PDA

View Full Version : Does t1me dilation cause magnification due to uncertainty principal?



WaxRubiks
2009-Nov-11, 05:17 PM
If a mass, say a planet, is experiencing time dilation, does that cause that mass to appear magnified, for the distant observer; ie its wave function to look bigger due to time dilation?

I was thinking, that as time is slowed down, that might make to position of the particles, involved, more certain, unless the wave function spreads out.

Ken G
2009-Nov-11, 06:11 PM
Well, there is such a thing as relativistic mass, which is the rest mass seen by an observer in the frame of the planet which has been scaled up by the Lorentz factor seen by an observer in a moving frame. It is true that the same Lorentz factor would be used to scale down the amount of time elapsed for the object, as seen by the moving observer. So if one were to apply an uncertainty principle to the time and energy of the planet (something that is unusual to do but should be allowed by the correspondence principle), one would indeed find that the reduction in the time elapsed (and its uncertainty) as seen by the moving observer would be compensated by the increase in the relativistic mass (and its uncertainty). So your intuition is correct, and is a point of contact between quantum mechanics and relativity-- two theories that are not always at odds, due to the correspondence principle. The point of contention between those theories is gravity, not motion.

slang
2009-Nov-11, 11:24 PM
Uncertainty principle. Uncertain principal (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Clockwise_poster.jpg).

:)

WaxRubiks
2009-Nov-12, 06:10 AM
thanks slang. :p


Well, there is such a thing as relativistic mass, which is the rest mass seen by an observer in the frame of the planet which has been scaled up by the Lorentz factor seen by an observer in a moving frame. It is true that the same Lorentz factor would be used to scale down the amount of time elapsed for the object, as seen by the moving observer. So if one were to apply an uncertainty principle to the time and energy of the planet (something that is unusual to do but should be allowed by the correspondence principle), one would indeed find that the reduction in the time elapsed (and its uncertainty) as seen by the moving observer would be compensated by the increase in the relativistic mass (and its uncertainty). So your intuition is correct, and is a point of contact between quantum mechanics and relativity-- two theories that are not always at odds, due to the correspondence principle. The point of contention between those theories is gravity, not motion.

I thought it might have something to do with the fact(?) that atoms are always moving, and any attempt to find their position would involve some changes in momentum...so that for matter in experiencing time dilation, the uncertainty would be more, for a distant observer, and so the wave function would be spread out.

I don't know if it would be spread out in all directions or just some; I would guess all.

Is an observer at a distance, in space, always considered to be in a different frame of reference, or "moving"?

Ken G
2009-Nov-12, 07:52 AM
Is an observer at a distance, in space, always considered to be in a different frame of reference, or "moving"?Distance doesn't matter. If the planet is moving, it will be perceived as having more energy, which will allow a more precise determination of when it passes some point. For the people on the planet, that more precise determination done by the off-worlders will be chalked up to time dilation of the off-world clocks, so the HUP will not be violated.

astromark
2009-Nov-12, 07:56 AM
If a mass, say a planet, is experiencing time dilation, does that cause that mass to appear magnified, for the distant observer; ie its wave function to look bigger due to time dilation?

I was thinking, that as time is slowed down, that might make to position of the particles, involved, more certain, unless the wave function spreads out.

Reading this slowly does make it look absolutely ridiculous. Not smaller, bigger or even sensible:)and I am not intending any malice. The answer is just NO.
As I look at more distant objects I am seeing a younger universe. It is not magnified by that distance.
I could argue the actual opposite might be a better point.
If a mass, say a planet, is experiencing time dilation... buy new batteries for your watch. Planets do not monitor or register the passage of time or, its rate of passage there in. I can find no truth or science to comment on.
Sorry if this seems a little blunt. Perhaps my understanding of this is a little shallow.

undidly
2009-Nov-12, 08:59 AM
Reading this slowly does make it look absolutely ridiculous. Not smaller, bigger or even sensible:)and I am not intending any malice. The answer is just NO.
As I look at more distant objects I am seeing a younger universe. It is not magnified by that distance.
I could argue the actual opposite might be a better point.
If a mass, say a planet, is experiencing time dilation... buy new batteries for your watch. Planets do not monitor or register the passage of time or, its rate of passage there in. I can find no truth or science to comment on.
Sorry if this seems a little blunt. Perhaps my understanding of this is a little shallow.

Time runs more slowly on Earth than far from any large mass.
Looking down on Earth everything runs slower by 1 part in 10^9.
If the mass of all timing devices was that much greater it would account for the slowing of time.
A outside observer sees exactly this.
Time dilation due to speed is the same.
A distant observer sees an increase in mass.

WaxRubiks
2009-Nov-12, 09:54 AM
Reading this slowly does make it look absolutely ridiculous. Not smaller, bigger or even sensible:)and I am not intending any malice. The answer is just NO.
As I look at more distant objects I am seeing a younger universe. It is not magnified by that distance.
I could argue the actual opposite might be a better point.
If a mass, say a planet, is experiencing time dilation... buy new batteries for your watch. Planets do not monitor or register the passage of time or, its rate of passage there in. I can find no truth or science to comment on.
Sorry if this seems a little blunt. Perhaps my understanding of this is a little shallow.

perhaps you should read this wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

I read about a thought experiment in Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", where by a clock is dropped from a ceiling...and how its time corresponds with a clock on the flour....I didn't quite understand it.. I must try reading that again(when I get the book back).


I think it was something to do with the falling clock taking the higher position time frame with it as it fell, and that from the ground that that would appear to be faster than the ground clock.

m74z00219
2009-Nov-12, 10:57 AM
Well, there is such a thing as relativistic mass, which is the rest mass seen by an observer in the frame of the planet which has been scaled up by the Lorentz factor seen by an observer in a moving frame. It is true that the same Lorentz factor would be used to scale down the amount of time elapsed for the object, as seen by the moving observer. So if one were to apply an uncertainty principle to the time and energy of the planet (something that is unusual to do but should be allowed by the correspondence principle), one would indeed find that the reduction in the time elapsed (and its uncertainty) as seen by the moving observer would be compensated by the increase in the relativistic mass (and its uncertainty). So your intuition is correct, and is a point of contact between quantum mechanics and relativity-- two theories that are not always at odds, due to the correspondence principle. The point of contention between those theories is gravity, not motion.


As I understand, the concept of relativistic mass is incorrect.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504110

The author, Gary Oas, argues that RM is at odds with the geometrical interpretation of SR and that it in itself does not preclude superluminal motion.

M74

Ken G
2009-Nov-12, 04:53 PM
I didn't read the full article, but on the surface it sounds pedagogical. Feynman always said that one could use relativistic mass to get all the answers right, and Feynman did not make it a habit of being wrong. But I'll leave it as an unknown at the moment if relativistic mass is to be viewed as wrong, or just pedagogically awkward, until I get a chance to read that paper.