Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

[This is a transcript with references.]

You may live in a different time-zone than I, but one hour for me is one hour for you. An hour might feel longer if it’s a job interview, but even the most awkward conversation doesn’t actually slow down time. And yet, Einstein said, time can slow down – it doesn’t always pass at the same rate. Just what did Einstein say about the passage of time? What’s the resolution of the twin paradox, what’s up with Newton’s bucket, and what does it all mean? That’s what we’ll talk about today.

When I was a teenager, I was super interested in Einstein’s theories of space and time. And I read a lot of popular science books about them. I didn’t understand a thing.I then went on to do a PhD in physics.  And today it’s my turn trying to explain it to you.

The most important part of Einstein’s theories is that they combine space and time to one common entity, space-time. This idea didn’t come from Einstein but from Minkowski, but Einstein was the one to understand what it means. Which is why today you can buy a bobble-head Einstein but not a bobble-head Minkowski. Sorry Minkowski.

Einstein was the one to understand that if you combine space with time, then time becomes a coordinate, like space. That space is a coordinate means we can put distance markers on it, and we can choose them as we want. Once we have chosen some agreed-upon markers, we can use them to communicate where we are. You can give me you GPS coordinates, and I’ll know where to find you. But those coordinates don’t tell me what the length of the path is that will take me there. Because there could be many different paths. The coordinates alone don’t tell me.

If time becomes a coordinate, the same happens to time. If you give me your coordinates in space and in time, I will know where and when to find you. But the coordinates don’t tell me the length of the path that brings me to you, and they also don’t tell me how long it’ll take me to get there.

Wait, you may say, if it’s 5am now and I tell you we’re meeting at 5pm then that’ll take 12 hours right? No, wrong. Those 12 hours are your coordinate time. They are just convenient markers. They are convenient for you because they agree with the time that actually passes for you. But how much time passes for me while I get to our meeting depends on how I get there. It’s just that, the difference between the passage of your time and my time as I come to meet you is normally so small we don’t notice. It’d only become noticeable if I was moving close to the speed of light, and my doctor advised me against it.

If you’ve been keeping track, three dimensions of space plus one dimension of time makes 4 dimensions. Unfortunately YouTube doesn’t support 4-D graphics, at least not yet, so we’ll have to settle on just one dimension of space and one dimension of time. Just imagine that it describes something that can move only left or right. Like American politics maybe.  

Here’s what this space-time looks like. Not particularly impressive, I know. Actually, it looks exactly like it’s just two dimensions of space. Like a map or something.

That’s what it looks like, but looks can be deceiving, and in this case they are. For one thing, in space-time, if you don’t move, then you still make a line, namely one that just goes straight up. If you move at some constant velocity, then you can describe that by a straight line tilted at some angle. By convention, a 45 degree angle marks the speed of light. Why 45 degrees? Why not? Maybe it’s physicists’ idea of having fun.

But more importantly, space-time differs from space in one crucial way, which is how you calculate distances in it. If you have two dimensions of space, one called x and the other y, with two points in them, then calculating the length of a straight line between them is straight forward.

You take the distances between the coordinate labels of x, call that delta x, and the same for y, call that delta y, and then the distance between the points is the square root of the sum of the squares, as we learned in kindergarten. This is called the “Euclidean Distance”.

In space-time it doesn’t work like this. In space-time we deal with combinations of coordinates in space and time, which we call “events”.  If you have two events, each with a position in x and a time in t, and you want to calculate the space-time distance between them, then again you take the differences between the coordinate labels.

In this case, that’s delta x and delta t. And then you take the square root of the square of delta t MINUS the square of delta x divided by c, where c is the speed of light. This minus makes all the difference. Basically, the rest of this video is to explain what the consequences of this minus are. This is also called the Lorentzian Distance, after Hendrik Lorentz, that’s Lorentz with t z.

Why is there a minus there? Because it works. This is how theories in physics come about. You have an idea, you check the predictions, you stick with your idea or toss it out. This one was a keeper.

To see what this means, let’s look at points that have the same distance from a reference point that we’ll take to be the origin of the coordinate system. Let’s say for example the distance is equal to one, in whatever units you have chosen. If these were coordinates in a two-dimensional space, then all points at the same distance from the origin would be on a circle. Different distances correspond to circles with different radii.

But if you do this in space-time, then all points at the same space-time distance from the origin are hyperbole. You can’t move on those lines because that’d require you to move faster than light. But you could move on one of those. That would require a constant acceleration.  

The key to making sense of space-time is now this. The time that passes for an observer moving on any curve in this space-time is the length of that curve, calculated using this peculiar notion of Lorentzian distance that we just discussed. It’s called the “proper time”. It’s the proper way of calculating time according to Einstein.

If you move between two events at constant velocity, then the time which passes on the way is, as we previously saw, the square root of delta t square minus delta x over c square. If the observer doesn’t move on a straight line, you break up the line into small straight pieces, sum over them, and take a limit. So you integrate over the curve.

