Is Time Dilation Just a Clock Issue Afterall???

Quite recently channel @dialectphilosophy released a video about time dilation showing all the phenomena of special relativity (including the twin paradox) using a sound analogy of a typical light clock. All the phenomena of SR were replicated while preserving a privileged frame of reference namely air.
So is time dilation in SR just a clock issue or is time dilation a real fundamental effect of nature?
In this video, I will propose arguments about what makes special relativity different from this sound wave analogy and how it deviates in a way that can be experimentally proven.
Big thanks belong to people supporting me on Patreon and buymeacoffee for giving me the motivation to create the video namely
-Jason Mclane (Patreon)
-Filip Blaschke (Patreon)
-Nathan Myers (Patreon)
-Walter (newly bought coffee)
Since I am kinda busy I can't answer more elaborate questions in the comments but for this purpose, I created a possibility to ask questions for a small fee of 5 dollars on
www.buymeacoffee.com/pprobnso...
attributions:
www.freepik.com
especially: rawpixel, brgfx, macrovector, pikisuperstar
www.vecteezy.com
for vector graphics
www.mixkit.co
for audio effects
www.pexels.com
Video by RDNE Stock project: www.pexels.com/video/teacher-...

[@dialectphilosophy]

Hey, sorry we're late to the party here -- but thanks a dozen for providing such a great and nuanced breakdown of this topic! Again, we find your style of presentation very straightforward and easy-to-follow, and your enjoyment in teaching and debating these sorts of topics really translates to enjoyment for the viewer. We immensely appreciated your discussion of the relation between atomic clocks and light clocks, as many people were confused about how these can be the same thing, and the deeper dive into the Doppler effect and what it means to "see" other clocks ticking was illuminating as well. You were very apt and correct to point out the issue of the longitudinal orientation of light clock; we received quite a bit of justified criticism for not addressing that issue in our video. At the time we refrained because we were uncertain of how length contraction was supposed to play into the picture; indeed we have since concluded that one will require a physical contraction of the light-clock apparatus in order to make the sound-wave analogy consistent -- which of course plops us right back at the Lorentzian ether theory. Now as to the very interesting point about muons and elementary particles that you made, our knowledge of particle physics is VERY fuzzy, but our basic assumption would be along the lines that, if a particle can decay into other particles, something in this process must cause the decay, and that such a process would likely involve the transmission of a light-speed signal somewhere at some point. Of course that requires a much deeper dive into the philosophy of elementary particles! Making KZbin videos can be hard work with often little feeling of reward, but KZbin needs more educators like yourself who are professional, deliberate, and not afraid to delve into the details, so we hope to see more content in the future. Btw, we are more than open to collabs and/or debate, if you are ever interested drop us a line, we promise to be nice :-)

[@particularminer260]

@dialectphilosophy I love your thought-provoking videos just as much as Lukas’, and I can’t wait for your next one! So I hope you don’t stop until you’ve made your case. Unless, of course you come to agree with Lukas after all. 😅 I’m curious though: in your estimation, what coordinate-transformation should replace the standard Lorentz-boost? My investigations into your claims have led me to a transformation whose matrix is not symmetric. It partially reproduces the usual time-dilation and length-contraction in one-way trip scenarios. But does not reproduce relative simultaneity. In deriving this, I did not even have to presume length-contraction. I only presumed 1. anisotropy of the speed of light for observers moving in the aether, 2. time-dilation of light-clocks moving in the aether and 3. reciprocity (that is, if Observer A sees B move with speed v, then B sees A move with speed -v). Fair enough, right?

[@particularminer260]

@dialectphilosophy One last question: shouldn’t it be important for Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism to remain invariant under any physical coordinate-transformation? After all, such equations have been experimentally confirmed to hold in all laboratory reference frames (regardless of their speed, orientation, etc.) haven’t they?

[@longhoacaophuc8293]

The coupling of the weak interaction depends on the fine-structure constant, which in turn depends on the speed of light. So there is a connection between the decay of the muon to the speed of light, or as you said, the signal at light speed.

[@albertomontecarlo6231]

I would not suggest you to work with Dialect..your way of logic it’s much clearer then them,, they don’t have the right attitude to share physics concepts,,, and by the way if they didn’t think that a light clock should give the same reading no matter the orientation this means that they don’t’ understand a thing about relativity..don’t get poison with their way of thinking that doesn’t’ have any logic ,,,

[@OnionKing-cm4qh]

I think this channel and dialectphilosophy should have a debate or do like an hour long collaboration.

[@longhoacaophuc8293]

Your video and the comments section (not Dialect's one) make me rethink that time dilation could be an effect of "clock", the electromagnetic one. As you pointed out in the end of your video, muon decay is the proof of time dilation that we are using for a long time, but if the "clocks" in the muons are also affected by the electromagnetic force, then things may turn out to be just clock issue. The hint to electromagnetic force could affect nuclear decay is that the electromagnetic interaction and the weak interaction are believed to be part of the electroweak, thus the decay rate can be affected by the motion in the electromagnetic field and can be delayed, resulting in what we have been seeing.

[@fluffy_tail4365]

the start of the decay of the muon is mediated by just the coupling to the weak fields, there is no moving W boson to get dragged around before it. It is a probabilistic event only depending on time elapsed, and afaik elementary particles like the muon have no internal structure or movement

[@longhoacaophuc8293]

@@fluffy_tail4365 you don't need a W boson to see the effect. The coupling between the field should be affected by this effect, otherwise you have causality violated.

[@paleopteryx]

A clock issue seems to me (and always has) to make much more sense than an actual time dilation

[@arnoldkotlyarevsky383]

Except that a clock problem would never explain the issue of higher than expected muon flux. That can only be accounted for by real time dilation.

[@renaudfilippi2599]

Is this video serious ?

[@AstroPatel]

​@@renaudfilippi2599no, this video just explores a possibility.

[@I_dreamed_my_name_was_Brandon]

​​​@@arnoldkotlyarevsky383time is not a thing that alters bud. Get out of your headspace. Literally anything can be so-called "proven" if you're clever enough to make someone else take your "proof" for granted.

[@DrDeuteron]

It does not. Clocks are cesium atoms,and all cesium atoms are the same in all frames.

[@anywallsocket]

but if you rotate the sound clock, wouldn't it slow by the same amount in one direction that it speeds up in the other direction, effectively maintaining the tick rate?

[@Oscar1618033]

Did the math: still dilated by the same amount because the length of the clock would be contracted. If the length didn't contract, time would dilate even more and would be inconsistent with the other experiments. Putting the clock perpendicolar to motion avoids this complication since no length contaction can happen on that direction or It would cause actual paradoxical situations.

[@anywallsocket]

@@Oscar1618033you just have to use Galilean relativity - vitck = vsound + vclock, so yea it would balance back and forth.

[@user-og4fk6os1r]

Liked how you pointed out the flaw in the light clock metaphor by making the "clock" run in the direction of motion rather than orthogonal to it. I think the metaphor can be saved (and adequately distinguished from a sound clock) by extending it to 4 dimensions. From the moving clock's own perspective it's always oriented in its "time" dimension which is always orthogonal to any spatial dimension. In other words unlike a sound clock you can never orient the "clock" in a different direction besides proper time, nor can you "block" the medium with a physical barrier because the medium - the electromagnetic field in this case - itself exists in 4 dimensions.

[@user-og4fk6os1r]

Also there's a book by John Bell (of QM fame) called "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" with a chapter titled "How to teach special relativity" which offers an entirely electro-mechanical interpretation of time dilation and length contraction (and presumably with it the rest of SR) that relies only on Maxwell's equations and other physics known prior to Einstein and doesn't require additional postulates about the principal of relativity or the absence of a medium. In this interpretation it really *is* a "clock issue", just a complex one that affects everything made of matter. And of course modern physics does propose that there's a medium for light and everything else (other than gravity at least) - quantum fields. So in the end it really is all a matter of interpretation.

[@Animalis_Mundana]

I've got a copy! First edition too.

[@eeetube1234]

Do doppler effect apply to a remote clock speed or just to the frequency of electromagnetic signals sent from moving objects?

[@knic__8799]

This video is the first one I've seen from you and I was losing my mind at the arguments you made in the first half😂. I'm very glad I stuck until the end

[@lukasrafajpps]

so you were agnry with me? :D

[@csibesz07]

In moving clock, the light travels more distance, only from the perspective of stationary observer. It doesn't actually travel more in perspective of moving clock. And so the theory begun to resolve the paradox.

[@erinm9445]

As for muons, their decay is mediated by the weak force. Whatever causes time dilation, whether it be Minkowski spacetime or dialect's explanation, it presumably affects all of the forces in the same way. The way I understand this when I think of Dialect's interpretation is that I think of all of the particles and all of the interactions as being made out of, at the deepest base level, massless particles moving at the speed of light. So for example, an electron is a massless particle interacting with the higgs field and it's that interaction that creates the "drag", or the containing of energy, that we call mass, slowing it from the speed of light; but within each field (electron and higgs), you just have massless packets of energy whizzing around each other, aka interacting. This would be true of all elementary particles, including all force-carrying particles. So every particle, in the end, is an assemblage of little speed-of-light clocks, and will have time dilation from their movement in the same way as a light clock or dialect's sound clock. So W-bosons and muon decay will also be affected by time dilation.

