How accurate is time dilation equation?

[Erasmus00]

with all due respect you are missing my point. I am saying that velocity does not account for time dilation, only a force will dilate time such as the force felt when an object is accelerated or held still inside a gravitational field. In both cases, impact by cosmic rays and the use of particle accelerators these particles are accelerated.

Where is the proof that velocity accounts for time dilation?

 

Once a particle IS accelerated, it moves at a constant velocity. If you were correct, you would be suggesting that time dilation occurs for the split second of the acceleration, and then time goes back to normal once it hits cruising speed. As such, muon decay would give completely different results.

 

Also, consider indirect evidence for relativity being correct- g-2 experiments for electrons, the existance of anti-matter, etc. All of the incredible success of the standard model strengthens SR because the standard model is built on special relativity.

-Will

[kalesh]

:)

 

So let me get this straight!

 

A particle only experences time dilation when it is acted on by a force - a force that produces an acceleration, an acceleration that increases velocity..

 

Well it cant be due to the force or the acceleration, because once cruising speed is reached - no acceleration and hence no force - time dilation still occurs!

 

Once a particle IS accelerated, it moves at a constant velocity. If you were correct, you would be suggesting that time dilation occurs for the split second of the acceleration, and then time goes back to normal once it hits cruising speed. As such, muon decay would give completely different results.

 

Also, consider indirect evidence for relativity being correct- g-2 experiments for electrons, the existance of anti-matter, etc. All of the incredible success of the standard model strengthens SR because the standard model is built on special relativity.

-Will

 

When force is applied it increases the velocity of the object both along the space dimension and the time dimension. Resulting in what is known as "time dilation".

[Jay-qu]

When force is applied it increases the velocity of the object both along the space dimension and the time dimension. Resulting in what is known as "time dilation".

Following your model: Im sitting here, at rest with respect to this pen (in space and time) now I pick up the pen and throw it - now it moves faster through space and time :) that would give the reverse of what is observed!

[Uclock]

Jay-qu

 

So let me get this straight!

 

A particle only experences time dilation when it is acted on by a force - a force that produces an acceleration, an acceleration that increases velocity..

 

Yes, that is IMHO

 

 

Well it cant be due to the force or the acceleration, because once cruising speed is reached - no acceleration and hence no force - time dilation still occurs!

How do you know time dilation still occurs?

 

Tony

[Uclock]

Will,

 

Once a particle IS accelerated, it moves at a constant velocity. If you were correct, you would be suggesting that time dilation occurs for the split second of the acceleration, and then time goes back to normal once it hits cruising speed. As such, muon decay would give completely different results.

Yes it would if you were using Einstein’s equation for time dilation in a gravitational field but what is to say that his equation is the correct one.

 

 

Also, consider indirect evidence for relativity being correct- g-2 experiments for electrons, the existance of anti-matter, etc. All of the incredible success of the standard model strengthens SR because the standard model is built on special relativity.

 

I have no problem with the existence of anti-matter because it is produced by high velocity collisions involving extreme acceleration and by g-2 experiments are you referring to the electrons gyromagnetic ratio, either way can you explain what you mean?

 

Tony

[Uclock]

Kalesh,

 

When force is applied it increases the velocity of the object both along the space dimension and the time dimension. Resulting in what is known as "time dilation".

 

 

I'm affraid Jay-qu is quite correct Kalesh when he states

 

Following your model: Im sitting here, at rest with respect to this pen (in space and time) now I pick up the pen and throw it - now it moves faster through space and time that would give the reverse of what is observed!

 

Tony

[Jay-qu]

 

How do you know time dilation still occurs?

 

Tony

 

Because it has been tested..

[Uclock]

Jay-qu

 

Because it has been tested..

 

If that is the case then can you point me in the direction of the particular experiment to test SR which does not involve any acceleration?

 

Tony

[Erasmus00]

I have no problem with the existence of anti-matter because it is produced by high velocity collisions involving extreme acceleration and by g-2 experiments are you referring to the electrons gyromagnetic ratio, either way can you explain what you mean?