Don’t worry if you don’t know how to do that integral, there’s no exam at the end of the video. You just need to know that this peculiar distance in space-time measures how much time passes as an observer moves from one event to another. The time that passes between two events is not the time on the coordinate axis. That’s just a label, it’s convention, it has no physical meaning. So the consequence of making time into a coordinate is that the physically relevant time becomes a personal thing. It depends on how you move around.

In the special case when an observer sits still according to these space coordinates, the time that passes for them is the same as the coordinate time. Because then you have the proper time is the square root of the square of delta t, which is just delta t. But in general, the two are not the same.

Confusing the coordinate time with the proper time is the reason for most misunderstandings of Einstein’s theories that I have come across. Let’s draw two observers into this diagram, one who just sits at rest, let’s call her Alice. And one who moves with constant velocity to the right, that’s Bob. You can then ask, for example, how much time has passed for Bob until he reaches the same coordinate time as Alice, that would be when he’s up here. Remember that the time that passed is the length of this line. And the length is constant on a hyperbole. So it’s the same on all those hyperbole.

Then you come to the odd conclusion that when Bob reaches the same coordinate time less proper time has passed for him than for Alice. Yes, the line that looks longer is actually shorter according to this space-time distance! This is what people often call “time dilation”. I would call that pseudo-time dilation because it’s a meaningless comparison. Why would you care about the coordinate time? It’s just a label, it has no physical meaning for Bob.

If you confuse the two times you run into a problem because Einstein also taught us that absolute velocities have no physical meaning. It is only physically meaningful to talk about differences in velocities.

If you go for a walk, you can say you are moving relative to earth at a speed of 5 kilometers per hour. Or you could say the Earth, including the ground and air and everything, is moving relative to you at 5 kilometers per hour. Physically that means the same thing. Another way to say this is that there’s no such thing as absolute rest. No, not even in the cemetery.

And because absolute velocities are not physically meaningful, both Alice and Bob could claim to be at rest. At rest with themselves. According to Bob, he is in rest and Alice moves to the left. Now he could ask how much time passed for Alice until she reaches the same coordinate time as I. And he would come to the conclusion that less time has passed for Alice. So now what? Has less time passed for Bob or less time passed for Alice? Well, that’s a meaningless question because you’re just comparing coordinate times for different events.

This confusion of coordinate time with proper time is the origin of the “twin paradox” which goes as follows. Alice and Bob are identical twins. Genderfluid, I guess. Bob goes on a trip to Andromeda, takes a selfie as he passes by the supermassive black hole, and hurries back home to post it on twitter. When he comes back, who is older, Bob or Alice?

If you think that time dilation comes from the relative velocity between them, then each must be older than the other which makes no sense.

The resolution of the twin paradox is usually to point out that actually the situation is not symmetric. Because for Bob to make a round trip he cannot move at constant velocity. He needs to accelerate to turn around. And just as a reminder, acceleration is a change of velocity, not a change of speed. Velocity has a direction, so changing direction at constant speed is also an acceleration. And acceleration is not relative, acceleration is absolute.

What does it mean that acceleration is absolute? It means you can measure whether you are accelerated or not. One way to do this is with a spring. A spring will stretch when acceleration is acting on it, not when it’s moving at constant velocity. Bob could take a spring along to figure out if his motion is physically different from Alice’s.

If you want to know how much time passes for Bob on his trip, you have to integrate this weird distance measure over the curve he is moving on. And the time that passes on Bob’s trip will always be shorter than the time that passes for Alice at home, doesn’t matter just which way he travels This is the real time dilation. It comes from the acceleration.

Why is the time on Bob’s trip always shorter than Alice’s? I briefly mentioned this previously in my video about the principle of least action. In space-time, if you want to know what path an object takes from one event to another then that’s always the path with the largest proper time. Now we know that Alice is at rest and no forces act on her and therefore her path between the two events is that with the largest proper time. Consequently, any other path would have to have a force acting on the object, and it would have a shorter proper time. And there’s nothing paradoxical about it because they are physically different.

I sometimes read that the resolution for the twin paradox is that one must include gravity, but that’s wrong. It’s got nothing to do with gravity. I believe this wrong explanation comes from another confusion, which is to think that Einstein’s Special Relativity can only deal with constant velocities, and if you want to deal with acceleration, you need General Relativity. This is just wrong. One can totally describe acceleration in special relativity. The difference between the two is that in Special Relativity space-time is flat, whereas in General Relativity it is, in general, curved. If it’s curved, that describes gravity. You don’t need either General Relativity or gravity to solve the twin paradox.

I also sometimes read that Bob must start at rest with Alice, so he has to speed up first. And that’s correct indeed if you want the story to work. But it’s not relevant for sorting out the physics. It’s sufficient if Bob and Alice meet at the same initial and final place, they don’t also need to have the same velocity.

By the way, that acceleration is absolute is also why Newton’s bucket paradox isn’t a paradox. What’s up with Newton’s bucket?