[@frun]

Electron is a wrapped up photon, as are other particles kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIfUhWuon56eb6s

[@fluffy_tail4365]

well if all forces are under this effects, all physical clocks will be affected, so dialect's interpretation would be meaningless. There is maybe an absolute time of reference, but all physical things would experience a minkwoski-like spacetime. Also, while the decay itself is mediated by the weak force, the muon has no internal structure, before the decay there is no internal moving parts, just the probability of the muon starting the process, and there is no exchange leading to that, so it doesn't really apply to muon and particle lifetimes.

[@rand0mn0]

Not sure what you mean by "massless packets of energy". We know that energy has a mass equivalency. It must, because the path that light (photons, "massless" particles) takes is curved by a gravitational field. This is how Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was validated, by making a prediction which was found to be true. The path of light from stars near the limb of the Sun was bent by the Sun's gravitational field. If light has no mass, it can't be acted upon by gravity. The confusion might be explained by the notion that the photon is "massless". A more illuminating way of expressing it is that the photon has no _rest_ mass. That seems a contradictory statement, considering the photon is never at rest! It is either moving at the local speed of light (actually, of causality), or it doesn't exist. And when it's moving, it has a frequency, which is proportional to the energy of the photon. And that energy has a mass equivalency that is acted upon by gravity.

[@ChaseNoStraighter]

A question always comes up when I see the light clock cartoon as I can’t do a light ray diagram that works for the moving clock. If we allow for the light source to be a laser aimed transversely then do we see the beam kink as it heads to the mirror or do we see a rotation of the laser? Or do we see a skew in dimentions? If rotation or skew then what happens on the return path from the mirror? Maybe we just see skew in the light beam which is the only logical choice but that seems to raise issue with the concept of planer waves from a coherent light source.

[@narfwhals7843]

Nice video. The only (very slight) issue I have is about the name "special" relativity. It's not special because it changes things about what is relative. It is special because it applies the principle of relativity to a special set of reference frames. Namely inertial ones. While General Relativity applies the principle of relativity to _all_ reference frames. So it holds in general. Einstein used the expression "special theory of relativity" in 1915, to distinguish it from general relativity.

[@kylelochlann5053]

No, that is not how "special" is understood. Both inertial and non-inertial frames are treated identically in both SR and GR. The "special" refers to the special case where the Riemann curvature is zero on all components and the downstream effects of this.

[@narfwhals7843]

@@kylelochlann5053 That is how special was understood by Einstein. The frames are not treated identically in GR and SR. SR has a special set of rules for accelerated frames while GR does not. The principle of relativity (The laws of physics are the same) holds in all reference frames in GR while it only holds in inertial frames in SR. That is what the formulation with Christoffel Symbols gets us. You can of course reformulate SR in the GR framework to get the same result again, but Einstein hadn't done that.

[@ultrametric9317]

That's of course completely false. The word special has no intrinsic meaning at all. It is only used because instead of calling his later theory relativistic gravitation, he called it "general" relativity, another meaningless phrase. That necessitated a second meaningless word for the kinematic theory, which is NOT a theory of gravitation. Before "general" relativity, it was just plain "theory of relativity". No special, no general. It has nothing at all to do with inertia, which remains a primitive fact, as in the Newtonian world ("Hypotheses non fingo" - Newton).

[@kylelochlann5053]

@@narfwhals7843 No, that's wrong and it makes no difference what Einstein did. There is no difference whatsoever between frames in SR and GR as u^j∇_ju^k=du^k/dλ+Γ^k_{ab}u^au^b=0 applies identically to both SR and GR (as common sense requires). There is only SR in the sense that R^a_{bcd}=0 is a special case of the gravitational field.

[@bingusiswatching6335]

SR can handle both inertial and non-inertial ref frames, I'd be so happy if that misconception was true cuz dealing with acceleration problems is annoying af. GR is different in that the metric is no longer minkowskian

[@mikkel715]

So, If length contraction occurs for an anisotropic speed of light, it raises the possibility that the speed of light may not be uniform in all directions? Thanks a lot for this video. (Looking forward to see if Dialect manages any response)

[@markc4176]

Dialect doesn’t need to respond, since there is an error in this video: the directional speed of light has no bearing upon the 90-degree-rotated clock, because the question of speed limit is what’s in-play. The rotated clock has a similar problem, especially if we imagine such a clock moving near the speed of sound/light-i.e. such a clock would measure only two “seconds” elapse: half at the point of change in direction, and the other half upon the final return. Dialect’s video shows that we are approaching the idea of relativity from a place of extreme bias, and his experiment proves it, no matter the direction of the clock. I’m a little surprised by how many people are getting the point of his video wrong…perhaps everyone hates to see their life’s work on relativity go up in smoke?

[@Kavukamari]

Did everyone miss the part where he clarified that he was just trolling about the rotated clock being different and that it does in fact work how relativity tells us it should work

[@stewiesaidthat]

​@@Kavukamarihow is it thar no one understands that a clock is am instrument that measures distance traveled. Rotating the clock just changes the distance the photon has to travel. Changing the direction the photon travels introduces redshift/blueshift of the electromagnetic wave. If you locate the power source forward of the direction of motion, you get blueshift or a clock that runs faster than it's stationary twin. What little Einstein didn't understand is that the amount of force and electromagnetic wave imparts on the target changes with motion. Has nothing to do with time-dilation because clocks are instruments that measure changes in spatial coordinates, not changes in temporal as in radioactive decay.

[@pawelczubinski6413]

The rotated clock doesn’t account to changes in all electromagnetic forces between interacting particles due to move? Wouldn’t just that cause size change depending on direction of movement?

[@herkules593]

I haven't watched the video fully yet so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think what you're saying at 5:50 is quite true. If you have an oscillator emitting a wave of a given frequency (that is not reflected, just detected) you would not (!) detect a frequency shift in the moving case, you would detect a phase shift instead. If you are talking about acceleration, then the ever increasing phase shift would actually appear as a frequency shift. But this does not happen in the case of a constant velocity. The difference to a light clock is that, due to the photon being reflected, the emission of the next wave front only happens when the photon arrives at the detector. Therefore the frequency of the wave is actually dependent on the movement and the clock slows down even in the case of constant velocity. This is also the case with the sound wave analogy of the channel Dialect. Here the wave is reflected and therefore (because the travel distance for the wave is longer in the moving case, the reflection is delayed in the moving case) the clock slows down.

[@herkules593]

I would still argue that atomic clocks are basically light clocks, but for a different reason. In an atomic clock, when an electron transitions from a higher to a lower energy level it emits a photon and and the other way around it absorbs one. This means in a case of constant velocity these photons actually travel a longer distance delaying the next energy state transition, decreasing the resonance frequency of this specific oscillator and thus, slowing down the atomic clock. (Of course this is argued from a stationary frame of reference.)

[@adriendecroy7254]

Does the caesium atom vibrate at the same frequency when it is moving as when it is "stationary"? This seems to be an assumption that the atomic clock experiments rely on. What exactly is it that enforces the speed limit for light in a vacuum? Maybe this mechanism also affects the vibrations of atoms at velocity.

[@m.c.4674]

The vibration itself is mostly affected by motion .

[@adriendecroy7254]

@@m.c.4674 then it’s just the clock slowing down, not time itself

[@ghqebvful]

Maybe I missed it, but what do we use to determine the reference frame for these clocks? At one point you talked about how whichever one turns around would be the slower one, but couldn't that be either clock depending on which one you observe from?

[@ivanljujic4128]

I'd also like to know this

[@vasile.effect]

The reason why a moving clock seems to run a little slower than a stationary one is because in order to move it you need to apply a constant FORCE to it. That force pushes the clock forward, while generating an equal and opposite force inside it, which pulls its atoms and compresses them together in the opposite direction of movement (like balls inside a car that fly toward the back of the car when it is accelerating hard). This causes the quartz crystals to contract, and therefore to vibrate at a slightly lower rate. Hence, the clock will show a slightly delayed time. But that does not mean that time dilates. It simply means that the clocks vibrating frequency changes. A similar effect happens in space, because of extreme temperature variation. The frequency of the atomic clocks is influenced by centrifugal forces and other factors such as temperature, pressure etc.

[@FelanLP]

I have a question. And it's the same since any tried to explain time dilation to me. movement is relative, means when you move relative to me, I move relative to you. So to both of us the other one clock is ticking slower. How can one be aged differently when they meat again? Often times this gets explained by one is on earth and the other one moves fast through space. But we are on a rock, floating through space and unimaginable speeds. So much about the other one floats though space. And we are in a gravitational field, here on earth. If Gravitation also causes time dilation, shouldn't we here on earth then age less then our friends up in space? And what if I move in the opisire direction of in which the earth is moving through space. In that case I am moving slower through space itself then the earth and anyone on it. Tjqts why I still ask the same question: how does time dilation actually work? And I mean in detail.

[@borstenpinsel]

Same. Every 12 year old kid who hears about this has the exact same question and people who *think* they're smart say "it's easy". But it's not. And then you drift into a Schrödinger type Argument real quick. "Macro world examples are just examples and don't really work" soooo. And then they say stuff like "well, the twin comes back to earth again and through the movement, they are the same age again". Like when a kids magician moves a bunny from box to the other, doesn't reveal it and then moves it back.

[@FelanLP]

@@borstenpinsel And it gets even worse. They say time dilation is dependent on relative speeds. Means when you here on earth sit on a bench in a park and some aliens in a different galaxy plan on inviding ou planet, but for a persons walking past you, acidentally in their direction, from their perspective its 3 days later in that galaxy and they are now launching their ships. I don't care about whos perspektive it is. Are they planing or are they launching. What is it?

