Fewer seconds or shorter seconds?

  • B
  • Thread starter Kairos
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Seconds
In summary, the twin experiment shows that the traveling twin ages less than the static twin due to a shorter travel time, which is measured in seconds based on the definition of the cesium-133 atom. This difference in time can be explained by the relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, and length contraction, all encapsulated by the Lorentz Transformation. However, time dilation alone is not enough to explain the phenomenon, and the relativity of simultaneity should be considered first when trying to understand it.
  • #1
Kairos
182
16
In the twin experiment, the travel time is shorter for the traveling brother than for the static brother. Since the unit of time in physics is the second, is the travel duration shorter because: (1) it contains fewer seconds or (2) the number of seconds is the same for both brothers but the traveler's seconds are shorter?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If I draw a triangle and have two brothers start at one corner and walk the perimeter, meeting at a third corner, one brother walks two sides and the other only one side. The distance walked along two sides is greater than along the third. Is this because: (1) it contains more meters or (2) the number of meters is the same for both brothers but the two-side brother's meters are shorter?

The twin paradox is just this same phenomenon but in a Minkowski space not a Euclidean one. In Minkowski geometry the straight line between two (timelike separated) points is the longest distance (or interval, to give it its technical name).
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72 and Grasshopper
  • #3
(1); The traveling twin has experienced fewer seconds so has had fewer birthdays in long journey than his Earth brother.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker and Kairos
  • #4
mitochan said:
(1); The traveling twin has experienced fewer seconds
Ok the second is unchanged but on arrival, there will be less counted on the traveler's quartz watch. Thank you I will meditate on this result!
 
  • #5
Kairos said:
Ok the second is unchanged but on arrival, there will be less counted on the traveler's quartz watch. Thank you I will meditate on this result!
Rather than meditating I recommend drawing Minkowski diagrams, marking the seconds (or years or whatever) along each path, in the stay-at-home frame and the traveller's inbound and outbound frames. In fact, if you look up posts by former poster @ghwellsjr you will probably find exactly that fairly quickly.
 
  • #6
Kairos said:
Ok the second is unchanged but on arrival, there will be less counted on the traveler's quartz watch. Thank you I will meditate on this result!
You're welcome.

From Wikipedia-Second
The second is defined as being equal to the time duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed ground-state of the caesium-133 atom.[1][2]
The twin brothers share this definition of time. The traveling brother has his Ce133 clock which shows his second. The Earth brother has his Ce133 clock which shows his second.
 
  • #7
Ibix said:
Rather than meditating I recommend drawing Minkowski diagrams

These diagrams are graduated using the letter "t" but it was not clear to me whether dt > dt' corresponds to a dilation of the second or an increase in the number of seconds.
 
  • #8
Kairos said:
These diagrams are graduated using the letter "t" but it was not clear to me whether dt > dt' corresponds to a dilation of the second or an increase in the number of seconds.
I'm struggling to understand what you mean. The twin paradox is exactly what I said it is in #2 - two paths which have different "lengths" and form a triangle. In Euclidean space I would not describe the difference in path lengths as due to either "a dilation of the meter" or "an increase in the number of meters". Nor would I use your terminology to describe the exact same thing in Minkowski spacetime. It's just two paths of different lengths.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and vanhees71
  • #9
Or perhaps you are talking about time dilation, rather than the differential aging phenomenon in the twin paradox?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #10
Kairos said:
These diagrams are graduated using the letter "t" but it was not clear to me whether dt > dt' corresponds to a dilation of the second or an increase in the number of seconds.
The second is defined in a specific frame of reference, namely the rest frame of the Cs-133 atoms and the frequency of the hyperfine transition as measured in this reference frame.
 
  • #11
Kairos said:
(2) the number of seconds is the same for both brothers but the traveler's seconds are shorter?
Shouldn't that be “longer” instead of “shorter”?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Vanadium 50 and Ibix
  • #12
Dale said:
Shouldn't that be “longer” instead of “shorter”?
Wonderful stuff, this natural language...
It depends on whether a "shorter" second is one during which we age less, or one that it takes more of to fill the gap between the separation and arrival times. Like one of those reversing perspective line drawings of a cube, I can read it either way.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Dale and robphy
  • #13
Dale said:
Shouldn't that be “longer” instead of “shorter”?
sorry for the delay. No because n longer time units would have given a longer total duration whereas the traveller is younger on arrival.. but there is no need to argue about this point given the universality of the second
 
  • #14
Ibix said:
Or perhaps you are talking about time dilation, rather than the differential aging phenomenon in the twin paradox?

no, the time dilation of the SR is reciprocal and not sufficient to explain the age difference in the twins' experiment
 
  • #15
vanhees71 said:
The second is defined in a specific frame of reference, namely the rest frame of the Cs-133 atoms and the frequency of the hyperfine transition as measured in this reference frame.
OK and I suppose that a unit of time defined using the cesium 133 or any other atomic transition, is also the same as measured in the reference frame of other contexts (acceleration, gravity) ?
 