Newton pointed out the following. Take a bucket and fill it half with water. The water will sit there with an even surface. So far, so unsurprising. Now spin the bucket. The water will be pushed against the sides and form a dip in the middle. It’ll also start spinning with the bucket. Newton now said, when you filled the water into the bucket, the water was at rest with the bucket. When they both spin, they are also at rest with each other. And yet the water has a different shape. If the relative velocity is zero in both cases, then there must be something else explaining this shape. Mach later argued that the reason is that the bucket with the water moves relative to the rest of the universe.

It's arguably true that the spinning bucket moves relative to rest of the universe, but this isn’t the reason why the water behaves differently in both cases. The reason it behaves differently is that a change of direction is also an acceleration. The water is accelerated because it goes in a circle. And acceleration is absolute. The one case is accelerated, the other not. There’s nothing paradoxical about both cases being different.

Okay, now that we have figured out the twin paradox and Newton’s bucket, what’s with time that slows down near black holes? To understand that, you have to know one more thing: gravity is not a force. Gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time. What does it mean that gravity is not a force? It means that if you fall in a gravitational field, you are not accelerated. Because there’s no force acting on you.

Einstein allegedly had this insight when a man fell off a roof and reported feeling weightless. Whether that anecdote is true or not, he captured it in his thought experiment with the elevator. If you’re in an elevator that falls with you in a gravitational field, you have no idea if there’s gravity at all. And likewise, if the elevator is pulled up and accelerates upwards, then you can’t distinguish that from being in a gravitational field. If you are being pulled up, there is a force that acts on you, but it’s not gravity. Because gravity is not a force! The force that acts on you is that from the floor pushing you up.

Same thing with earth’s gravity. At the moment, there is no gravitational force acting on you. Because gravity is not a force. There’s a force acting on you from the ground, which is the reason why you are not freely falling into the center of earth. Since there’s a force acting on you, you are accelerated. Acceleration is absolute. And acceleration causes time-dilation. So being near a gravitating body causes time to slow down. Again you can actually measure this acceleration with something as simple as a spring. Bring in a spring from outer space, place it at rest with the surface of earth, and it will stretch. Why? Because it’s accelerated.

But wait, I hear you say, you’re at rest, so you’re at a constant velocity. And acceleration is a change of velocity. So you can’t possibly be accelerated.

No, no. You’re not at rest. There’s no such thing as rest, not even on the cemetery. You are at rest relative to the surface of Earth. And you are accelerating at the same rate as the surface of earth. The relative velocity is zero. Flat earthers actually have this part right. What they get wrong is that they think this acceleration is the same everywhere.

But actually, the acceleration on a mountain top is somewhat smaller than that on sea level. That’s because the curvature of space is a little smaller up there. And that’s because, well, the Earth is round.

And since the acceleration is somewhat higher at sea level, time passes somewhat slower there than on a mountain top. This effect has been measured to great precision in a series of experiments starting as early as the 1950s. It’s one of the major predictions of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. It proves that time actually does slow down near gravitating bodies. And, yeah, it also proves that the earth isn’t flat.

This effect becomes particularly strong if you hover near the horizon of a black hole. But again, it’s not gravity that causes time to slow down, because gravity is not a force. It’s the acceleration you need to not fall into the black hole that slows time down.

Okay, I know, lots to digest. The main takeaways are this: (1) Acceleration is absolute. (2) The reason time slows down is acceleration. (3) It’s a real effect and has been measured. (4) Special Relativity does describe acceleration, but only in flat space-time. General Relativity can describe curved space-times and with that, gravity. (5) Gravity is not a force which is why being at rest with the surface of a gravitating body requires an acceleration and that too slows down time.

Was that any better than those incomprehensible books I read 30 years ago? Let me know in the comments.

Files

Special Relativity: This Is Why You Misunderstand It

Try out my quantum mechanics course (and many others on math and science) on Brilliant using the link https://brilliant.org/sabine. You can get started for free, and the first 200 will get 20% off the annual premium subscription. Does time really slow down when you move? What about gravitational fields? What's the resolution to the twin paradox and what's up with Newton's bucket. In this video, I tell you how it really works. 👉 Transcript and References on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine 💌 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/ 📖 Check out my new book "Existential Physics" ➜ http://existentialphysics.com/ 🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join 00:00 Intro 00:34 Space+Time = Spacetime 04:30 Proper Time 07:59 Time Dilation 10:21 The Twin Paradox 13:59 Newton's Bucket 15:25 Time Slows Down Near Black Holes 19:30 Learn More on Brilliant #physics

Comments

TIN CAN

Very glad I quit Physics 1970 as the fools teaching it knew nothing. I like your splaining a lot. A reference to Roseanna Danna of SNL. Keep on Trucking!

Anonymous

YES! Really well done.

Anonymous

Now, my question: Do we even need a quantum theory of gravity?

Anonymous

I studied physics like 30 years ago. Afterwards I did computing. So, I can follow along, but I would like more details. For instance, the final part about gravity on Earth and acceleration according to General Relativity, is there any paper or source I can check about that? I never did GR. Thanks.