[@CausalDiscoveries]

1. Relativity was never “proven”. 2. Time is the interval over which change occurs, so when time dilation affects “time” it is equivalent to a “clock issue” and an everything else issue too. Time is not a parameter of the universe subject to change or control… only the interval over which change occurs is subject to change. Want your coffee to reach room temperature later? Put it in a thermos. What your food to heat up quicker? Put it in a microwave. Want your frequency transformations to take less time? Use a FFT instead of the OG one. Etc…. Want an entire system to take more time to change? Send it off at high velocity.

[@KipIngram]

Wouldn't the air in the "cound clock" compartment be moving too? And in that case wouldn't that behave entirely like a stationary inertial frame?

[@longhoacaophuc8293]

There is a problem which I've not understand (due to my lack of knowledge in electrodynamics) is the derivation of the Doppler effect for light in Einstein's 1905 paper. If you follow the classical explanation of the Doppler effect, the wavelength does not increase or decrease as you only observe one speed of light. The only cause of change in wavelength is length contraction in Lorentz transformation. Thus there would be no red-shift or blue-shift. Do you have any comment on this?

[@arnoldkotlyarevsky383]

You are correct but you skipped over the important thing: the transform from the moving frame to the rest frame IS the source of the doppler shift. The rest frame's spacetime is unaltered. The source in the moving frame also does not perceive a change in spacetime. It is only when we go from frame to frame that we have to reconcile the difference. It is in this "communication" between frames that we get the associated length contraction and time dilation that gives rise to the relativistic doppler effect. There is an impulse to assume that an outside observer would either perceive or fail to perceive a compression/extension in the waveform but the point of relativity is that no such outside observer could exist. All of the dilation and contraction happens between frames.

[@longhoacaophuc8293]

@@arnoldkotlyarevsky383 I don't think I understand your reply. Or may be my previous comment confused you. My point is you should not have red-shift if you look at a moving light source, because the wavelength can only get shorter due to length contraction, regardless of the direction of the moving source (either toward you or away from you)

[@pietergeerkens6324]

The glint in your eyes as you step us through all this (in my case, for the first solid review in nearly a half century), is wonderful. Al the while, I'm thinking "What a glorious guided tour to Michelson-Morley." I still recall my 3rd year Mechanics prof explaining how a very rare first order relativistic effect can be seen by attempting to synchronize 3 (or more) clocks roughly equal separated around Earth's equator. If I recall correctly, it cannot be done more closely than about 4 micro seconds.

[@nkchenjx]

what is the time of the part of the observable universe that is moving over the speed of light vs us? Do they still have the same structure and life as us?

[@johnbenson3024]

Slightly related question on the experience of accelerating towards the speed of light. I’m not aware of the exact relationship between experienced acceleration and experienced time dilation, but it occurs to me that if they occurs at proportional rates, then the only thing you would experience as you accelerate towards the speed of light and experience less time is the experience of going faster. After all, as time continues to slow and you go nearly the same speed to an observer, you experience crossing more or the same distance in less time. My question is, would you notice the time dilation or would you only experience going faster as you continue to accelerate?

[@particularminer260]

Excellent video. I also investigated Dialect’s aether-relativity and obtained the exact same equations and conclusions that you showed in this video. I guess we’ll have to wait for Dialect to complete making his case for the aether. I’m particularly curious to know if he can reproduce invariance of Maxwell’s field equations by means of aether-theory. That would be quite something!

[@juliavixen176]

You know that all this "length contraction" and "time dilation" stuff was discovered by Lorentz and Poincaré and Fitzgerald and everyone working with the luminiferous aether theories for at least a decade or so before Einstein showed that the aether was unnecessary. A lot of the popular explanations of special relativity completely skip over the history of the various aether theories leading up to 1905 and make it seem like all this stuff just poped into Einstein's head out of nowhere.

[@erinm9445]

Dialect's answer to this is length contraction. That traveling particles and the electromatic bonds between them are somewhat shortened in the direction of motion when they move, as a matter of physics. The best reading on this is actually by John Bell of all people, somoene known much more for his quantum mechanics work than his relativity work, and is titled "How to Teach Special Relativity." In terms of Maxwell's equations: I'm not as solid on this point, so you can correct me if I'm wrong here. But isn't it possible that Maxwell's equations predict the speed of light in the ether? Which is how people originally intepreted Maxwell's equations, no? And according to Dialect's interpretation, the 1-way speed of light in the ether should be equivalent to the 2-way speed of light as measured at any inertial speed. (I also wonder if the measurement of permeability and permittivity have hidden 2-way speed assumptions in the way they are measured, hence Maxwell's equations are predicting the invariant 2-way speed, not invariant 1-way speed, but that is getting way beyond my knowledge level).

[@oliivioljy9700]

many do not think that time itself seems to slow down the life inside the accelerating spaceship, so that inside our body, the clocks of our cells, blood and bones slow down, i.e. they all beat slower at the atomic level. also metals age around the spacecraft but much much much slower. if a person were to put plants in a spaceship, the lifespan of even the shortest day plants would be multiplied by centuries, which would never even be possible on earth. everything always happens in the cells of life, a practical change in life itself. in a way, when moving at high speeds on a spaceship, time space is like a compressed air pressure mass that penetrates inside and around all life and suppresses/squeezes its clocks and thus slows down the clocks of our cells in practice and the slowing down of aging is realized. this way, the logic of the interaction becomes clear with basic sense. nothing else or magic stories are needed.

[@particularminer260]

⁠@@juliavixen176 Indeed, early 20th century physicists did not forsake the quest for the aether on a whim. It was really hard and they weighed their decisions more thoroughly than we probably realize. Still, after a century of special relativity without looking back, Dialect is attempting to snuggle-in the aether as at least an alternative interpretation since, as he argues, it cannot be truly disproven to exist anyway. Furthermore, the aether seems to be of importance among today’s philosophers. I’m not sure why. For now, I’m keeping an open mind …

[@particularminer260]

@@erinm9445 All the “mechanistic” explanations I’ve read of length-contraction involving the electromagnetic interactions between atoms seem to use special relativity at their core. Are you perhaps arguing that that is not strictly necessary, and that you can alternatively apply Maxwell’s equations assuming the existence of the aether? Regarding my previous mention of the invariance of Maxwell’s equations, I’m simply assuming that an aether-interpretation would have to offer a non-Lorentzian transform that would (only sometimes!) exhibit time-dilation and length-contraction and also reject relative simultaneity. Then I would further assume that such a transform would not preserve the form of Maxwell’s equations but rather give rise to additional terms that have never been observed experimentally and likely never will. If however Dialect’s “aether-transform” does none of these things, then we would truly have an alternative explanation, in my opinion.

[@picksalot1]

I think it is measuring entropy, not Time, as it is always the Present, and that is where everything takes place and exists.

[@philoso377]

If we consider Aether is a solid also drag with everything, we opens ourselves a paradox in which everything stands still in space and no orbital effect. One may counter argue against Aether drag applying with the aberration effect. However aberration only opens doubt in Aether and isn’t a direct proof. Addressing aberration effects: Aether is regarded a fluid, an incompressible fluid. It has no mechanical except electrical properties which is u0 permeability and e0 permittivity. It adheres to and drag with matter in order to couple light, electromagnetic energy, between Aether and matter, and in doing so DRAG with earth as well as the interferometer, and hence to a static fringe pattern effect and a net zero velocity. As a fluid, however, Aether velocity remote from earth drag at a different mean velocity which is defined by the nearest planets and galaxies by a factor of 1/r. The laterally sheering effect in Aether fluid is regarded as a boundary layer on laterally moving surface. Which supports but contradicts aberration effect?

[@theofficialbigmac]

C, is the speed of light in a vacuum. To recreate the experiment the speakers should not have been open to the air.

[@ryuurikwarframe7076]

What if you turn the clock so that wave proceeds first at the moving direction, and when returning it moves to opposite direction? Wouldnt time then be same after full cycle, no matter what the speed is, as long as it wont go over the testing material speed? In my opinion, the test is not fully valid.

[@ryuurikwarframe7076]

Oh... you mentiodet it at the end! 👌

[@zemm9003]

There is a preferred state of motion in General Relativity that is analog to "free particles move in a straight line" from Newton. It is the postulate that test particles move along geodesics (they move in a optimizing path for proper time just like in Newtonian mechanics they take the shortest distance between two points). In all these twin paradoxes you have a closed loop, so the clocks can be compared exactly and the clock that is not moving along a geodesic will be running slower no matter what the trajectory is, assuming there are no pathological situations which usually are implicitly assumed to not exist when people write these paradoxes.

[@alexjohnward]

Pathological situation?

[@DrDeuteron]

This doesn’t resolve the twin paradox, because if you work in GR coordinates, there is no paradox.

