Learn Relativity Using the TRENDING

ARTICLES
Bondi K-calculus
Can We See an
April 10, 2017 / 20 Comments / in Physics Tutorials
Atom?
/ by robphy
Learn the Physics of
Virtual Particles in
Quantum Mechanics
Although Special Relativity was formulated by Einstein (1905), and
given a spacetime interpretation by Minkowski (1908) [which helped Equations of Motion
make special relativity more accessible and acceptable], it could be Revisited
argued that these approaches are still too abstract and too
mathematical for most students. The 7 Basic Rules of
Quantum Mechanics
In the early 1960s, Hermann Bondi advocated a presentation of special
relativity (called the k-calculus [which involves no calculus–just simple Learn a
algebra]) that is advertised to be a “simple logical extension of well- Misconception of the
known Newtonian ideas, without any of its mathematical Heisenberg
trappings.” (I think what this means is that Bondi will de-emphasize Uncertainty Principle
and postpone the derivation of the Lorentz Transformation.)
Why You Can’t
His book “Relativity and Common Sense” (1962, 1964) is available Quantum Tunnel
at archive.org/details/RelativityCommonSense Through a Wall
[https://archive.org/details/RelativityCommonSense] . In addition, Bondi
Learn the Top
presented “E=mc2: Thinking Relativity Through”, a series of ten
Misconceptions
lectures on BBC TV running from Oct 5 to Dec 7, 1963. [Are these
about Virtual
accessible online?] There is an accompanying pamphlet “E=mc2: An
Particles
Introduction to Relativity” (www.worldcat.org/title/emc2-an-
introduction-to-relativity/oclc/156217827 The Essential Guide
[https://www.worldcat.org/title/emc2-an-introduction-to- to Self Study
relativity/oclc/156217827] ) . Mathematics

Unfortunately, Bondi’s simple approach is not well-known. Reversible Vs

I haven’t seen it in any introductory-physics or modern-physics Irreversible Gas
textbook. Physics majors might encounter it in intermediate-level Compression and
introductions to relativity (e.g. Woodhouse, d’Inverno, Ellis&Williams, Expansion Work
which–maybe not surprisingly–are authored by relativists who studied
at British universities). My earlier Insight ( Relativity on Rotated Graph Explore The Vacuum
Paper [https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-rotated-graph- Fluctuation Myth in
paper/] ) is, in part, my attempt to replace some of the algebra of the k- Quantum Theory
calculus by counting and arithmetic.

/
 PHYSICS
FORUMS
Classical Physics

Atomic and Condensed

Matter

Quantum Physics

Special and General

Relativity

Beyond the Standard

Model

High Energy, Nuclear,

Particle Physics

Astronomy and
Astrophysics

Cosmology

Other Physics Topics

The radar-diagram from Bondi’s pamphlet [corrected version].

RECEIVE
In this Insight, I wish to introduce the Bondi k-calculus, plus some of INSIGHTS
my geometrical insights. ARTICLES TO
YOUR INBOX
(When my audience are students in an introductory course, I would
simplify the presentation given below.) Enter your email
[Admittedly, if you want a quick presentation, the Wikipedia entry is address:
pretty good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondi_k-calculus
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondi_k-calculus] .]

To explain Bondi’s diagram above, let me first describe a more general

Subscribe
situation, with a little extra notation [for clarity].

the k-factor
BLOG
INFORMATION
Become a Member!

Write for Us!