Anonymous

Thank you Sabine ! It took me a long time to understand that the determining factor was "acceleration is absolute". What threw me off at the time was that "acceleration is the time derivative of speed, and speed is relative". So if Bob turns around in the direction of Alice, it would look to Bob as if Alice was turning around, too. I was aware that the force exerted on Bob was the difference... And I am guessing that "the speed of light being absolute" (or finite actually) is what makes all this coherent... But I still can't visualize it.

Anonymous

I like these explanations much better than many I have read. But ... If the Earth is pushing on my feet, that implies it is expanding relative to some coordinate or parameter. I this in any way related to Hubble expansion?

Anonymous

Like others here, I remain confused. In what sense am I “accelerating” as I sit here in my chair? I mean, if acceleration is dv/dt, how is my velocity changing? I understand that it is changing relative to what it would be if I were falling into the center of the earth, but it’s also changing relative to other hypotheticals, such as if my house exploded. I *think* the answer has something to do with the curvature of space-time that is the earth’s gravity well, but no matter how curved it might be, aren’t I basically sitting at one point in the three spacial dimensions and moving at a steady rate of one second per second in time? And I must not be accelerating in a constant direction, because if I were, eventually I’d be going infinitely fast. But the push from the floor is in a constant direction, so, how is my direction changing? Maybe the thing to be unpicked here is what it means for space-time to be curved and how that turns what feels like a constant velocity into an acceleration.

Anonymous

“Can Time Really Slow Down?” That leads to the question: what is time? The question has to do with relativity. And when considering relativity, we have a choice. Either we follow Einstein, for whom relativity is a phenomenon in a world defined by structures (which follows the world understanding of philosopher Plato). Or we follow Lorentz, for whom relativity is a phenomenon of physics (which follows the world understanding of Newton). In Einstein’s world, time is an element of a system of structures. These structures follow rules which Einstein has properly defined to build a system being (almost) free of logical conflicts. In Lorentz’ world, time is an abstract treatment of the cases of oscillation (with the addition that there is the absolute case of before and after – at least at the same position). And this is completely free of logical conflicts. Also dilation is according to Lorentz a physical process: following particle physics there is a permanent internal motion at the speed of light which has to be an orbital one. See Schrödinger and Dirac. This motion has a period. If the particle is now moved then the circular motion changes to a helical one and for this the period is extended; following Pythagoras, which leads to the Lorentz transformation of time. And this then propagates to higher structures. Enough to understand all physical occurrences of dilation.

Anonymous

All good except you've spread the misunderstanding that time dilation is caused by acceleration. The trouble with this is that people think of the stress induced by acceleration as the cause. But there is also the triplet version of the twin paradox in which none of the three accelerate. The outbound triplet just hands off his clock reading to the inbound triplet. And versions in which both twins accelerate the same amount, but at different times. It really has nothing to do with acceleration directly, only with path length.

Anonymous

In a gravitational field spacetime is curved. So going "straight" in coordinates takes force (the ground pushing up on you) to keep you from "going with the curve", i.e. following a geodesic which you plunge toward the center of the Earth.

Anonymous

No, it implies that your unaccelerated path would be toward the center of the Earth; which is correct.

Anonymous

Don't hold back Rad, next time ask a really hard question. This one is easy and can be solved by a simple mud pit fight between Einstein and Bohr -- it's a shame they opted for the classy approach like exchanging letters and having conversations between talks at the 5th Solvay Conference.

Anonymous

Hi Brent, I've been poking around at the different twin paradox explanations today, finding all of the ones you mention. In particular the triplet version because none of the triplets are accelerating, but.... the clock reading experiences a change of reference frame, which is an acceleration by definition (and I think it is kind of "dishonest" in Fermilab's YouTube video to note this fact and then dismiss acceleration). As you note, it's not the acceleration specifically, it is the path length. So, I wonder, are these not all equivalent explanations? Is it just semantics to say acceleration is absolute vs path length is absolute?

Anonymous

Fair enough. What I’d really like to know is whether my cats love me. Quantum gravity was meant to be layup: A. Yes B. No C. Maybe D. |ABC> I am willing to wager that even if we need it, we are not finding it in my lifetime.

Anonymous

I'd say it's dishonest to say a hand off of a number is an acceleration. It's certainly not the second derivative of anything's velocity...which is the definition of acceleration.

Anonymous

My understanding of the triplet experiment is that the clock reading undergoes a frame jump, even if the people themselves don't change frame. There is a jump in when "now" is. This jump corresponds to a direction change between the outgoing triplet's clock and the incoming triplet's clock in the Minkowski diagram which is an effective acceleration. This is the same frame jump that occurs when the actual twin in the classic paradox switches frame by turning around and coming home. The Fermilab video just says the two different reference frames of the traveling triplets is the ultimate explanation, but it does not say _why_ switching frames solves the paradox. That is particularly frustrating. Thanks, but the way, for responding. I enjoy conversations with the smart people who frequent this forum and I have learned so much as a result.

tangofan

@Brent I found the explanation of "acceleration" for this effect indeed confusing. I commented on this under the YT video (hope this link works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdrZf4lQTSg&lc=UgzH5fF_7s_UYuHzitR4AaABAg ), because there's a video from Dr. Don Lincoln from Fermilab ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noaGNuQCW8A&t=146s ) that uses the version with three observers to explain this effect without any acceleration present). It would be great, if Dr. Hossenfelder could weigh in on this at some point to clarify things.