[@zemm9003]

​@@DrDeuteronprecisely. This becomes trivial when you can consider arbitrary paths in GR. In a loop you can always compare the clocks when you meet again and the nature of geodesics means that the free fall path will have the greatest proper time at least vs. paths that are close enough

[@Music_Creativity_Science]

1. All inertial motion between objects in the universe is relative. 2. Two objects, in inertial relative motion, can not both have clocks which continuously physically go slower compared with each other. 3. A relative motion (or position) between objects (any objects in the universe) can not come, and has never come, into existence without acceleration (a force on objects). 4. Therefore, logically, the only phase in which a physical/objective time dilation can come into existence is during an acceleration/deceleration phase. Accelerations are objective. 5. Time dilation in GR is created with a constant force on an object, accelerating it upwards in a gravitational field (here assuming a constant location in the field, compared with an object hypothetically outside of any gravitation). 6. The GR time dilation equation is mathematically equivalent with the time dilation equation in SR. They just have a different set of variables in them. Insert the escape velocity equation in the GR equation and you obtain the exact SR-equation with the v^2 variable. 7. Therefore, logically, the SR time dilation must also be an acceleration based equation. The v^2 variable = 2 • acceleration • distance, it is called the Torricelli equation (he lived before Newton). v^2 is not an average velocity or an instantaneous velocity when coasting, and the equation can not be used for time dilation calculations with inertial relative motions. It is only valid while a force (acceleration) is operating on the object. 8. If the GR equation produces physical/objective time dilation (which it does, GPS etc), the SR equation must obviously do the same, and only during phases when/where an object is accelerated/decelerated. Atoms (and their rate of change = physical time) can not react differently in these two situations. In other words, this is the equivalence principle in a mathematical form. 9. This is more a metaphysical opinion/statement. An atom clock (cesium clock) does not only measure time in an exact way, it IS physical time itself. Twin "paradox" solved, imo. Concerning which point (1-9) do you disagree, if you do ? Please be specific. Cheers from Sweden

[@pakarpintu4917]

I have same vision with you, we could call it paradox of twin paradox.

[@Music_Creativity_Science]

@@pakarpintu4917 Thanx, it is quite simple really. Follow what the math / equations says. The v^2 variable = 2 • acceleration • distance, in the SR time dilation equation, can not mathematically be used for time intervals where acceleration does not take place. Therefore, it must be during time intervals with accelerations/decelerations only, where the physical time dilation occurs. One has to separate objective reality (real physical effects, physical change of a clock) and subjective reality (optical specific observer effects) when discussing Special Relativity.

[@balabuyew]

Thank you for this video. I've asked the question about rotating the clock 90 degrees to Dialect right after his video was published. Next, at 13:27 I think you forgot that in Sound Universe real time-dilation also occures, so the source will emit pulses slowly because of that. And this need to be accounted in the formula in addition to the classical Doppler effect. This is your missing b^2 term, and it will have the same sign for outgoing and ingoing signals.

[@aquamanGR]

Kudos to you man. I teach for a living, and think your videos are excellent. Very succinct and clear. I already know quite a bit about SR/GR but it's still a pleasure to watch, I wish you were around when I was learning it. :)

[@electrodacus]

Why use "sound" and not air particles is sort of like specifying the light frequency / color. The analog to photon (no mass) is an air particle (has mass). Will love if you can take a look at my last video and see if you can make a better explanation.

[@ravenlord4]

At 7:09 there is an issue. You are mixing light waves "looking" and sound waves "sound clock". What if your "observation" of the other sound clocks could only be done using sounds waves?

[@lukasrafajpps]

It would be different because the rate of ticking you would observe would depend on the orientation of the clock you observe. The only exeption would be if the observed clock was at rest relative to the air

[@ravenlord4]

@@lukasrafajpps I guess my idea is that in order to measure the one-way speed of something, you need a measuring tool faster than your target. If you use light to measure sound, that is possible. But if you use sound to measure sound, then all that you can measure is the two-way speed of sound (the average speed of the pulse and its return). That's why orientation of a light clock doesn't matter either -- you can't measure light's one-way speed, only its average two-way speed.

[@Naomi_Boyd]

The solution to this problem is quite simple. Particles are light clocks. If there is no rigid body connecting the boundary conditions, the wave (sound or light) would need time to travel from one boundary condition to the other to translate any change of motion. Length contraction and inertia would be coupled as a function of acceleration and only carried by momentum, and the sound clock analogy would hold regardless of how the clock is tilted.

[@axle.student]

A couple of simple questions: Is the speed of light always deemed to be constant in these light clock illustration? (yes?) From the mirror light clock is it asserted that the ticks slow down, therefore time has slowed down? (yes?) If time has slowed down, then the speed of light has slowed down because the seconds in the m/s of the speed of light has slowed down? Therefore the speed of light was not constant? But now because the speed of light is slower in our photon clock, it actually takes longer for the photon to bounce, and therefore time has become slower, and the speed of light has become slower, and therefore, the photon in the photon clock is traveling slower, and therefore the time is slower, and the speed of light is slower... Blue Screen! The universe has been halted to protect the underlying hardware form damage. Please check for corrupted driver updates or faulty runtimes. Or see your local god to reboot the universe :)

[@hugoballroom5510]

so glad you made this one so promptly in response

[@anonymousAJ]

Obviously time dilation is an issue of variable measurement Time is our own construct It is always "now" everywhere So under set of conditions X a clock counts 100 seconds and under set of conditions Y an identical clock counts 101 seconds You have not discovered that X causes time to progress 1% faster than Y because the clocks exist simultaneously at the end of the experiment Instead, you have discovered that X causes the clock's inner processes to run 1% faster than Y

[@nicholascurran1734]

So clocks measure time, and depending on the type of clock, different things are measured to calculate time elapsing. Because muons are affected, we think it's something on a more fundamental level. Do I have this right so far? If light can be particular and wavelike, depending on observation, could time be more like a flame? Something that occurs as a result of composition rather than an isolated property?

[@martf1061]

Time is nothing more than a human observation of a repetitive and constant phenomenon.. Sunrise...sunset...sunrise..sunset... Solar clocks prooved that sunsets and rises at a constant and precise rythm. Time is rythm. Stable, precise, constant, repetitive. Metronome Humans are very sensible to evenly constant repeating phenomenon. This is why we love music and dancing and daily routine tasks.

[@janus1958]

Another difference between the Doppler formula for sound in air and light in a vacuum is that with sound, the amount of the shift changes depending on whether it is the receiver or sender that is moving relative to the air. You see a different result if you are at rest with respect to the air, and the source is moving in respect to the air than you get if you are moving with respect to the air and the source is at rest with respect to the air. With light in a vacuum, all that matters is the relative velocity between you and the source.

[@two_motion]

Time: a certain amount of mass, with a certain amount of energy, over a certain amount of distance. Time = M x E x D Time is not a 'thing' you can interact with. Time is a concept of motion. A second is a standard of motion. When your atomic clock is moving, you are adding distance to the equation. That means you are no longer measuring standard time. M x E x (D + d') Since matter, energy and distance are factors of time, any equation that includes time as a factor is susceptible to inaccuracies if one or more of the factors of time (M, E, D) is also present in the equation.

[@zenastronomy]

wait. you say the time dilation isn't affected by the orientation of the clock near the end of the video. but in another video about the twin paradox you say the direction of the moving twin, affects time jump. when the moving twin changes inertial frames by 180 degrees, basically when the twin does the u-turn. the twin goes through a time skip. what is the difference between the two?

[@louisalfieri3187]

This guy is an excellent communicator. As an American listening to Lukas, his speed and tone are perfect. His physics is top notch and he communicates clearly. 👍 Hope he keeps publishing more. I’m still unsure why the Aether isn’t quantum fields, though.

[@Donate_Please]

While time dilation is a matter of clocks, it's really a matter of gravity bending space and dilating time. The most important thing to remember is that everything happens in the present. The past and future do not exist. Massive objects such as galaxies bend space and slow the passage of time within those massive bodies. It's weird because different objects age at different rates depending on their orientation within the galaxy. But they are still in the present. Everything that happens in that galaxy and the universe is in the present regardless of what the clock says. The objects are merely aging at different rates.

[@antonpwr]

Now define ”aging”.

[@TwentyNineJP]

​@@antonpwr Or "rate", haha I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure how literally to take the dimensionality of time. It may be that all points in time "currently" exist in some real, non-metaphorical way, but I don't think there's any evidence sufficient to discuss it outside of pure philosophy

[@Donate_Please]

@@antonpwr I define aging as the evidence for the passage of time. So, in other words, the age of an object is merely the evidence for the passage of time, not the rate at which the object is aging in the present. Again, time dilation is merely the rate at which objects age in the present. And thanks for reading.

[@Donate_Please]

I'm having this same debate in another thread. I've proposed a solution to not being able to divide by zero as an altering to standard mathematics. You may find it interesting as I think it could be a better representation of reality than current curriculum. "I mean, it's not really a invention so much as a better description of physical reality with mathematical operations. I believe all objects in reality have a positive energy density that would coincide with positive numbers > 0 to ∞. Negative numbers coinciding with being negative energy density would correctly cancel matter to "nothing zero" as indicated by Einstein's field equations. It could define negative energy density as both real and imaginary, depending on the application. lmkwut"

[@Donate_Please]

@@TwentyNineJP You can think of time dilation rate as a percentage of the speed of light that matter has been slowed. For instance if you wanted to know the difference in time dilation between you and someone else, you could think of their time dilation as an attribute that would be some fraction of the speed light. Kind of like an imaginary little sign over their head that would change depending on galactical gravity and speed.

Two questions: 7:00 - system radiates gravitational waves and thus loses energy, so I think, that it actually falls into the Sun. Isn't it a form of "drag"? 10:00 - I think, that you create clock that is based on observing decay of radioisotope. This wouldn't depend on atoms "communicating". Am i right?

[@lukasrafajpps]

Hi, 7:00 - this form of drag can be explained by the effect of radiating gravitational waves and therefore can't be attributed to something else. Not to mention that in the case of aether, it would have to be present everywhere in the universe and affect also uniformly moving bodies which is not observed. 10:00 This is the same as the muon paradox as I mentioned in the video. Yes, this clock is somewhat fundamental in the current understanding of physics but some might argue that there is some internal structure of the elementary particles that needs to be understood yet.