Table of Contents

Blog Author List

POPULAR
TOPICS
/
 astronomy (16)

black holes (15)

classical physics (27)

cosmology (15)

education (21)

electromagnetism (12)

general relativity (16)

gravity (22)

interview (22)

mathematics (25)

mathematics self-study

(16)

Physicist (26)

Physics Career (13)

programming (13)

Quantum Field Theory

In the above diagram, OA and OB are along the worldlines of inertial (31)
observers, Alice and Bob, who met momentarily at event O.
quantum mechanics (30)
Henceforth, we assume that the speed of light is the same for all
inertial observers… and we have chosen units so that all light-signals quantum physics (18)

are drawn at 45-degrees. relativity (28)

Later, Alice broadcasts a 1-hour TV show starting at event A and Special Relativity (13)

ending at event C on her worldline–thus, ΔTAC Alice

= 1 hour. Due to universe (19)
the finite speed of light, there is a delay before Bob starts receiving the
broadcast. Bob receives the transmitted show starting at event B and
ending at event E on his worldline. Since, after event O, Bob and Alice
are steadily separating, it takes longer for the transmission at event C
to arrive at event E, compared to the transmission at event A to arrive
at event B. In other words, it takes longer than 1 hour for Bob to view
Alice’s 1-hour show–Bob views Alice’s 1-hour show in slow motion.

Call this slow-down factor for Bob watching Alice kBob

Alice
. If Bob, at
some distance away, were at rest with respect to Alice, there would still
be a delay for Bob, but the slow-down factor kBob
Alice
would be equal to 1
[no slow down]. The greater the rate of separation, the larger the slow-
down factor. This factor does not depend on when Alice began
broadcasting after event O or how long her broadcast lasted. This
factor depends only on the relative-speed between Alice and Bob. That
is, kBob
Alice
is a proportionality constant. (Mathematically, think
“scaling”… or “similar triangles”. Physically, think “ratio of the period of
reception by the receiver to the period of transmission of the source”…
“Doppler factor”.)
/
Analogously, when Bob broadcasts a show to Alice, she views it in
slow motion with slow-down factor kAlice
Bob
. By the Principle of Relativity,
these factors must be equal. So, let us refer to these factors as simply
k (and henceforth refer to it as the k-factor relating these observers).

So, how does one measure k?

Radar Diagram for k2

If we knew the period between the tickmarks of Bob’s wristwatch along
Bob’s worldline, we could determine k. Either we ask Bob how long it
took to watch Alice’s 1-hour show, or we ask Bob to broadcast a 1-hour
show and ask Alice how long it took for her to watch it. However, often
the situation is that we don’t know the period between Bob’s ticks–one
has to calibrate Bob’s wristwatch.

We demonstrate a radar method that Alice can use, which uses her
wristwatch and radar signals she sends to and receives from Bob.
Alice broadcasts her 1-hour show to Bob, who immediately
rebroadcasts [or passively reflects] it back to Alice. So, Alice watches
her originally broadcasted 1-hour show in super-slow-motion… with
factor k2 .

/
So, the ratio of reflected-reception period to transmission period is
Alice 2 Alice
ΔT k ΔT
MN AC
=
2
= k , which is independent of ΔTAC
Alice
and
Alice Alice
ΔT ΔT
AC AC

event A. (Note the similarity of △ABM and △CEN .)

Now, let’s simplify to Bondi’s diagram by starting the broadcast at event

O and ending at event C [effectively moving events A, B, and M to
coincide with event O].

Interpreting k and Calculating with

k
→ using
To interpret k in more familiar terms, Alice measures vector OE
a radar method to assign (t,x)-coordinates to distant event E on Bob’s
worldline. [The set of radar events (C and N ) for Alice to measure
event E is determined by the intersection of Alice’s inertial worldline
and the light-cone of event E. Alice chooses an origin event O on her
worldline, which is often the separation event for convenience.]

/
We provide the calculations here. (For details, consult
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondi_k-
calculus#Radar_measurements_and_velocity
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondi_k-
calculus#Radar_measurements_and_velocity] or my Insight Relativity
on Rotated Graph Paper
[https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-rotated-graph-
paper/] )

Alice assigns an elapsed time ΔtOE as average of her radar

times (half the sum of) ΔtON and ΔtOC .
(This defines an event P on Alice’s worldline that Alice regards as
simultaneous with distant event E. That is, for Alice, ΔtOP = ΔtOE .
Geometrically, P is the midpoint of segment CN—although this wasn’t
drawn accurately in Bondi’s diagram.)