  • #16
Kairos said:
no, the time dilation of the SR is reciprocal and not sufficient to explain the age difference in the twins' experiment
Time dilation is rarely sufficient to explain anything. It's quite common when learning SR to learn time dilation first and then, armed with that alone, try to explain certain phenomena. Time dilation is not enough: in SR you have time dilation, length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity. These three are encapsulated by the Lorentz Transformation. - and generally you need all three to explain anything.

The relativity of simultaneity is so important that, personally, I would teach that first so that hopefully nobody tries to do anything using only time dilation.
 
  • Like
Likes Janus and vanhees71
  • #17
Kairos said:
sorry for the delay. No because n longer time units would have given a longer total duration whereas the traveller is younger on arrival.. but there is no need to argue about this point given the universality of the second
I am about 6 feet tall or about 2 m tall. So according to you a m is shorter than a foot?
 
  • Like
Likes Grasshopper and vanhees71
  • #18
according to me, 6 m is taller than 6 feet because m is a longer unit..
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi and vanhees71
  • #19
Kairos said:
according to me, 6 m is taller than 6 feet because m is a longer unit..
So you agree that a m is longer than a foot.

Then if two people measure my height, one in m and one in ft, then the person measuring my height in m will get a smaller number than the person measuring my height in ft. So the smaller number corresponds to the larger unit.

Kairos said:
the number of seconds is the same for both brothers but the traveler's seconds are shorter?
The traveller records a smaller number so it must be a larger unit, yes? If not, I don’t know at all what you are talking about in your OP at all.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi and vanhees71
  • #20
Kairos said:
OK and I suppose that a unit of time defined using the cesium 133 or any other atomic transition, is also the same as measured in the reference frame of other contexts (acceleration, gravity) ?
In other reference frames, where the emitting atom is moving, the spectral lines are Doppler shifted. If gravity is considered, you have to use General Relativity to calculate the corresponding shift of the frequency of the emitted em. waves, and this is closely related to relativistic time dilatation. When calculated with GR, it contains both the Doppler and the gravitational shifts of the frequency.

The twin paradox is something slightly different. Here you compare the proper time between the departure of the twins from each other and compare their proper times when meeting again. These proper times of each twin, i.e., there aging between departure and meeting again, are what clocks traveling with each of the twins measure, and it's a scalar quantity, i.e., independent of any space-time coordinates used to describe the motion of the twins and calculating their proper times. Such and only such quantities are of true and unambigous physical significance.
 
  • Like
Likes Kairos
  • #21
Dale said:
So you agree that a m is longer than a foot.

Then if two people measure my height, one in m and one in ft, then the person measuring my height in m will get a smaller number than the person measuring my height in ft. So the smaller number corresponds to the larger unit.

There is a misunderstanding, please read my initial question. The duration of the trip is shorter for the traveler than for the sedentary. I was just considering two possibilities for this: (1) they did not count the same number of seconds during the travel interval or (2) they would have counted the same number of seconds without realizing that a second would not have the same value. But the question, certainly stupid, is definitely answered: the first hypothesis is right, the second hypothesis wrong. Thanks
 
  • #22
vanhees71 said:
In other reference frames, where the emitting atom is moving, the spectral lines are Doppler shifted. If gravity is considered, you have to use General Relativity to calculate the corresponding shift of the frequency of the emitted em. waves, and this is closely related to relativistic time dilatation. When calculated with GR, it contains both the Doppler and the gravitational shifts of the frequency.
OK thanks. My question was in the same reference frame. Whether cesium 133 is far from any mass or in a very intense gravitational field, the second defined using this cesium in its reference frame will always be exactly the same, is it correct?
 
  • #23
Kairos said:
OK thanks. My question was in the same reference frame. Whether cesium 133 is far from any mass or in a very intense gravitational field, the second defined using this cesium in its reference frame will always be exactly the same, is it correct?
The simple answer is yes.

A fuller answer is that the theory of GR predicts that proper time (as measured by a perfect clock) is a measure of spacetime distance. You can take cesium 133 as a definitive measure of time locally.

Take two laboratories starting out together then taking different paths through spacetime. In each laboratory local experiments have the expected outcomes: the half life of radioactive elements; the behaviour of a cesium clock and anything else. If the two laboratories come back together, then their cesium clocks may show different elapsed time. Everything that happened in each laboratory obeyed the same laws of physics in the same way. But, the paths they took through spacetime were of different lengths (different total proper time) - literally, therefore, more proper time passed for one lab than the other.

