{"id":3124,"date":"2012-02-26T05:50:29","date_gmt":"2012-02-26T04:50:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/?p=3124"},"modified":"2012-02-26T05:50:29","modified_gmt":"2012-02-26T04:50:29","slug":"the-behaviour-of-clocks-and-rods-in-special-and-general-relativity-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/the-behaviour-of-clocks-and-rods-in-special-and-general-relativity-2009\/","title":{"rendered":"The Behaviour of Clocks and Rods in Special and General Relativity (2009)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/dt>\n<\/dl>\n

By Barrie Tonkinson<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Abstract
\n<\/strong>While adhering to the formalism of Special and General Relativity, this paper considers the interpretation of clock rates and the rating of clocks in detail. We also pay particular attention to the crucial requirement of reciprocity between inertial frames. Our overriding concern is to bring out a distinction between clocks which run slow (slowly) in the everyday sense and those which record a smaller time interval between a specific pair of events – while running at the standard rate. The day by day application of relativistic formalism is not affected, but the underlying physics is changed.<\/p>\n

1 <\/strong>Introduction
\n<\/em>2 <\/strong>The Rating of Clocks
\n<\/em>2.1 <\/strong>The Longitude Problem
\n<\/em>2.2 <\/strong>Classical Localised Rating
\n<\/em>2.3 <\/strong>Rating Distant Clocks
\n<\/em>2.4 <\/strong>Clock Comparison across Relatively Translating frames
\n<\/em>3 <\/strong>Reciprocity between Inertial frames
\n<\/em>4 <\/strong>The Doppler Shift
\n<\/em>4.1 <\/strong>The Relativistic Doppler Shift
\n<\/em>4.2 <\/strong>Classical Doppler – Relativistic emergence of Reciprocity
\n<\/em>5 <\/strong>Interpreting the Minkowski Metric
\n<\/em>5.1 <\/strong>Measuring Rods
\n<\/em>6 <\/strong>Examples in Special Relativity
\n<\/em>6.1\u00a0 <\/strong>A Common View
\n<\/em>7 <\/strong>SR Summary
\n<\/em>8 <\/strong>General Relativity\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

1 Introduction
\n<\/strong>In a pedagogical paper of 1976, the distinguished physicist J S Bell gave his readers a simple question in Special Relativity. Bell had previously put the question to practicing theoreticians and experimentalists at CERN. Bell said \u201cOf course many people who gave the wrong answer at first gave the right answer on reflection.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

It is now over one hundred years since the publication of Einstein\u2019s seminal paper: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies<\/em>, yet questions such as Bell\u2019s, which centred on the so called Lorentz contraction, still lead to controversy. There seems to be no diminution in discussions regarding clock rates and what effects there may be on measuring rods on account of their motion. Special Relativity (SR) is a bedrock of twentieth century physics which physicists use daily, so how can it be that contention continues to exist alongside this apparently satisfactory state of affairs? General Relativity, (GR), for most of the 20th century, had rather less immediacy for many physicists and was less often the subject of heated debate. With the introduction of the Global positioning system (GPS) (and the Russian Glonass) there is a sense in which GR has became part of our daily lives; further, the GPS provides an ongoing experimental background – finding application in the better understanding of some fundamental questions.<\/p>\n

At the beginning of the 21st century it would not be unreasonable to expect that there should be a consensus view on what Special Relativity and General Relativity say about the behaviour of clocks and rods. While disagreements may emerge from time to time, perhaps most people would agree that the observed decay times of particles moving at high speed are explained by the slowing of their \u2018clocks\u2019 according to Special Relativity. In General Relativity, surely we are now comfortable with the corrections made to the satellite clocks of the Global Positioning System (both GR and SR corrections are made in the GPS).If there is a consensus, it is perhaps exemplified by J D Jackson in the (1999) third edition of his long established standard text, Classical Electrodynamics, <\/em>\u201cA moving clock runs more slowly than a stationary clock\u201d and by H A Klein, in The Science of Measurement <\/em>\u201c\u2026based on the General theory of Relativity, which says that physical events take longer – meaning that clocks run more slowly – in an intense gravitational field than in one less intense.\u201d Many physicists would argue that such views encapsulate what the theory says – and the theory is undoubtedly right. While the formalism is right, I take issue with the consensus view just outlined. My position is that clocks do not go slow (and rods do not contract). To establish this, we need a careful examination of what we mean by the rate of a clock.<\/p>\n

Lesen Sie bitte hier<\/span><\/a><\/strong> weiter!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Barrie Tonkinson Abstract While adhering to the formalism of Special and General Relativity, this paper considers the interpretation of clock rates and the rating of clocks in detail. We also pay particular attention to the crucial requirement of reciprocity between inertial frames. Our overriding concern is to bring out a distinction between clocks which […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-englischsprachige-kritik-der-relativitatstheorie"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3124"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3124\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}