Einstein's Special Relativity Theory?

Question

A moving craft travels away from a stationary one at close to the speed of light (constant velocity). Both have synchronized clocks. Looking out the back window of the 'moving' one, it is not possible to tell which craft is actually moving. Both experience time in a 'normal' way in their own respective crafts. When the traveling craft returns, there is a discrepancy--its clock has moved slower than the stationary one by so much--a measurable difference as to which clock is 'faster' and which one was therefore actually not moving. Is this kind of 'moving' not relative but 'absolute' since we know measurably which clock is 'ahead'? The two reference frames don't seem exchangable since you can actually see the clocks, which one is ahead and which one is behind.

Answer 1

Special relativity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For a non-technical introduction to the topic, please see Introduction to special relativity.
The special theory of relativity was proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in his article "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Some three centuries earlier, Galileo's principle of relativity had stated that all uniform motion was relative, and that there was no absolute and well-defined state of rest; a person on the deck of a ship may be at rest in his opinion, but someone observing from the shore would say that he was moving. Einstein's theory combines Galilean relativity with the postulate that all observers will always measure the speed of light to be the same no matter what their state of uniform linear motion is.[1]

This theory has a variety of surprising consequences that seem to violate common sense, but that have been verified experimentally. Special relativity overthrows Newtonian notions of absolute space and time by stating that distance and time depend on the observer, and that time and space are perceived differently, depending on the observer. It yields the equivalence of matter and energy, as expressed in the famous equation E=mc2, where c is the speed of light. Special relativity agrees with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, in experiments in which all velocities are small compared to the speed of light.

The theory was called "special" because it applies the principle of relativity only to inertial frames. Einstein developed general relativity to apply the principle generally, that is, to any frame, and that theory includes the effects of gravity. Special relativity doesn't account for gravity, but it can deal with accelerations.

Although special relativity makes relative some quantities, such as time, that we would have imagined to be absolute based on everyday experience, it also makes absolute some others that we would have thought were relative. In particular, it states that the speed of light is the same for all observers, even if they are in motion relative to one another. Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon - light - but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are tied together. In particular, special relativity states that it is impossible for any material object to travel as fast as light.

Answer 2

An excellent observation.

Either object can legitimately consider itself at rest and determine the velocity and direction of the other object. Each will use its own clock reference to determine this data.
Here's the catch: Each must start "at rest" relative to each other in order to synchronize their clocks - otherwise, there can be no comparison in the change between the two objects.
And, hence, each will know before hand which object has changed velocity relative to the one which remains the same.
The "slower" clock will always be the one in the object which gains the additional velocity relative to the one which remains the same - the one which was used to synchronize the clocks.
The observations and measurements from the object that accelerates away is indeed "absolute" in relation to the object that remains steady state - however, both objects are still absolutely correct in their measurements of all other objects, including each other. There just isn't any reference frame that is truly "stationary" - only relative positions that measure all other data relative to their own motion - which they can legitimately - and usually will - consider "at rest."
Isn't theoretical physics just a great mind twister?

Answer 3

Moving clocks definitely run slowly by a factor of
1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and this is been termed Time Dilation. Time Dilation is a very real phenomenon and has been verified by various experiments using elementary particles such as muons and carrying ultra-precise atomic clocks on aircraft which have been synchronized earlier with similar ground-based clocks
In fact all physical processes, be they mechanical clocks or biological processes slow down relative to a stationary observer.
Measured time intervals cannot be absolute. In other words, time interval between two events depends on the frame of reference, inertial or accellerating and this introduces asymmetry between the stationary and moving observer's clocks.

Answer 4

The fact that the "moving" craft had to accelerate (not the fact that it was moving) to reach its speed is what distinguishes it from the stationary craft. Since all things undergo some periods of acceleration, time is not absolute but rather each physical entity has its own "clock" which can be slowed or sped up based on its conditions.

Answer 5

The frames are not the same because one of them has undergone acceleration, and so you need to take general relativity into account, not just general relativity. Even if you assume it starts out at that speed, for it to turn around and come back the second craft must undergo significant acceleration. And, if it is moving at almost the speed of light to start, syncronizing the clocks isn't well defined either.

Answer 6

To be honest I think time is only a measurement for us to understand the separation of one moment from the next. If you are stationary your perception of the clock will click the same as if you are moving however the difference is that the faster your speed of experience is, it will eventually begin to be so much greater than another’s that the stationary people/objects become perceptively slower to those who are traveling towards the speed of light. Why? Because you are moving from one point to another in consciousness, before light is reflected back to the stationary object/people for their own experience. At that point your watch will then tick in your reality before the stationary persons clock is able to tick, but the stationary clock will tick as normal as well for their own reality. Though if you moved faster than light you have some problems like your mass expanding. This in theory would have an effect of time passing by fast here stationary because as your mass enlarges your time measured in comparison to smaller objects would perceptively move slower. I simply think you would move in between what we see as reality and all that is reflected by light and the moment before we experience that light as consciousness. I think this is what worm holes would be in our reality. The moment we move fast than light we would enter a worm hole, or the space between experience and light it’s self. The gap between one point to another while moving between the experience of light being reflected of any abject. I think when measuring the amount of moments we are experiencing at light speed compared to others who were at the moment which we began traveling a distance from, you would find that life would be paused for the stationary people in reality of the those traveling light speed. That would mean the distance would then measure the amount of time allowable to pass for the stationary objects. If you traveled for 1 year at light speed age 29 you would make it say to a space station half way to an inhabited planet. At the time you begin to slow down, life for what your perception of it would be starts slowing back down to the pace of stationary objects in consciousness of experiencing the same measurement of moments. So once at a complete stop the “time” lapse between each second would then be the same once again. Another year back to the original place you started from would take a few hours of measured time for the stationary people. You may come back to that place a few hours later age 31. If it was at all possible you would experience life faster than light would allow you to do so. Theoretically you would not exist in consciousness until you slowed back down. So would time freeze for you and you become constant matter or would you simple experience a “blackout” spell of consciousness? If a tree falls I the woods but no one or anything sees or hears it fall… did it really even fall? I think that “time” can lapse without consciousness or light, because there is no death in either the stationary object or the traveling object; only movements at different amounts of experience in a measured frame of consciousness.

Answer 7

The clock traveling faster will be behind.

Answer 8

DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU WANT TO PLACE THE ROLE OF THE RELATIVER POSITION. MEANING; IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE RELATIVE POSITION TO BE THE MOVING SHIP THE EARTH CLOCK IS FASTER. OGTHERWISE , IT WILL BE SLOWER.

Answer 9

Time, Speed, and Distance cannot be tied to each other as suggested.
any related difference noted, is inconclusive.