[@Cason172]

The point is not about the clocks, we measure the difference using atomic clocks, but the important thing is that we measure the speed of light the same in all reference frames and that means relativity has to be true

[@ohsweetmystery]

Help! Why is the photon moving along with the emitter and the mirror? As it is massless, shouldn't it just continue along straight in its original trajectory?

[@Music_Creativity_Science]

The photon does not know which object YOU have chosen to be moving, relative to the stationary object. In other words, the mirror/emitter is not objectively moving, and that is the essence of relativity. Only accelerated objects are objectively moving, and only WHILE they are accelerated. And that is why real physical time dilation only can be created during acceleration. The zig-zag pattern of the light clock describes accumulated time dilation during acceleration phases of the accelerated object, compared with the non-accelerated object. The light clock does NOT describe continuously generated physical time dilation between objects in relative inertial motion.

[@milliondollartrooper]

Here's an interesting question. Is it possible to construct a clock of materials that will allow it to tick the same whether it's stationary or moving fast? Has anyone attempted that yet?

[@jameswebb3410]

I don't think it's possible.

[@milliondollartrooper]

@@jameswebb3410 thanks for your personal opinion but I'm looking for evidence based data points

[@jameswebb3410]

@@milliondollartrooper kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJrXl2uPlruLnsUsi=4w1OjRyqvo9pzOR1 That's a nice video regarding the subject.

[@saulorocha3755]

Cool video analysis but at the end you say “Time dilation is about time after all”, isn’t that a circular argument? The question is what is time? Is there such a thing as universal clock? Relativity says no to the latter and seems to answer to the first that motion changes the frequency measurement of atomic oscillations in different frames of reference, making even precision clock give different measurements. Relativity makes possible to adjust the clocks between different frames of reference then?

[@stewiesaidthat]

Space and Time are separate frames of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Since atomic clocks use an electromagnetic wave to accelerate the cesium-133 atom and electromagnetic waves travel in their own frame of reference, any motion of the clock from its calibrated location will register as a change in distance traveled. Force decreases with distance so Less time = greater distance traveled. This measurement is only valid for the space frame of reference. Motion in the observer's time frame of reference will vary.

[@itsbs]

At 13:13, can't sound waves also be spherical waves within the air medium, just like the light spherical waves in the EM medium? This would mean there should be a transverse and longitudinal effect with sound, just like light. The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Sound changes the pitch, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant. The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Light changes the color, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant.

[@lukasrafajpps]

Transverse effect for sound would only occur if the source was moving in perpendicular direction relative to the medium. For light, the tranvserse part is always there no matter the direction of motion and the magnitude only depends on motion relative to the observer not relative to any medium.

[@itsbs]

@@lukasrafajpps ** But, they are both making circular waves in a medium, so I don't understand how you can consider the transverse Doppler effect different, in either case. ** This definition is only true, if you believe Einstein's Special Relativity. Einstein's Special Relativity paper has a self-contradiction in Section 2 and Section 3 of his paper (failed derivation of the transform math using the Einstein Clock Sync method). The transform math was derived from Voigt's paper called On the Doppler Principle, using an elastic medium. In the end, realize that you are just believing in Einstein's failed 1905 paper.

[@arnoldkotlyarevsky383]

I have a stupid question that arises from my conversation with my now, vbery old, father. How do you convince someone that the speed of light is invariant? I once tried to explain special relativity to my dad and we could not get off the ground because he refused to accept that the light from a moving flashlight is not faster than the light from a stationary flashlight.

[@lukasrafajpps]

I had similar conversations and I feel you. It is nearly impossible since it is against our everyday intuition and the older the person is the stronger the intuition is.

[@narfwhals7843]

Perhaps it would be helpful to your dad to understand that he is far from alone with his difficulty. It is an experimental observation that we can not see a difference in the speed of light. Scientists in the late 1800s were trying almost desperately to make that intuition work with what they observed experimentally. Lorentz and Fitzgerald (among others) _invented_ length contraction to explain why you could not observe this speed difference. What Einstein did was simply say "Lets just accept what we observe" and made the speed of light into a law of nature. This was a difficult step for many physicists then. And it is still a difficult step to break our intuition today.

[@philoso377]

Quoting Stewiesaidthat - Space and Time are two separate frame of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Combining the two frame to believing that clock measures time is what creates the paradox. Space-Time diagram? That shows one person is experiencing more space in the same amount of time.

[@alexjohnward]

I'm confused, do moving clocks always look like they run slower, or not?

[@lukasrafajpps]

no they don't always look like it but they always do run slower.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

nonsense! Don't just copy the idiocy from ...textbooks. A simple question: Are you (now) at..rest or ...moving (to the reference system (attached) to the Edge of the Universe accelerating and speeding with a velocity almost that of light? Don't be still stupid like A. Einstein himself who could not resolve his own paradox until his death (in R. Schlegel's footnotes on his conversation with A. Einstein. Think for yourself,i.e. if You have a ..Holy Spirit; your "dialect" is the same...nonsense; in your formulas, you even give different formulas for time dilation than in the majority of textbooks as you don't see the difference between a period and time itself (some, minority authors do the same)."Eine logische Schwache"/weakness,i.e.,...nonsense!" in A.Einstein's own words (AD 1920)@@lukasrafajpps

[@jamesraymond1158]

what is meaning of "just a clock issue"? As opposed to what? Are you proposing that there is an aether that could also explain time dilation? Perhaps another viewer could answer these questions.

[@narfwhals7843]

Dialect seem to be suggesting that time dilation is merely an artifact of clock mechanisms, rather than a feature of how space and time themselves behave. In that case an aether could indeed reproduce the results of Relativity if all clocks dependent on the aether in the same way. But then the aether is also inherently undetectable (since you also have to introduce length contraction).

[@kdmq]

An interesting experiment to look at is the "Ives Stilwell" experiment. They considered the effects of high speed hydrogen ions emitting light and considered the apparent redshifted wavelength as well as the blueshifted wavelength. They then averaged the two wavelengths and found that the result was not the original wavelength, suggesting real time dilation had occurred. I think this experimental setup is far more reliable than just some guys putting atomic clocks on planes and trying to measure nanoseconds on the hour.

[@shadow15kryans23]

Perhaps the ether has a drag that moves relative to local frames of reference? As in... There is a sorta interaction resistance as a result of internal component interacting with such a field taking time. Which should make sense given waves in the electric field, causes magnetic currents in the magnetic field. You can't just instantly interact between electric and magnetic fields. And so stuff gets muddy on small scales meshing them together as stuff moves. Hence "electromagnetic waves" with vacuum permittivity and permeability coming out as a result. In this case you wouldn't notice any difference in the Michealson Morley experiment. I should also mention that in such a case, We would be using a tetrad formalism and killing vector fields to keep constancy of this vacuum permittivity and permeability values as you partially drag this ether around via motion. Effectively indicating a variable speed of C in a flat spacetime under this tetrad killing vector formalism, is equal to a constant speed of light in curved spacetime. Hence the unification of Quantum field ideas and Gravitational field ideas. There just 2 ways of looking at the same thing. In fact if you look at the chalk board of Einstein's he left around after his death, You'll see precisely this. A tetrad formalism in a flat metric killing vector field, which turns out to have the same degrees of freedom as standard GR. 👀 In this case the constancy of C is more like a summed value aka a average of the given electromagnetic field. Altho... It could fluctuate on smaller scales technically just as with any quantum field.

[@vasile.effect]

Thats not how clocks work, no clock on earth (or in space) uses a bouncing beam of light to compute time. Mechanical clocks have nothing to do with light, but with moving mechanical parts, and digital clocks are based on quartz crystals which vibrate at a certain frequency when applied a certain voltage- again nothing to do with light. Atomic clocks use a combination of quartz and cesium atoms to syncronise the quartz crystals, and again light is not involved in the process. So wtf is this guy talking about here ? About his immaginary relativistic clocks which are based on bouncing light ?

[@ElanMorin]

the light isn't actually traveling a greater distance in the moving clock. it would just look that way to a stationary observer. I can't grasp why this misunderstanding persists.

[@axle.student]

What do you see? At the moment I see a fundamental contradiction that the speed of light is constant globally relative to the universe as well as constant relative to a moving object at the same time. This contradiction asserts variable speed of light.

[@whyguy2324]

New Dialect video just dropped, this time with the Aether! Can't wait to see a breakdown of it!

[@TheOneMaddin]

The myon question is a good one, and one probably has to think very carefully about what makes particles decay in the first place. You might find a light clock in there.

[@user-dx1bq3ps5z]

you might find them looking at a clock, but not in the current theory. they have no internal states at all, and decay (or observation of decay) is entirely random, ulimately governed by the Born rule. of course they might have hidden clocks (hidden 'variables') but such theories have so far failed.

[@letao12]

The way I think about it is: every clock has to observe some interaction somewhere in order to tell time. If even the internal behavior of fundamental particles is somehow mediated by light, then there would be no way to build a non-light clock, since every interaction involves particles and the behavior of particles would involve light. And if every clock must be fundamentally a light clock, then calling time dilation a clock issue is meaningless.

[@TheOneMaddin]

@@user-dx1bq3ps5z When I wrote "you might find a light clock in there" I did not mean this physically, but more like "you might understand what it has to do with the speed of light". Decay comes from interactions between quantum fields and how quickly an excitation gets distributed between fields. I haven't done the math and whether cannot say whether it can explain a slowed decay in an eather theory. But it's a priorily plausible.