Anonymous

Given the confusion regarding the role of acceleration, I couldn't resist offering a couple cents of mine: 1. Classic twin paradox - When the twins reunite, how do you tell which one went off to snap the picture and post it on Snapchat? (my only beef w/ the episode is that if it were one of my twins, they wouldn't post on Twitter). Remember, when this paradox was first posed, social media was in the future, so the traveling twin wasn't allowed to take any pictures or even look outside the ship. The question then was, why are the two reference frames not experiencing the same proper time by symmetry? Answer: because one of them experienced acceleration, which is easy to tell, even without looking at anything. They are not symmetric. That is what Sabine hammered home in the episode. 2. Triplet/modified paradox - How do you tell which are the moving reference frames? You look outside and read out numbers. No need to rely on acceleration to tell the difference between reference frames when you are allowed to look outside the ship. The ultimate point is that observers in different reference frames will record different proper times. Those frames could be moving with constant velocity or accelerating, we just need a way to tell them apart and that's either by looking or measuring an acceleration if we can't look. If this doesn't clarify it, perhaps a discussion from one of the top physicts of the 20th century will help: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html (the twin paradox is Sec 16-2, about 15 minutes in, but the discussion preceding it is also worth listening to).

Anonymous

Can you point to a paper, article o text that would give more details? I find that very interesting.

Anonymous

It is a really old discussion whether acceleration causes dilation. A clock for instance does not show a different run when accelerated. That is an interesting point in so far as this discussion about the twin paradox goes on now over decades. I know it since >50 years. Even professors of physics have different opinions about how to explain it. And also remarkable: there are other situations (like the Ehrenfest paradox), where also professors of relativity make controversial statements. My experience with all these cases is that, if such situation is treated by Lorentzian relativity, the result is always unique and there is no conflict about it. And I think that this is another point indicating that Lorentz’ relativity is more helpful than the one of Einstein. Explanation of the twin paradox in the formalism of Einstein is: when Bob turns back towards home, his proper time undergoes a jump. This jump is not physics but is Einstein’s formalism. It is the Lorentz transformation in the interpretation of Einstein. Summary in the view of Lorentz: the dilation in the twin paradox dilation has nothing to do with acceleration.

Anonymous

Brent, thanks. But I remain, alas, confused. I get that it takes force to prevent me from following the “straight line” (geodesic) to the center of the earth. What I don’t understand is how that can be called “acceleration”. Dr Hossenfelder says gravity isn’t a force. But it is certainly *behaving* like one: in classical terms, I am not accelerating because the “force” of gravity matches the force of the earth pushing up. If gravity isn’t a force, then the force of the earth pushing up should be accelerating me at 1g away from earth. Which to my simple mind means I should be getting farther from earth, which I clearly am not. If spacetime is actively accelerating and rushing *toward* the center of the earth, then I can see how I could be accelerating outward at the same rate, relative to spacetime. But then spacetime must have been accelerating inward at 1g for billions of years, so it is moving Really Fast… all I can conclude here is that you guys have a very different definition of “accelerate”.

Sabine

Rad, this is a very interesting question indeed. I would say it depends on exactly what you mean by the phrase "quantum theory of gravity". We do need a theory that resolves the inconsistency between general relativity and quantum mechanics. But this doesn't necessarily have to be done by quantizing gravity.

Sabine

Any standard textbook on GR will do. Misner Thorne Wheeler is the classic I guess. Or Sean Carroll's book. He has his lecture notes online, they've basically identical to the book. What I said using maths is just that a curve is either a geodesic or it isn't, hence acceleration is absolute. If you're standing on the surface of earth, that's not a geodesic, there's clearly a force acting on you.

Sabine

Yes, you got this right. Also, it is indeed hard to visualize or to get an intuition for. I have to admit I very much rely on the maths.

Sabine

No, the Earth isn't expanding. I'm not sure why you think it does. The force is necessary to keep it from collapsing, in case that helps.

Sabine

Acceleration isn't dv/dt. Think about it -- this notion doesn't even make sense in space-time, you are taking a derivative with respect to coordinate time, which is meaningless. The easiest way to think about acceleration is that it means a force is acting on you -- like Newton said! -- except that gravity isn't a force.

Sabine

Time dilation is indeed caused by acceleration. Not sure what misunderstanding you refer to.

Sabine

"A clock for instance does not show a different run when accelerated. " Yes it does, and it's been measured.

Anonymous

Where has it been measured? All my textbooks of special relativity state that “time” is not dilated at acceleration. And there is strong experimental evidence for this: the lifetime of unstable particles is not extended under acceleration. This was measured by the muon ring at CERN. The muon lifetime was only increased according to the speed of the particles. But if it were extended due to the enormous acceleration in the ring and a dilatation were calculated according to a gravitational field which is considered equivalent by the equivalence principle, then the lifetime would have been extended by a further factor of 100 to 1000 (rough estimate).

