Talk:Time dilation

Misleading Animation

The animation where the red clock rotates around the blue clock as illustration for special relativistic effects is misleading, since at least one of the two clocks is not part of an inertial system and thus SRT does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.168.158 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

How do you figure? SRT applies to the red clock; the animation shows the effect on that clock compared to the frame of reference of the blue clock. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The red clock is rotating around the blue clock so it is not representing an inertial system and so the SRT approach to time dilation does not apply to the red clock. (Well: Of course also the blue clock could be rotating around the red clock, if we take the red clock to be inertial. However, at least one of the systems is not an inertial system.) Of course, in this situation there also is time dilatation, but it is not a special relativistic effect alone. We have general relativistic effects as well, since acceleration is part of the game (or, locally equivalently, gravitation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.198.2 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You share a common misconception that SRT does not apply to accelerated systems. It does. Where SRT does not apply is in the presence of gravitation. See Spacetime_diagram#Accelerating_observers Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting argument. Agreeing to yours. Mine runs as follows: The red clock is accelerated. By the equivalency principle this acceleration is locally equivalent to a gravitational field. This gravitational field produces a time dilatation. This effect is not predicted by SRT. So while the SRT might mathematically be used (as your citation suggests), the SRT formula will produce an incorrect result. I agree that the SRT can be used. I fear it will produce an incorrect prediction in the scenario we are looking at. Which leaves us with an illustration in the article suggesting a theory which will be delivering a result which is different from current state of the art (which should use ART, despite the fact that SRT does produce a consistent result, different from experiment). Interested in your opinion on this. 87.163.198.2 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

language

Can we read by myanmar subject ? Waiyanaungphyo (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Waiyanaungphyo Looking at the links to the article in other languages (at the top of the article page), this article is available in Bangla and Sinhala. Does that help? —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the forward nature of this kind of time dilation, I would also as do many people like to see a theoretical description of backwards time dilation since this topic has become an interesting point by travel through wormholes or possibly an Alcubiere drive. This of course remains theory how many times the speed of C should one go to travel back in time using a spaceship equiped with an Alcubiere drive if York time concept is non existant. One would as to obide to the law of conservation of energy need to replicate the ships matter except the fuel many rockets are 70 percent fuel and 30 percent matter unless a closed loop engine is used. But in this case nuclear fuel would be used possibly even fusion if attainable since it is more lightweight than fission materials. This of course is strictly theoretical but none the less an aspect that should as theory be added to this time dilation topic, with mention of its theoretic nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.84.243 (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Larmor misquoted

The quote starting "individual electrons describe corresponding.." gives the incorrect equation. From the paper the quote should be "and the individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the latter system in the ratio e^-1/2 or (l — ½v²/c²), while those less advanced in the direction of v are"

In the article text the equation is given as √(1—v²/c²) which is the the inverse of the Lorentz and Einstein equation for gamma 2001:8003:146B:CD00:819A:61CD:C43C:35E1 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In the quoted text we have ε = 1/(1−v²/c²), and so, as you can verify, ϵ^(−½) = √(1—v²/c²), which is, as you can also verify, (1 — ½v²/c²) to first order in v²/c². In this article, we have simply left it as √(1—v²/c²), in stead of going to first order. Look at it as a semi-quote. I removed the double quotes. - DVdm (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Some suggestions, again ....

I am 87 now ! Must I await to be 100 years before you will accept my suggestions formulated in 2017 ! 🤔

See https://phymatheco.github.io

Read it before suppressing it , Non second chance !!! Chessfan (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Still no need to read it, as Wikipedia still does not accept wp:original research - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You cheat ! See Gourgoulhon General Relativity ! Chessfan (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)