[@stewiesaidthat]

F=ma/E=mc. The lifespan of a muon is governed by its mass and its acceleration rate. High mass objects with low acceleration rates take longer to radioactively decay. Apply an outside force, like air temperature, the decay rate can be increased or decreased. Muons don't fall to earth in a vacuum. This is what throws everyone off just like the hammer&feather drop tests. The atmosphere is an outside force influencing the motion of the object.

[@letao12]

@@stewiesaidthat Do you have any evidence to support the claim that air causes decay rate to change? It's certainly not the case for any other particle or atomic nucleus that we've ever seen. Particles in particle accelerators show time dilation even in the absence of air. Radioactive elements decay at the same rate regardless of the presence of air.

[@PieterPatrick]

The orbit of Merrcury can only be explained if time dilation is real.

[@DeviousityAtGmail]

As I watched this video I tried to imagine a clock that would measure time exactly the same way whether it is moving or not. I have an idea, although it is impossible to actually build. Take a sphere with an axle going directly through the center of it, with each end mounted on the end of a cylinder the sphere is inside. At one end of the cylinder there is a sensor, and on the sphere there is a line that starts at the point the axle extends from the sphere on one end (lets call it the north pole) and travels along the surface to the point where the other end of the axle extends out (lets call it the south pole), like the prime meridian. The sphere rotates on this axle at 6000rpm, causing the line to pass in front of the sensor every 100th of a second, allowing for fairly precise measurement. The inside of the cylinder is otherwise a vacuum, and the bearings are frictionless (yes, air tight and frictionless - impossible!), so that once the axle is spun up to 6000rpm it never slows down or causes the cylinder to rotate. There is no motor needed to maintain this speed, which would cause a variation from the speed electrons travel through wires as the unit approaches the speed of light, etc.The sphere rotates at a constant speed, even if it tumbles through space (even with gyroscopic precession, because the bearings are frictionless). Tumbling would cause the cylinder to yaw, but because of the frictionless bearings it does not slow down the rotation of the sphere. (You can feel gyroscopic precession yourself if you clamp the center of a fidget spinner in your fingers, spin it, and then tilt the spinner perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Although I may have misidentified this phenomena.) Thus the only way to cause a different measurement in the clock is to rotate the cylinder on the axis of the axle. Now, no matter what orientation the cylinder is in as it flies through space, the line on the rotating sphere passes the sensor 100 times a second. The timing of the sensor readings may change, but it won't affect the count of the number of times the sensor detected the line (the count may be off while it is moving, but when it stops moving the count will catch up). Using this clock you could absolutely prove or disprove time dilation, but since it's impossible to build, well, at least the theory may give you some interesting ideas. My belief is that time is a construct devised by the human mind, completely based on observation and measurement. It is not a force that controls anything. Time does not slow down as things accelerate relative to our position in space. Things have a relatively longer distance to travel to get to the same place in their localized geometry, exactly as depicted in the clock examples you gave, but it isn't because "time slows down." And this only occurs during acceleration. Once things stop accelerating, when everything within their localized geometry is moving the same relative speed, these distances return to normal. They go up as the change in velocity increases, and go down as the change in velocity decreases, perfectly linearly. With that in mind, even the clock I described would experience "time dilation" because the rotating sphere has inertia, and accelerating affects it's inertia in ways I am not mathematically competent enough to define. I'm sure somebody could, but I'm not that guy. However, I believe that once the clock is slowed down during acceleration due to the changing inertia, it would NOT speed back up as its change in velocity decreased. Furthermore it would slow down again as it turned around to make a return trip, and yet again when it comes to a stop upon returning. And I believe there is a math genius out there somewhere that could calculate these exact values with the given mass and dimensions of the sphere and axle. This makes me think of another question. If we were able to build a craft that could travel at or near the speed of light, and it had headlights and tail lights, would the light from the headlights not travel forward from the craft at relative light speed, as much as twice the speed of light? Would the light from the tail lights be stationary in space or would it move at light speed through space - relatively twice the speed of light as observed from the craft? I don't think the speed of light is the universal speed limit either. I just think that photons are so infinitely small that any "push" moves them at a proportionally infinite velocity. And if it's moving that fast, you simply can't move anything else fast enough to give it another push. However, if you're already moving and you give it a push (ie: the headlights on the craft), it'll add your velocity to its practically infinite velocity, thereby breaking the "speed limit."

[@KipIngram]

THANK YOU - I found that "sound clock" thing on Dialect quite odd too. Nothing in a sound based system has velocities sufficiently high to bring in relativistic effects.

[@narfwhals7843]

If you base everything on the sound clock, then the speed that determines relativistic effects is the speed of sound.

[@christopherevansanders3629]

So can't you calculate the distance the wave has to travel to make both clocks tick at the same place something like v (velocity) +1 unit of speed = d (distance) -10 units of distance

[@cansomer6433]

I love both of your content as a physics major. I learn more fundamental ways of thinking about relativity from you folks than from my professors here.

[@lukasrafajpps]

Thank you. There is usually no time for such discussions at physics classes for example at our university, the special relativity isn't even one subject it is merged together with electrodynamics despite being such crutial starting point to modern physics :D

[@guardingdark2860]

Great video overall! I do have two main concerns though. The smaller one that I will get out of the way is this: at the end you ask, if time dilation is "just a clock issue", then why does it happen to muons? Well I think the word "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. We only know of interactions that happen at the speed of light, so this clock issue affects the rates of the decays as well. Yes, time dilation is fundamental, because all interactions between and within particles happen at the speed of light, and thus the processes that cause muon decay are essentially little light clocks. My second issue is that I am a little confused by the part where time dilation is different for clocks placed in different orientations. I did the math and got the same factor, but I am having trouble visualizing it. Suppose we have a universe with two spatial dimensions. In this universe are two observers, A and B. A will be the observer's frame of reference, i.e. stationary for this consideration, and B will be moving relative to A. Now suppose that each observer is enclosed by a circular mirror centered at the observer, that remains stationary in that observer's frame. Then, at some time, each observer emits a pulse of light. Because the mirror is a circle, i.e. the same distance from the observer at all points, all of the light returns to the observers at the same time. For A, this is immediately obvious, and for B, it follows from the principle of relativity (i.e. B is stationary in B's frame of reference, so it observes the same thing, all else being equal). This means that, if we from A's perspective mark out the paths of all of the photons emitted by B, all of the total lengths have to be the same; all of the photons were emitted and received by B at the same times, which means the length of their paths have to be the same since the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of the source. From this, it follows that two light clocks, one placed parallel and one perpendicular to B's direction of motion, should have exactly the same time dilation, because the photons in the light clock are just following one of the possible paths of the photons in the circular mirror. Where did I go wrong in my thought experiment? I suspect it has something to do with relativity of simultaneity because I always struggle with that, but I am pretty sure that I shouldn't have that issue here because in both frames, the start and end points of the measured light are the same. There's nothing that could be simultaneous in one frame and not in another that is actually relevant to the observation. It's also not length contraction because the fact that each observer sees all of the photons at the same time is what's important. No matter what length contraction is involved, that result should be the same by the principle of relativity.

[@balabuyew]

Here we are trying ro reinvent relativity from common sense. So, you cannot rely to relativity in your logic. Otherwise, your logic is circular.

[@guardingdark2860]

@@balabuyew Where did I "rely" on relativity in my argument?

[@balabuyew]

@@guardingdark2860For example here: "and for B, it follows from the principle of relativity".

[@guardingdark2860]

@@balabuyew Yes. The "principle of relativity" states that the laws of physics are observed to be the same in any frame of reference. That is a premise of the Theory of Relativity, not a conclusion. One derived from observed facts.

[@balabuyew]

@@guardingdark2860This principle is not valid in the context of the video. You should prove it before using.

[@pawelczubinski6413]

What if we only can use sound to compare sound clocks?

[@TheOneMaddin]

When you discuss the vertical clocks at 11:30 you completely ignore that in the soundwave analogy as well the clocks would be length contracted (because they are "made out of sound" if you will) and hence would show in fact the same time dilation as predicted by SRT. There is no way to distinguish the analogy from SRT with this experiment.

[@particularminer260]

Good point. I guess that would depend critically on what principles of relativity are actually being adopted to construct the associated transform for the aether interpretation. The Lorentz transform that predicts length contraction was was built using Einstein’s principles of relativity, which make sense to me.

[@TheOneMaddin]

⁠@@particularminer260 You don't need SRT to derive length contraction. All you need is that your clocks are made out of particles that are bound together via an interaction that propagates with the speed of light IN THE PREFERRED REST FRAME.

[@Epursimov]

I've been eagerly following Dialect's alternative explanation of relativity, and I'm a follower of this channel, too. I do not have an advanced knowledge of physics, but It seems to me that your confutation of Dialect's sound analogy lacks something. First of all, no one pretends to rule special relativity wrong. Einstein's SR has been proved so many times that no doubt at all may remain. But physics is not about telling how things really are, but how to make effective predictions on things. So, there may be an alternative way to "see" reality than SR, provided that it is able to make predictions that are as well as valid as SR's (including muon's decay). This is what I see that Dialect's is doing and I find it very interesting. I considered the sound analogy just an observation that the same mathematics used by SR may arise in other contexts' too, without the need for complex explanations. In particular, it shows with one example that the Lorentz transformation is not necessarily linked to a relativity of the medium. So, trying to disprove the sound analogy rotating the clock is not the point. Dialect is still introducing its theory, which is not complete at the moment. In particular, Dialect uses the critical fact that it is not possible to measure the two-way speed of light (the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't measure the one-way SoL, too!). As far as I can understand, Dialect is not saying at all that the SoL have different values by different observers or different directions. The fact that the two-way SoL (the only one that can be measured) is the same for all observers is an established fact. SR states it, but it has to be in Dialect's alternative explanation, too (otherwise, no effective prediction can be made and the theory is disproved). In particular, the variation of epsilon the Dialect's theory (and the different mathematics that arises) is something that cannot be reproduced with the sound analogy. Neither the "air medium" in sound is equivalent to the "space medium" in Dialect's theory. Apart from all this, it is in any case an interesting debate and I thank both Dialect and you for your work.