GR is very much about the nature of time and not the specific workings of clocks.
 
  • Like
Likes Kairos
  • #24
The twin paradox is very simple to formulate. You have two time-like world lines with the same initial and final point and compare the proper times
$$\tau_j = \frac{1}{c} \int_{\lambda_{j1}}^{\lambda_{j2}} \mathrm{d} \lambda \sqrt{g_{\mu \nu} \dot{x}^{\mu} \dot{x}^{\nu}}.$$
These two scalar quantities give the proper time passed and thus the aging of each of the twins. Case closed.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #25
Kairos said:
OK thanks. My question was in the same reference frame. Whether cesium 133 is far from any mass or in a very intense gravitational field, the second defined using this cesium in its reference frame will always be exactly the same, is it correct?
Of course within GR the frequency used to define the 2nd has to be measured locally in a local inertial rest frame of the Cs atom to define the second.
 
  • #26
Dale said:
I am about 6 feet tall or about 2 m tall. So according to you a m is shorter than a foot?
Not important but 6 feet is about 1.8m.
 
  • #27
vanhees71 said:
in a local inertial rest frame of the Cs atom to define the second.
you precision about the inertial rest frame confuses me: the second is supposed to be the same irrespective of wether you are in free fall or static in a gravitational field, provided the caesium clock is present in your reference frame. That's the only important thing, isn't it?
 
  • #28
Kairos said:
provided the caesium clock is present in your reference frame.
Those words as written don’t say much, because everything is always in all reference frames. How about “provided the caesium atom is at rest relative to the experimental apparatus and moving inertially”?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #29
Kairos said:
you precision about the inertial rest frame confuses me: the second is supposed to be the same irrespective of wether you are in free fall or static in a gravitational field, provided the caesium clock is present in your reference frame. That's the only important thing, isn't it?
The English language does not easily describe what is going on.

We are scientists. We deal with measurements. We define time to be what a clock measures. So if a cesium clock measures one second then that was one second of time.

It turns out that there are physical limitations on our ability to compare a second measured by an inertial clock at one velocity against a second measured by an inertial clock at another velocity. One can arrange for the clocks to be co-located at the start time. Or one can arrange for the clocks to be co-located at the stop time. One cannot arrange for both -- for inertial clocks.

So we come up with a coordinate system in which an array of my clocks are synchronized. And we use it to assess the start and end time of your clock. Using this standard of comparison, your clock runs slow compared to my array.

Or you set up an array of your clocks against which you can assess the start and end readings for my clock. Using this standard of comparison, my clock runs slow against your array.

[You may explain this by complaining that my array is not synchronized properly. I can look at your array and levy the same complaint. This is the "relativity of simultaneity"].

It is not that my second is truly longer or shorter than your second. It is that comparing the two of them is not a simple matter.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #30
I understand the first part of your sentence :
Nugatory said:
“provided the caesium atom is at rest relative to the experimental apparatus
but not the last part
Nugatory said:
.. and moving inertially”
 
  • #31
jbriggs444 said:
It turns out that there are physical limitations on our ability to compare a second measured by an inertial clock at one velocity against a second measured by an inertial clock at another velocity
who proposed to determine the second using a moving clock??
 
  • #32
Kairos said:
who proposed to determine the second using a moving clock??
I thought that you were the one who wanted to contemplate two relatively moving clocks.

There is no such thing as "moving" or "at rest". There is only "moving relative to" and "at rest relative to".
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72, Vanadium 50 and vanhees71
  • #33
jbriggs444 said:
There is no such thing as "moving" or "at rest". There is only "moving relative to" and "at rest relative to".
If you see a clock moving, it is moving relative to you... hard to argue
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #34
Kairos said:
If you see a clock moving, it is moving relative to you... hard to argue
So if you want to compare a second measured by that clock against a second measured by your wristwatch, how do you plan to do so?

Personally, I can think of a few ways.

1. I'll grab that clock as it passes by, bring it to a stop and hold it for a few seconds while I compare the tick rates.

2. I'll get a running start and jog alongside the moving clock for a few seconds while I compare the tick rates.

3. I'll get a friend to synchronize clocks with mine and walk slowly to some distance away. I'll note the time when the moving clock passes me and the reading on the moving clock then. He'll note the time when the moving clock passes him and the reading on the moving clock then. We'll compare the difference in our clock readings against the difference in the moving clock readings.

4. I'll get a friend to walk a distance away without first synchronizing our clocks. Then we will exchange light speed signals and synchronize our clocks so that we judge that the speed of light to be the same in both directions.

Special relativity makes a prediction for the results of all four methods.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and pinball1970
  • #35
jbriggs444 said:
So if you want to
no I don't want to, and it has nothing to do with the question discussed here
 

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
98
Views
5K
Back
Top