Anonymous

If acceleration is not dv/dt (and I do take your point about coordinate time), what is the correct mathematical way to relate velocity and acceleration? And if spacetime is not a coordinate system, what does it mean to measure position or velocity?

Sabine

You need to get better textbooks. What you are referring to is what I called "pseudo-time dilation". It's a boost factor on the coordinate time. If you insist, you can of course call it time-dilation, but it doesn't actually cause time to pass slower because that's a meaningless statement if you're talking about coordinate time. There are countless experiments that have measured time-dilation due to accelerations, eg redshift in the gravitational field, and the Hafele–Keating experiment and all that came afterwards. A particle in a ring goes, well, in a circle, and that this is an acceleration.

Sabine

It comes down to parallel transport. A curve that parallel transports its own tangential vector isn't accelerated. So the acceleration is anything that deviates from that curve. What you mean by "velocity" is a matter of interpretation because it's a space-concept. You need to explain velocity relative to what.

Anonymous

Thanks! I'll take a look. I found the ideas in the video quite fascinating. You mean The Biggest Ideas in the Universe: Space, Time, and Motion?

Anonymous

Sorry, but I have to object on all points. If we define the state of Alice as the frame at rest, then a coordinate time can be easily defined as a usable reference. Assume there are clocks positioned along the path of Bob, and these clocks may be synchronized with reference to Alice’ frame. If Bob has a clock with him, he can each time when he passes such a clock compare his clock to the one he is passing. And he will each time observe a delay on his own clock with is given by his speed, which he may independently determine with relation to Alice. During the short time when he turns his flight back towards Alice, nothing special will happen to this indicated clock time and he will see that his acceleration does not matter. But why do you call this coordinate time? I only know this notion with respect to a gravitational field, so to the time outside this field. And that now has nothing to do with the twin experiment. Does it? In the Hafele Keating experiment those both had to take into account the speed of the plane and so the time dilation according to that speed, and the gravitational dilation depending on the altitude of the plane. But the curvature of the plane’s path around the globe is so small that it cannot play a role in this observation. It is less than 1% of the gravitational acceleration on earth. A hardly measurable contribution to the result of this experiment in the view of the variation of the gravitational field over the earth. Redshift is the simple consequence that we measure an altered frequency of light if we are in a gravitational field and our clock for this measurement runs differently. What does it have to do with acceleration? But I did not understand your comment about the muon ring experiment. What do you mean?

Anonymous

Sabine, are you not familiar with the "triplet" version of the twin paradox (not the one in Wikipedia) in which none of the three accelerate? Or are you taking Tracey's view that the transmission of a number from one ship to the other is an acceleration? The reason I object to saying the time difference is caused by acceleration is that it suggests to students that it must be the mechanical stress of acceleration that slows the clocks.

Anonymous

I was 'away' from Patreon for a bit due to some tight finances these last few weeks, glad to be back. I enjoyed this video but I will need to watch it again; another case of Sabine speaking clearly and lucidly but I'm not catching it all. I do trust I know more than I understand; that will help later. I hope you're all having a decent start to this year, and that we collectively have a good one. 🙂

Anonymous

I plan on watching this video over and over until I understand it! 🤣 My sub-genius IQ hinders me sometimes ...!

Sabine

Gravity isn't a force. It doesn't cause acceleration. The only time dilation in the Hafele Keating experiment and in the redshift measurement comes from acceleration. Sorry for the garbled remark about the muon ring. I mean to say that moving in a circle is of course an acceleration. This is all basic stuff, I am surprised that your textbooks do not explain this.

Anonymous

The Hafele Keating experiment is about the dilation caused by (1) the speed of the plane (2) the gravitational field in which the plane moves. What is questionable about this? Do you doubt that the motion causes dilation? And do you deny that there is dilation in a gravitational field? - These both are the points which H&K wanted to prove. In addition the plane moves on a circuit around the earth when it follows the earth's rotation. This is acceleration. But this is too small to be visible in the results of the experiment. So what does it tell us about a possible dilation caused by acceleration? You agree that the muon experiment means an acceleration of the particles. But it clearly does not cause a dilation, which otherwise would be a large factor.

Anonymous

Hi Sabine, thanks for replying. You are right, I was fast and loose with my question. It was prompted by your assertion that gravity is not a force and as such, all the ink spilled trying to unify it with the two forces that are described by quantum field theories seemed to me in vain. There is no need for a quantum theory of gravity in the sense that there was a need for quantum mechanics to understand black bodies, the Compton effect, the atom or for GR to explain precessions, lensing, black holes later. If someone handed us a quantum theory of gravity, how would we even know it’s correct? Other than verifying it matches the predictions of our other theories what novel prediction would we expect from it to check with observations? As you say, it’s not a force, perhaps it’s just geometry and that geometry seems quite simple at the subatomic level. Why not look in the other direction to figure out if there is a critical collection of energy and matter that allows non-trivial geometry to emerge?

Sabine

You don't have to trust me, just do the calculation. If the plane isn't accelerated, there's no time-dilation. It's as simple as that. The gravitational field has nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters is that the plane is accelerated.