[@Music_Creativity_Science]

"Einstein's SR has been proved so many times that no doubt at all may remain" I admire Einstein, but there is a serious mathematical interpretation error in the SR theory. - Follow what the math really says in the Lorentz factor in the SR time dilation equation - The v^2 variable in the Lorentz factor = 2 • acceleration • distance (assuming initial velocity = 0). This is the Torricelli equation, later incorporated among Newtons equations of motion. - The v^2 variable in the Lorentz factor can not be used for time intervals in relative motion where acceleration/ deceleration does not take place. That is what the mathematics above says, and it is inescapable. It is a fact whatever Einstein himself thought, wrote or said. Or whatever anyone else has thought, written or said since then. - Therefore, it must be during time intervals with accelerations/decelerations ONLY, where the physical time dilation is created (physical slowing down of a clock). This is further described by a top physicist in this paper www.ptep-online.com/2017/PP-51-07.PDF There are no experiments done, confirming time dilation, without acceleration or deceleration involved (airplanes, GPR-satellites, muons etc). When discussing Special Relativity, one has to separate: 1. Objective reality, real physical effects, physical change of a clock within certain time intervals according to the mathematical proof above. 2. Subjective reality, additional optical specific observer effects. The light clock, often used to derive the SR time dilation equation with the Lorentz factor, does not illustrate continuous time dilation with inertial constant relative motion. It illustrates, and generates an equation for, accumulated time dilation during time intervals with acceleration concerning the object which was accelerated to create the motion relative to the non-accelerated object. In other words, the light clock derivation is fully in sync with the mathematical proof above.

[@robinhooper7702]

That was quite enlightening. No pun intended. I have two things I'd like clarified. It is said that there is nothing faster than light. I disagree, because I can 'see' the moon much faster than light would even get there or any other celestial body for that matter. Explain to me that that is not correct please. Also, there is something I just can't get my head around. Take a conventional clock and make two marks on the secondhand. One mark at its innermost section and the other at the outermost section. Now we can conclude that both points will return to its starting point in 60 seconds to make a full circle. So the innermost point must be traveling slower than the outer point because it must cover a lesser distance. This makes sense, no? But how can this be? The outerpoint and the innerpoint are attached on a single solid object. They are attached. How is it that they travel at different speeds? I know this may be a naive question but entertain/educate me if you will. Thanks

[@axle.student]

What has Doppler effect have to do with anything. Doppler doesn't belong in this equation. The speed/velocity of the wave propagation does not change in the same medium/density. So the sound wave propagation velocity is constant to the global frame. I expect that the light wave propagation is constant to the global frame. > I think everyone is a little confused :)

[@TerrifyingBird]

I still feel that Dialect is correct. The trick of rotating the clock 90° will not work, for a very simple reason: the definition of the meter. Whichever one you choose - even the oldest ones from some whatever rod length - is ultimately tied to the speed of light, which in turn demands that c remains constant. Choosing the height of the sound clock to appropriately match that which would be prescribed by an analogue 'sound meter' you get exactly the same results - essentially because the model is the same. Indeed, if you could only interact with sound, and could not interact with physical objects which obey regular physical laws, you would find it really hard to define a meter that doesn't in the end become a tautological 'distance travelled by sound in x amount of time'. Which, ex-post, is what we have always been doing. The deep meaning of special relativity is indeed this: we cannot define a galileian "local" meter without time - locally a point cannot see what a meter is, and we cannot define a "local" galileian time without a definition of distance - because some kind of reproducible physical process has to take place in order for time to be measured. This needs a fixed size apparatus and thus a meter. It's a catch 22. If we had access to the "real" units of measurement, we may find that things are indeed quite a bit more galileian. But we are living *inside* the experiment, and thus it is impossible for us to define a galileian "outside meter", or a galileian "outside time". This is simply a fundamental limitation of the human experience. We are a point inside space, and we interact with said space through the distorting lens of fundamental interactions. This filter makes it impossible to look further That said, an immediate consequence of this line of reasoning is that if we ever found a particle faster than light, with another faster speed limit, let's call it "F35 Lightning II" we could use it to make faster light clocks and measuring rod, which now would use this new speed as a universal limit, and use those to measure the behaviour of this electromagnetic aether we live in (whose existence, in this case, we would be obligated to assume, as time inside the aether would otherwise be unexplicable) without any contradiction. As long as these particles are not out there, the two points of view are indistinguishable.

[@Kavukamari]

So even if we have two equal masses of radioactive material, we travel one of them very fast, and we measure the rate it has decayed compared to its half life, we will see that the moving one was slower to decay?

[@cansomer6433]

I think everything seems to boil down to quantum field theory because for instance QED or QCD shows us how things, even at the quantum super-positional level, interact as "light clocks". The dilemma is between two perspectives. Materialist (processes are seen as laws) perspective: it is because of light speed interactions we end up being materially limited with the speed of causality, where the force carrier particles act like Hermes but since they are the only information carrier sources of matter delays and dilations emerge (like time dilation). Idealist (laws cause processes) perspective it is BECAUSE of the principle or the law embedded in the universe that in all frame's of reference speed of light is the same value and the principle itself is causing time dilation. I honestly prefer the first one because I think if we accept that change (causality like in QED interactions) is happening through speed of light interactions there remains no reason to put an external "law of government". I think Einstein assumed that there was a LAW of relativity and that mislead him to think faster than speed of light interactions at any level would be metaphysically illegal. Than, because no matter how wrong he was he was ingeniously wrong, he predicted the quantum entanglement interactions which in my opinion proved that he was wrong to adopt the idealist (law fundamentalist) stance.

[@lukasrafajpps]

I want to dive deep into this in the future for sure :) a good hint is a sine-gordon equation which you get by a continuous limit of infinite number of connected pendula. This system is naturally relativistic even though we didn't asume any relativity at the start just classical pendula. Looking forward to do a video about this

[@monkerud2108]

the sonic wave example is fun and useful for illustrating that point, if the drone and the human being analyzing it where made out of structures in the air, like matter can be thought of as light or energy propagating at c but that is confined in a stable structure giving it the inertial properties of matter instead of the inertial properties of waves, if you imagine the same thing going on for waves of density in air, even if it int possible in air the consequences would be the same as with light and special relativity, there would be no apparent contradiction with the clocks made out of normal matter coupled to c, because all the clocks you could compare with would be made out of dynamical processes in the air medium and would dilate and be limited by the same maximum speed in that medium. in the same way, if we built a theory of the emergence of the sub-luminal unified field, we would also need matter fields coupled to a causal velocity of "waves" much larger than c, and the clocks made out of that matter would not dilate according to C but according to the new maximum propagation speed of those fields that matter were coupled to. just like our light coupled clocks don't dilate like the air driven clocks. because this is essentially the only possible way to extend our current theories, it is unhelpful to think about the effects of special and general relativity on time and space as fundamental. btw, no matter what questions you have about the consistency with quantum mechanics and relativity itself special or general, i assure you those are easy to solve.

[@bediosoro7786]

Why not simulating the light in a closed vertical tube such that the wave always travels vertically or horizontally.

[@tobiaswilhelmi4819]

Special relativity isn't special in the sense of some special operations within it but because the equations are applicable in the special case of the absence of gravity. Or in a flat space-time, which is the same.

[@HealthyDoubter]

So, what is measured is wave propigation. Frequncy behavior and the focus is location of sensors and an effect of intertia (the changing direction thing)? So Einstiein was studying frequency effects and calling it time. Waves that turn around to return to their source. Now that would be an awesome subject to research.

[@helifynoe6956]

Imagine a spaceship passing by you that has white lights on the front, and red lights on the back, and that they are LED's that are flashing at above 60Hz to reduce energy consumption. The spaceship passes by you at what you measure to be 260,000 km/s. Meanwhile, as it approached you, you measured the the light pulses from the front headlights, to be travelling at the speed of light. When it passed by you, you then measured the pulses of red light also travelling at the speed of light. Then you scratch you head, because from your point of view that meant that the light coming from the front of the spaceship was only released at 40,000 km/s, thus 40,000 km/s plus the speed of the spaceship, equals the speed of light. Then to be even more confusing, the red light releases from the spaceship's rear lights, appears to have been released at 560,000 km/s relative to the spaceship, thus 560,000 km/s - 260,000 km/s spaceship velocity = 300,000 km/s, the speed of light. But all this is easy to explain concerning the actual mechanics of what is going on, rather than mere theories, if you fully understand special relativity.

[@lukasrafajpps]

Sorry but I am not scratching my head about this since even sound waves would behave the way you described.

[@dexter8705]

Why do muons last longer? Or why do faster muons travel more distance in the same time.. see how redundant that question is.

[@m.c.4674]

That's why I didn't even bother answering.