1 2
ΔtOE = (k T + T )
2

The spatial distance ΔxOE is half of the round-trip time (half the
difference), times the speed of light c,

1 2
ΔxOE = c(k T – T )
2

(For Alice, this means that ΔxOE = ΔxP E and thus,

/
 → →
OE = OP + P E→ ,
→ and P→E are along Alice’s time- and space-axes [and are
where OP
thus Minkowski-perpendicular]. )

The [constant] velocity is therefore

1 2 2
ΔxOE c(k T – T ) k − 1
2
V = = = c
1 2 2
ΔtOE (k T + T ) k + 1
2

Rather than solve the above velocity equation for k, let us add and
subtract the expressions for elapsed time and spatial distance to get k:

Δx 2
Δt + = k T
c

Δx
Δt − = T,
c

→ ,
which expresses the radar times on Alice’s worldline to measure OE
in terms of the elapsed time and spatial distance (that is, the time- and
→ according to Alice).
space-components of OE

These are related to “light-cone coordinates“, the coordinates in the

eigenbasis of the Lorentz Transformation. In my convention,
Δu = Δt +
Δx

c
and Δv = Δt −
Δx

c
. So, these equations be
rewritten as

2
Δu = k T

Δv = T ,

The k-factor is an eigenvalue of the Lorentz Transformation. [See my

earlier insight for details: Relativity Variables: Velocity, Doppler-Bondi k,
and Rapidity [https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-
variables-velocity-doppler-bondi-k-rapidity/] .]

By division [or by eliminating T ],

Δx Δx
Δu Δt + 1 + 1 + (V /c)
2 c cΔt
k = = = = ,
Δx Δx
Δv Δt − 1 − 1 − (V /c)
c cΔt

we recognize that the k-factor is the Doppler factor

1 + (V /c)
k = √ .
1 − (V /c)

By multiplication, we obtain an interesting expression of the square-

→ [on Bob’s worldline] in terms of a Pythagorean-
magnitude of OE
/
 like combination involving k and Alice’s Δt and (Δx/c) and her T
(which we have made explicit):

2
Alice
2 Δx
Alice OE Alice 2
ΔuΔv = (Δt ) − ( ) = (kAlice,Bob T ) ,
OE
c

Using ΔtBob
OE
= kAlice,Bob T
Alice
, we have

2
Alice
2 Δx
Alice OE Bob 2
ΔuΔv = (Δt ) − ( ) = (Δt ) ,
OE OE
c

where the expression on the right depends on Bob’s measurements

alone [not Alice’s].
→ ,
This suggests that if another observer, (say) Carol, measures OE
her components would satisfy an expression of the same form. That
is,

2
Carol
2 Δx
Carol Carol Carol OE Bob 2
Δu Δv = (Δt ) − ( ) = (Δt ) .
OE OE
c

→ , the expression
In other words, for any observer measuring OE
obs 2
2 Δx
Δu
obs
OE
Δv
obs
OE
or equivalently (Δtobs
OE
) − (
c
OE
) is an invariant,

independent of observer. This is called the “squared-interval of

→ ”, denoted by Δs
OE
2
.
OE

It was observed by N.D Mermin (“Space-time intervals as light

rectangles,” N. D. Mermin, Am. J. Phys. 66, 1077–1080 (1998);
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.19047
[https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.19047] ) that the Doppler factor k and
the square-interval Δs2OE describe the aspect-ratio Δu

Δv
and the
area ΔuΔvof the “causal diamond” of OE. This was the
inspiration of my AJP article (“Relativity on rotated graph paper,”
Roberto B. Salgado, Am. J. Phys. 84, 344-359 (2016);
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4943251
[https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4943251] ). See also my Relativity of
Rotated Graph Paper Insight
[https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-rotated-graph-
paper/] for details.