Anonymous

I've got a 140-something IQ and trust me, the small extra bit of smarts didn't help. 😆

Anonymous

LOL! I clock in at 135-140. I'm very, very confident that if I watch it a couple more times, I'll have a chance at possibly reaching a point where I can have a shot at understanding it if I'm lucky.

Anonymous

I will say it's me ... not Sabine's presentation. I think she may have nailed it!

Anonymous

Hafele and Keating have made a calculation based on speed and on gravity, which had the expected result. The acceleration phases of a plane are irregular and are not logged. Whereas the speed and the altitude can be logged. You surely know the following experiment: there are 2 atomic clocks side by side at a certain altitude on earth. Then one clock is taken to a lower altitude and kept there for a time. Later it is taken back to the other one at the higher position. Its time indication is now retarded by a degree, which follows the law of gravitational dilation. Now the symmetric procedure is done: one clock is taken to a higher altitude and kept there for a time. When it is taken back to the other one, its time indication is advanced, which also follows the law of gravitational dilation. The experiment can be done so that the clocks undergo the same acceleration when moved. But in one case the repositioned clock is advanced and in the other case it is delayed despite of the same acceleration. Which acceleration-related law do you apply here?

Anonymous

I think the "absolute speed of light" is what I still can't understand. Basically, something is either accelerating, or it's not. And their mass/energy increases accordingly. Then, once it stops accelerating, it's like it was at rest? Since speed is relative. But then, there are photons or other particles that have an absolute speed. I am guessing it's apples and oranges, and trying to visualize a transition between relative and absolute speed makes no sense.

Anonymous

Definitely not Sabine! I'm watching and listening like - person is speaking with clear, precise English but it's not happening for me with this topic.

Anonymous

I believe it's one of those things where when it finally hits you, you know it. Until then, one just has to keep trying! 🤣

Sabine

As I said in my video, being at rest in a gravitational field requires acceleration. As I said previously, do the calculation. You will see that no acceleration means no time dilation.

Anonymous

Is it right to say "Acceleration causes time dilation"? I thought the Lorentz factor was a function of velocity. It seems that the discussion of the Twin Paradox is meant to suggest that acceleration is what resolves the paradox. In flat spacetime shorter paths are always linked to non-inertial frames (acceleration), so you can say that. But the reason for the asymmetry is the spacetime path difference between the twins, as Sabine alludes to pretty early in the video. But which is not always or only made longerXXXXXX shorter by acceleration. There are thought experiments where *both* twins accelerate out and back. (And the one back last is, of course, younger.) So it's who accelerated MORE in that case. And - worse - ones (in curved spacetime) where the twin experiencing acceleration is older at reunion. The gobbledygook is in this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2428 and involves inertial frames as geodesic paths, versus "firing rockets to stay in one place." Another paper has some other settings of the paradox in curved spacetime https://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.5364.pdf and gets downright Machian. Admittedly these are set differently than the original paradox was. In any case, the reason for the asymmetry is the spacetime path each twin takes from event 1 to event 2 (reunion) and that is effected by both velocity and curvature. The question seems to be, what makes a spacetime path objective?

Anonymous

Hi Greggery, I also found this paper on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.02148.pdf in which they argue that the acceleration is critical to solving the paradox. They work out the proper time for each twin according to each twin. They also point out that their solution is for the classic twin paradox -- other twin (or triplet) scenarios do not necessarily have the same solution or aren't "paradoxes" to begin with.

Anonymous

It’s not whether the spacetime path is “objective” but how events recorded in the coordinates of one reference frame are transformed to the coordinates of another. Paradoxes seemingly arise when both observers start out in the same reference frame but end up experiencing different spacetime paths. The one for whom time will run slower is the one experiencing the acceleration. The other versions aren’t necessarily paradoxical. They ignore for example how the triplets synchronized their clocks or how is it that two of them ended up in motion while the other remained at rest. I find the bouncing light beam clock in sec 15-4 of https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html helpful. I realize that in a way the machinery of the dilation at a microscopic level remains hidden. We just say time runs slower and can compute by how much but the explanation of why exactly isn’t as satisfying as understanding why my drive into a stiff wind doesn’t go as far as on a calm day.

Anonymous

Good presentation, a lot to think about. Regarding forces, couldn't "Because gravity is not a force! The force that acts on you is that from the floor pushing you up" be said for any of the other "forces"? For example: For gravity: G = 6.67408 × 10-11 m3/ kg s2 For the electric field: k = 8.987551787 × 109 N m2/C2 where N = kg⋅m/s2 As f = ma, it seems that all forces could be accelerations due to their own curvatures of space-time, bosons simply being artifacts of that underlying reality, in which the the "force" in question is actually an acceleration due to another curvature of space-time, such as in another "dimension"? It seems just as plausible as the concept of a particle casting off an infinite number of force mediating particles in all directions forever.