[@TheZafootz]

This is the very Idea I put up in a video years ago where time dilation is not the same when you travel towards a location and when traveling away from a location. The thought experiment the Einstein did was him moving away from a clock tower and he thought that the closer he got to the speed of light the slower the clock would appear to tick as he got close to light speed moving away from the clock. His ideas NEVER cover to what happens when traveling towards a location and what happens at that point is the clocks tick rate you travel towards will incease in its time rate or look like time is going faster then it is for you for locations you go towards. There is NO WAY that time would slow down everywhere around you when traveling close to light speed. this idea is not possible only time speeds up for locations you travel towards and slows down for locations you travel away from. This is the only way the time dilation idea works and makes sense the idea that all clocks moving run slower the clocks that are traveling at a slower speed is not the connection it is traveling away or traveling towards locations that cause this time dilation time rate change effect. What Brian Green and so many others have attempted to teach people about time dilation is absolutely 100% incorrect and the whole light beam bouncing up and down between 2 mirrors is not in any way a valid experiment to prove anything about how time rates change for locations you travel away from and travel towards.... Now its been 5 years sense i posted this video and i have less then 50 views on it....... This person as I'm posting this has had this video up for 9 days and he has 26 thousand views for this video.... kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnK1mGaopduLeJIsi=ZtNzIEkdtVNmBGIL Posted this idea 5 years ago......... less then 50 views what BS this is......

[@spacelike4]

Something still seems off here when you rotate the clocks. I don't think length contraction is being considered. When you rotate the clock the math is still the SAME even for light clocks. I think the only reason the gamma^2 factor is avoided for light clocks is because one of the gamma's is absorbed by L and we call it "length contraction". But if the sound wave analogy is correct then there would be no length contraction, and so you still get gamma^2 even for a light clock.

[@spacelike4]

Or, here's an even crazier idea. Maybe length contraction occurs because the actual material the light clock is made of is held together by electromagnetic forces. So you would have to consider an equivalent sound clock whose particles were held together by sound. Then if the sound clock moved in one direction it might shrink, experiencing a kind of "sound length contraction". And in that case the gamma^2 factor would be absorbed by L0 and it would still be a perfect analogy to a light clock.

[@monkerud2108]

the key tldr for why you are wrong about your last statement, is that teh transverse time dilation for clocks derived in air works because the transverse lenght contraction is 0. so you dont have to make the "matter/clock" out of only air to get it to time dilate properly, for longitudinal dilation you would need to adjust the distance between the speakers and sensors manually to mimic what it would be like to have matter made out of sound waves in air. :) that is the crux, but if you had that, and you measured a frequency emitted by it that depended on the time dilation, then you would indeed get the same kind of relativistic time dilation for the air analogy as well. invite you to calculate that as well, since you seem pretty proficient as it is :) i love this stuff it is fascinating, i notice you seem to be of similar interests, so it should be fun to do. basically you take the speaker based light clock for air, you account for length contractions, then you have a second speaker on the clock that emits a frequency that is adjusted by the time dilation, so if the clock slows down, the frequency decreases by the same factor. and so on. then you will definitley get the same expressions as in relativity for the sound analogy. and this also makes sense right? the reason we need to add another speaker that is adjusted by the derived time dilation, is because the frequency of the speakers used in the clock already are made out of stuff that is not "made out of air" they will not time dilate just because they move through air, so we have to make the effect happen by setting it up manually, but if you do, then it is identical :) which is cool, it actually reproduces the entire phenomena, and no wonder, we knew that already because the ether theories where you cant measure the background work the same way, there the time dilation of clocks and emitters are also identical.

[@uncletrashero]

wait if the "fastest" clock is the most stationary clock, then does that mean Light is actually stationary and its the rest of the universe that is moving?

[@3zdayz]

Interferometer is equalized ny length contraction and light aberration

[@no-one_no1406]

I still fail to see how the speed of light limit (that this all comes down to) isn't 100% analogous to sound waves. If you're a air particle and haven't yet figured out how to do anything but use sound waves, you would also think that the speed of sound is a hard upper limit.

[@jonathandawson3091]

muons must have some weak interaction particles moving at light speed that is fundamentally related to its disintegrationno? so then those particles are like the light clock.

[@frun]

Clearly, space and time are absolute. Relativity is false and the analogy between light and sound is legitimate. It's not a coincidence, one can deduce approximate Lorentz symmetry in qm. At high energies this symmetry will break down.

[@CallOfCutie69]

12:41 Moving clocks are perpendicular to each other, but still show the same time dilation. Why? Because they’re both perpendicular to the 4th dimension of time! Yes, I know time is not a spatial dimension, except there is a way to treat it as such. FloatHeadPhysics elaborates on that, talking about infinitely compactified spatial dimension becoming time.

[@axle.student]

To the best of my knowledge time dilation (length contraction/dilation) due to velocity has never experimentally been proven to actually exist. It's just an observer error and poor underlying assumption. Time dilation due to the gravity effect is a completely different phenomena :)

[@bipl8989]

No mystery. GPS satellites must be routinely adjusted to compensate for relativistic time dilation. Happens all the TIMES.

[@david_porthouse]

Who was the knight who died for the sake of perspective? Don't call yourself a physicist if you don't know! The Florentine painter Paolo Uccello painted a triptych entitled _The Battle of San Romano._ In one of the three paintings is shown a dead knight lying on the ground, but foreshortened by perspective. I am in the habit of referring to this as the Uccello Contraction. In the theory of elliptical perspective, we have the Uccello Contraction, and in the theory of hyperbolic perspective, we have the Fitzgerald Contraction. The theory of hyperbolic perspective is also known as Special Relativity, and there is plenty of evidence for it being also true. The Uccello Contraction and the Fitzgerald Contraction are both equally mysterious, or equally obvious, depending upon one's point of view. Anyway, just have a look at _The Battle of San Romano_ online.

[@monkerud2108]

matter is a hidden light clock, systems of moving and interacting matter is also a moving light clock, this is essential if you are to understand why the two way speed of light is always measured to be the same. it is way more fundamental than general or special relativity. it takes a fair while to prove it but essentially without it these theories are incoherent, and extensions of the theories fall apart. we will always measure the speed of light as the same even if it changes from place to place, we can only ever measure different speeds of light in different locations by means of their effect on intrinsic time elapsed for physical systems. but the speed of light varies in space, and the gradients is a part of the gravitational potential. if you don't take my word for it, go back to 1914-1940 and read what Einstein said about it, he always thinks about it in these terms and not purely geometrical terms, because these terms are more fundamental.

[@FunkyDexter]

7:18 this is only the case if you could define a rest frame for the medium. This is exactly what everyone gets wrong about the aether, and why no one takes it seriously. To define such a frame you need something indipendent from the medium to compare it to, and this is usually done with matter. But if the medium is literally ALL there is, you cant define such a frame, and relativity works just fine. As an analogy, think about a boat on the ocean. You can define the rest frame of the ocean by watching how the boats motion creates waves (none when the boat is at rest with the ocean). Now imagine instead the boat is not separate from the ocean, so instead visualize a wave on the surface. Its motion does not disturb the ocean from the frame of the wave, so it says it is still relative to the ocean. But so can every other wave say the same. The only "true" stationary, preferred frame would be that of no waves at all, but that would mean empty space. There's nothing to compare your measurements with in empty space.

[@monkerud2108]

you contradicted your earlier analysis when you said the clocks work the same in both cases by saying that about relativity vs this analogy.

[@KaliTakumi]

In the beginning of the video I thought to myself "what if the clock was spinning?" lol

[@manog8713]

I wonder what you are trying to say. Time dilation is not about clock but about time? It is curious that the reciprocity or symmetry of the situation in you r analysis is not aken seriousely. Time dilation, is a perspective effect and is related to electromagemntic waves and Doppler effect. What else coluld there be? The propoenets of time dilation always stress that Doppler effect and time dilation are different. Why are they different? Einestien himslef uses transverse light clock to show time dilation, but as you said, that is about light and the perspecticve effect, whereby the stationay observer sees a longer distance for the light ray as compared to the comoving obsever. The peoper time as we know is measured by comoving observer and that is the same as the stationanry observer observing the same phenomenon in the stationary frame. What is the hype aboput time dilation then I wonder?

[@Music_Creativity_Science]

The textbook light clock is unreal in the sense that the observers do not observe the photon. Einsteins postulate says: The speed of light is the same for all OBSERVERS. Which means actually receiving the photon(s). But the textbook light clock works as a mathematical model of inner atomic processes in matter, it correctly describes ACCUMULATED time dilation after ACCELERATION phases of an object, relative to another non-accelerated object. The inner atomic electron-photon interactions become a little slower during acceleration, which is the core of time dilation. Which for example causes relativistic Doppler effect when matter is accelerated, EM-waves are then "produced" from matter with a little less frequency. There is no physical time dilation generated concerning objects in inertial relative motion, only observational effects due to distance or relative velocity between objects. There is a lot of confusion about this concerning SR, when not separating objective real physical effects and subjective visual/observational effects. Let's stick to physics, not rainbows and other such visual subjective effects...

[@zubble7144]

The problem with the accepted time dilation equation is that it is based on the velocity of the moving body (B) relative to the stationary body (A). But from B's perspective, B is stationary and A is moving, yet the time dilation is asymmetric upon co-joining the bodies. The difference with perspectives is that B has experienced acceleration whereas A has not, therefore, shouldn't time dilation be dependent on acceleration and not relative velocity after acceleration?

[@DrDeuteron]

No. The twin paradox is not resolved by time dilation. Lorentz transformations are linear, so there slope and an intercept. You need both