 

BUT, anti-matter is a consequence of special relativity. Without special relativity, quantum mechanics would predict no anti-matter.

 

Also, consider that all half integer spin particles obey fermi statistics, and all integer spin particles obey bose statistics. This only makes sense in regards to theory if we live in 3+1 dimensions (so called space time). i.e. The spin statistics theorem only holds if special relativity is more or less correct.

 

Consider the electron g-2 (the so called anomalous gyromagnetic ratio). This is the most precise theoretical calculation/measurement every accomplished. Guess what? The measurement and theory are dead on. Now, the standard model is built on special relativity (without relativity, nothing in the standard model makes ANY sense). If relativity is so wrong, how can it predict so well? (in terms of accurate precision predictions, QED is the best theory mankind has ever produced).

-Will

[kalesh]

Following your model: Im sitting here, at rest with respect to this pen (in space and time) now I pick up the pen and throw it - now it moves faster through space and time :) that would give the reverse of what is observed!

 

This is a bit confusing to grasp onto. But it does NOT give the reverse of what is observed. It gives what is actually observed.

 

Think again. If you are moving faster through space you cover more space in less time. Similarly if you are moving faster through time you cover more time in less time, meaning depending on speed in one second of yours you may cover two seconds of a stationary person, so in effect you see stationary clocks running faster and they see your clock running slower. Isn't this what is observed?

 

If you are still confused wait for the full version of this theory.

[Jay-qu]

This is a bit confusing to grasp onto. But it does NOT give the reverse of what is observed. It gives what is actually observed.

 

Think again. If you are moving faster through space you cover more space in less time. Similarly if you are moving faster through time you cover more time in less time, meaning depending on speed in one second of yours you may cover two seconds of a stationary person, so in effect you see stationary clocks running faster and they see your clock running slower. Isn't this what is observed?

 

If you are still confused wait for the full version of this theory.

:lol: Im not confused, this just isnt exactly what you said the first time..

 

If that is the case then can you point me in the direction of the particular experiment to test SR which does not involve any acceleration?

 

tell me, how can you measure somethings time dilation factor, at a given velocity - without accelerating it?

 

I can already think of inconsistancies with your theory.. you have pointed one out yourself already! You say that if you are moving faster through space then you cover more space in less time, at a constant speed this would still hold true. How would the absence of the force stop this slower passage of time, while the faster passage through space is maintained?

[Jay-qu]

oh and Physics News Update

[kalesh]

:lol: Im not confused, this just isnt exactly what you said the first time..

 

 

Ok true but I explained the same statement.

[Jay-qu]

Ok true but I explained the same statement.

nothing to say about the rest of my post?

[kalesh]

Ok about the rest of your post. I think you are confusing the posts with the poster.

 

tell me, how can you measure somethings time dilation factor, at a given velocity - without accelerating it?

 

I never said to measure time dilation without accelerating it.

 

I can already think of inconsistancies with your theory.. you have pointed one out yourself already! You say that if you are moving faster through space then you cover more space in less time, at a constant speed this would still hold true. How would the absence of the force stop this slower passage of time, while the faster passage through space is maintained?

 

When did I say that the absence of force will stop slower passage of time?:lol:

To my knowledge that was Uclock's statement and he should answer that question.

My theory does not at any point violate the current time dilation observation or its explanations. It merely expands and explains it in more detail. For a summary of my theory read this

[Jay-qu]

Well, I would still have to disagree..

 

Imagine sitting in the dead of space and an object comes floating by, there is a relative velocity between you and the object. You claim to be sitting still, and conclude that the object must have been pushed (had a force exerted on it) and is now experiencing time dilation. But at the same time the object has just as much of an equal claim that you where the one that was pushed and is experiencing time dilation... You model (though you claim in the other post that it is incomplete) seems to state that only one of them will have time dilated, which does away with the 'relative' part of relativity.