Anonymous

@Tracey: One twin in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame is the much accepted resolution of the asymmetry in the classical paradox, as the paper you referenced argues and quotes Feynman saying. It is certainly required in that experiment to bring the twins back into the same frame at the reunion. While that leads to the apparent paradox, does that make acceleration a "cause" of anything? The other thought experiments i was referencing (which have math too) are paradoxical in the same way. (Yes, these are set up so that the initial frame and final frames are shared and inertial.) But because acceleration is felt by *both* twins in one, and in the other *only the twin who is older* at reunion, it shows -- to me anyway -- that acceleration is not strictly related to who stays younger. And that is why i think it's misleading to say the asymmetry is caused by acceleration. My understanding remains that dilation has two causes: curved space and velocity.

Anonymous

Great video. I'd like to understand the 2d time-space charts with hyperbolic curves better. You said that every point in the curve had the same proper time from the origin. Can you illustrate why this is so in another video?

Anonymous

I am willing to do the calculation; but by which algorithm? The Lorentz transformation does not have acceleration in it. I understand you now in the way that, when mainstream dilation refers to speed, you are referring it to the acceleration which has caused this speed. So one has to integrate the portion of the acceleration process which has led to this speed. Correct? But his will also cause problems as I understand it. Take first a clock into linear motion. This clock undergoes dilation. But if you relate now this dilation to the acceleration which has caused this motion, what will happen if you apply another acceleration to the clock, but now in the opposite direction? This would further increase the dilation in your way. But in reality the clock comes back to rest with respect to another clock which was at rest in the beginning. So, no dilation at all. Now to gravity. I can follow you when you say that gravity is in fact acceleration. But which dilation will we now have in a gravitational field, if we see the acceleration as cause of this dilation? In this view a clock, which is conventionally at rest in a gravitational field, but in fact in a state of acceleration, will undergo a permanent increase of its dilation. For our situation on earth it would mean that all motion has (almost) come to rest in our world. Is this a reasonable assumption? - This follows from your use of acceleration for SR. And again: why does the huge acceleration in the muon ring not cause an according dilaton, which would be >100 times the observation?

Anonymous

@Albrecht I just want to chime in here that i follow you on all these points, for what that's worth. I also completely agree that "staying in one place" in a gravitational field is due to an acceleration outward, weird as it is to have acceleration with no change in velocity, a result of the assumption in GR that acceleration is locally absolute. That taken with Equivalence is what i think Sabine is basically relying on to say the cause of dilation is acceleration and that "pseudo" dilation is just perspectival (relative velocity). I just can't put my finger on why i balk at using causal concepts to make this claim. Sorry if this is too off topic.

Anonymous

Hi Greggery, I also have the impression that Sabine follows this understanding of dilation because she is very determined to uphold the principle of equivalence; even though it leads to logical conflicts. I've encountered this direction also with other physicists who firmly advocate Einstein's relativity.

Anonymous

Hi Greggery, my initial intuition was that the different "explanations" were all semantics -- whether you use acceleration as the absolute or path length or frame jumping, it's the same explanation just recast. It looks like from all of the discussion in this thread that my intuition was completely wrong. Prior to this video, I was taught that acceleration was the key in breaking the symmetry between the twins but the actual time dilation and age of the returning twin was simply based on velocity. Then I found that arXiv paper where acceleration seemed crucial in getting the math correct from each twin's point of view and responses from Sabine and others above indicating that acceleration can also cause time dilation. Frankly, I've given up now on the twin paradox. I'll let the SR and GR enthusiasts duke it out and maybe in 10 years the Wikipedia page will have the definitive solution to all variants of the paradox :-).

Anonymous

Let us hope enthusiastic duking will not be the decider. Joking aside, to me the crux of the asymmetry still seems to depend on whether acceleration is absolute or not, that is, how the two observers can agree on who remains in an inertial frame.

Anonymous

The trouble with representing EM forces as curvatures of spacetime is that there are two different signs for electrical charges, so spacetime has to be different for different charges and the mass-to-charge ratio is different for different particles.

Anonymous

Good catch, I've been thinking of that complication, +/- charges for EM and one for mass. But if G is not a force but an acceleration and the other forces have acceleration in their formulas, then perhaps all those fundamental forces are not forces but accelerations too as seen with G, but in other dimensions. After all, string theory proposes other dimensions and as we do not really understand the details, perhaps instead of these dimension being tiny, folded things at the Plank scale, they are at the macro scale and simply parallel with the ones that G operates in and we experience them all but can't differentiate between them ourselves, but the various properties of particles can. Some theorist must have thought of this, because the boson model of forces isn't really conceptually better than "actions at a distance" that classical physics uses, IMO. For example, as I conceive what physics says about force mediating particles, bosons, an electron would have to generate and emit an infinite number of bosons surrounding it such that another electron would "experience" its presence via its infinite boson emissions. The bosons would somehow then push the electrons from each other, thus exhibiting the repelling force that we witness. This looks to me like another version of ether and "action at a distance" that physicists don't seem to like. Experimentalists do indeed get data supporting the existence of "force" particles, bosons, and those bosons are used to accurately model and thus predict, but conceptually, for me, something is missing in the ball throwing analogy that wells and hills in "space-time" answers.