Talk:Time dilation/Archive 2018

Archives by year: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

Merge proposal

I proposed that the article Time dilation of moving particles should be merged here. There's nothing specially noteworthy about the effect when applied to particles to require it being in a separate article. --uKER (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It's common to have separate articles on experiments in order to describe them in detail. --D.H (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

In that case, at the very least, it should de made to clarify that it's talking about a special case of a topic covered elsewhere, and remove all duplicate info that makes it seem like the phenomenon only applies to particles. --uKER (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Theory v. experimental confirmation. Two separate topics, hence two articles. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose but rename Time dilation of moving particles to something like Tests of relativistic time dilation, similar to the naming convention apparently adopted for Tests of special relativity and Tests of relativistic energy and momentum. Do we have any other examples of separate articles that summarize several experiments that provide proof for a scientific theory? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Clock hypothesis

please more references. Who and when did write that hypothesis? Einstein did not. Somewhere I found, that it must be raised after 1960. And some results of the two empirical sources 1977 an 1980 mentioned. Like: there were found no dependence5.28.124.200 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC) of time dilation produced by acseleration.

Tried to insert a comment

I tried inserting a comment in the "Simple inference of velocity time dilation" after the sentence, "That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the local clock, this clock will appear to be running more slowly". But it got rejected.

My comment was this, "(Note, however, that any clocks based on this principle cannot be reliably used to prove time dilation as the clock accuracy would be compromised by a change in speed as shown by the diagrams. Ie. The moment the clock changes speed the light travels a farther distance, resulting is slower "ticks". The clock slows but that isn't proof that time slows.)"

My reasoning is this: One can observe two identical pendulum clocks. One ticking away on a mountain top, the other in a valley. Based on observation one can conclude that gravity speeds up time. But on closer inspection one would realize that gravity isn't speeding up time but rather that pendulum clock accuracy is susceptible to gravitational influence. It's the clocks that are being effected not time.

The same applies to proof of time dilation. Look at the "proof" in the diagrams under Simple Inference of Velocity Time Dilation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation there is an admission that "in a frame moving relative to the local clock, this clock will APPEAR to be running more slowly". I emphasize APPEAR because based on observation the assumption is that time is slowed. The diagrams clearly show (relative) motion causes the light to travel a longer distance resulting in slower ticks. To me it is obvious that an atomic clock's accuracy is susceptible to motion and that this is not proof of time dilation. Trevor Greene (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the comment per wp:UNSOURCED and wp:NOR. - DVdm (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And it was probably you who I reverted here too. This type of clocks are a thought experiment that leads to an experimentally verified conclusion. It's not that someone built an actual clock and seeing it lagged concluded that the universe was bugged. --uKER (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the Einstein’s light clock shown in article standard?

EEK

If not, would time dilate at the same rate in the light clocks as shown in the figure if moving at the same speed in the same direction relative to the stationary observer?

The observer in each clock at point A is Oc

A pulse of light takes 1 second to complete its path in each light clock as shown if fired at point A for all stationary observers.

Let the clocks start moving in the same direction at high speed in space relative to another stationary observer “Os”.

Would the clock of each Oc and Os be synchronized relative to each other if Oc is moving relative to Os?

Please assume missing things appropriately if necessary.--Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Here we discuss the article, not the subject—see wp:Talk page guidelines. Please ask at the wp:Reference desk/science. - DVdm (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on clock gif

I'm not a physicist, but I don't completely see how the Nonsymmetric velocity time dilation.gif in the article relates to time dilation. Regardless of whether the red clock revolves around the blue one or is stationary, the red clock has a period of 6 seconds, and the blue one has a period of 3 seconds. So, because the blue clock is twice as fast, every 6 seconds both clocks will be aligned once more. What does this have to do with time dilation? In this image the speed of the dials of the red and blue clocks have nothing to do with the fact that the blue clock is stationary and the red is revolving around it.

Albatronix (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the place where we discuss the article, not the subject. The place to ask questions about the subject is the wp:Reference desk/Science. See wp:Talk page guidelines. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing archive ?

Why is 2017 archive for time dilation missing ? Chessfan (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Pointers added now . - DVdm (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Edge of the universe

Paragraph 2 of Time dilation#Velocity time dilation says “At a constant 1 g traveling up to 0.99999999 c it would take 30 years to reach the edge of the universe 13.5 billions lightyears away. [13]” But I thought that there’s a symmetry feature of the universe such that no place is the “edge” of the universe. Should this be reworded? Loraof (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

They probably meant the edge of the the entire known Universe, as it is expressed in the previous—better worded and sourced—sentence. I have removed the repeated poorly youtube-sourced sentence. - DVdm (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I also removed the remainder of that sentence, per less relevant and unsourced. - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Velocity time dilation

The statement in the Velocity time dilation section of Sergei Krikalev that "He gained 22.68 milliseconds of lifetime" seems incorrect. Krikalev gained no lifetime from his own perspective, but his idiosyncratic reference frame slowed such that his clock is that much behind a stationary clock. Perhaps it should be reworded to something like "He is 22.68 milliseconds younger than he would have been had he stayed stationary on Earth." Alas, I am far from sufficiently versed in relativistic time effects to be comfortable making such a change without some discussion attempt first. LUxlii (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done: see [1]. Good suggestion! - DVdm (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)