sonic jet traveling at a super sonic velocity turns
off his engine and glides silently. What does he experience? As he
slows down to subsonic velocities he hears, as it catches up to him,
the sonic boom created by his supersonic flight. So it is with light.
The question arises, what about the accepted concept that one can never
chase a light beam and catch up to it? *
Consider the following: As one increases their velocity in this
pursuit, the beam gradually reduces in frequency - until at the speed
of light, there is no frequency at all. If one exceeds this velocity
and then stops, it violates no law that he perceives the
electromagnetic vibrations left behind, same as the pilot having his
sonic boom overtake him. Note that the reduction in frequency does not
alter the fact of the beam always preceding the observer at c until the
frequency reaches zero.
Finally, as a consequence of the above, we see that there is no age
difference between Astronomer and Astronaut. Astronaut lands after two
years from departure - and Astronomer greets him two years into a
four year observation, the latter two of which they experience
together.
V. VERGON
October, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
=B7 CHASING A LIGHT BEAM
In actuality it is impossible to chase a light beam (or photon) for
that means it is advancing before the observer. Photons or beams can
only be observed when they are approaching the observer. Therefore, the
situation must be that the observer is proceeding in the same direction
- and within - the light beam. Thus, in actuality, what he is
observing is the source of the emission - and from that he is
receding. Should he recede at the speed of light, the observed
transmission would have a frequency of zero.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
08 Jul 2005 11:43:18 AM |
|
|
"vergon_enterprises@highstream.net" wrote:
ON TIME DILATION AND DOPPLER TIME
Vertner Vergon
Abstract
We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving
contradiction. We also find it is contrary to empirical experience.
[snip 420 lines of crap]
*****.
1) Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a
purely mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to
contradictions in number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the
mathematics of Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of
real numbers and with arithmetic.
2) Hafele-Keating Experiment
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
3) Idiot.
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
28 Jul 2005 12:55:07 PM |
|
|
I quote from your reference:
"Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the
flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and
gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip."
Now the earth rotates west to east, so in a plane flying flying
eastward the net result is the clocks are moving apart.
In a plane flying westward the clocks are moving in opposite directions
-- which is the same as approaching. So the flying clock will run
faster.
And, schmuck, that's what happens.
Doppler time is faster on approach -- TIME DILATION IS SLOWER.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
12 Jul 2005 06:12:21 PM |
|
|
The invective spewing from an inferior mind is a sad thing to behold.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
08 Jul 2005 10:21:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
[snip]
This concept is usually stated by an illustration that says if one were
to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, they would observe it to
run slowly. It must be emphasized that this running slowly occurs
regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That is to say it
matters not whether the spaceship is receding or approaching, time runs
slower. Also to be emphasized is that this slowness of time is not just
a matter of observation but actually takes place -- for when the clock
returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary (or Earth) clock.
Since this is the case, we are inevitably drawn to only one conclusion,
the moving clock has to be running slowly in its own coordinate system.
That would only be true, if by "we" you mean "I, and other idiots like
me". People of normal intelligence are not drawn to that conclusion.
[remaining blather snipped]
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
28 Jul 2005 12:42:29 PM |
|
|
If you can't see the obvious, that's your problem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
12 Jul 2005 06:01:12 PM |
|
|
If, when the clock returns to its original position, it is "behind" the
stationary clock -- how else could this be unless it ran slowly in its
system?
That would be required in the present day understanding of relativity.
The answer is that the moving clock is traveling faster than observed
-- therefore it transits in less time than expected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "sue jahn" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
13 Jul 2005 11:51:01 AM |
|
|
<vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> wrote in message news:1121209272.303775.202990@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If, when the clock returns to its original position, it is "behind" the
stationary clock -- how else could this be unless it ran slowly in its
system?
A light-clock is a poor substitute for a clock that *goes* as it is
*judged* over a non-zero length path as described in:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
That would be required in the present day understanding of relativity.
Light propagates at a constant speed and experiments are the same in
all inertial frames of reference. Does the "present day understanding"
include more than that?
The answer is that the moving clock is traveling faster than observed
-- therefore it transits in less time than expected.
Oh?
Sue...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
13 Jul 2005 11:50:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
If, when the clock returns to its original position, it is "behind" the
stationary clock -- how else could this be unless it ran slowly in its
system?
That would be required in the present day understanding of relativity.
Thus demonstrating that you don't understand the basics of SR.
No point in trying to explain it to you; you are ineducable.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
28 Jul 2005 01:03:01 PM |
|
|
Obviously you are not intelligent enough to make a technical critique
-- so you stoop to insults. Why don't you just shut up? Try and exhibit
some decency.
The bible says " Cast not thy pearls before swine for they will turn on
you and attempt to destroy you."
Amen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Time dilation |
28 Jul 2005 01:05:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If, when the clock returns to its original position, it is "behind" the
stationary clock -- how else could this be unless it ran slowly in its
system?
By running slower in OUR system, regardless of what it
did from its own point of view.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