Formulas for Velocity Composition

and the Lorentz Transformation
/
Bondi, in his Relativity and Common Sense
(archive.org/details/RelativityCommonSense
[https://archive.org/details/RelativityCommonSense] ), derives the
Velocity Composition and Lorentz Transformation formulas. We’ll
switch to Bondi’s names: Alfred, Brian, and Edgar.

velocity composition

From Bondi’s diagram above, if Alfred broadcasts a T = 1 -hour show,

Brian watches that in kAlf red T hours (called kT in the diagram). If
Brian

Edgar watches Brian’s instant rebroadcast, it takes Edgar

Edgar
k
Brian
(k
Brian

Alf red
T) hours (called k′ kT in the diagram), which could be
thought of as Edgar watching Alfred’s original T = 1 -hour show in
Edgar Edgar Edgar
k
Alf red
T hours. Thus, kAlf red T = k
Brian
(k
Brian

Alf red
T) , which implies
this multiplicative relation of k-factors

Edgar Edgar Brian

k = k k .
Alf red Brian Alf red

Edgar 2 Edgar Brian 2

(k ) − 1 (k k ) − 1
Edgar Alf red Brian Alf red
Since VAlf red = c = c
Edgar 2 Edgar Brian 2
(k ) + 1 (k k ) + 1
Alf red Brian Alf red

and
Edgar Brian
1 + V /c 1 + V /c
Edgar 2 Brian Brian 2 Alf red
(k
Brian
) =
Edgar
and (kAlf red ) =
Brian
,
1 − V /c 1 − V /c
Brian Alf red

we obtain

Edgar Brian
V + V
Edgar Brian Alf red
V = .
Alf red Edgar Brian 2
1 + V V /c
Brian Alf red
/
(Sorry, if it looks cluttered… but, in this case, I think it’s better than ‘, ”,
and unprimed. In a calculation by hand, I used initials instead of full
names.)

Lorentz Transformation

From Bondi’s diagram above, we have two inertial observers doing a

radar experiment to assign coordinates to a distant event. Note the
intersections of their worldlines with the lightcone of the distant event.
Bondi has absorbed the factor of c into the units of distance.

Restoring the factors of c, we have in rectangular and light-cone

coordinates:

′
x x
′ ′
(t + ) = k(t + ) u = ku
c c

′
x x
′ ′
(t − ) = k(t − ) v = kv
c c

Putting the primed quantities (Brian’s measurements) on the left, we

have

′
x 1 x 1
′ ′
(t + ) = (t + ) u = u
c k c k

′
x x
′ ′
(t − ) = k(t − ) v = kv
c c

By multiplication, the k-factors cancel to display the invariance of the

square-interval
/
 ′ 2
x x 2
′2 2 ′ ′
t − ( ) = t − ( ) u v = uv.
c c

By addition and subtraction, we can solve the system of equations for

t
′
and x′ :
′ ′
′
x ′
x 1 x x
(t + ) + (t − ) = (t + ) + k(t − )
c c k c c
′
x
−1 −1
2t = (k + k)t + (k − k)
c
−1 −1
′
k + k k − k x x
t = ( )t − ( ) = (γ)t– (γV )
2 2 c c

′ ′
x x 1 x x
′ ′
(t + )\colorred−(t − ) = (t + )\colorred−k(t − )
c c k c c
′
x
−1 −1
2 = (k \colorred−k)t + (k \colorred+
c
′ −1
x k\colorred−k k\colorred
= ( )t − (
c 2 2

V
1+
where k = √
c

V
and γ =
1
.
1− V 2
c √ 1−( )
c

These relationships between k, V , and γ are possibly less obscure

when one recognizes that k = e
θ
,V = c tanh θ , and
θ −θ

γ =
e +e

2
= cosh θ , where θ is the rapidity[-angle]. [See my earlier
insight for details: Relativity Variables: Velocity, Doppler-Bondi k, and
Rapidity [https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-variables-
velocity-doppler-bondi-k-rapidity/] .]

So, in Bondi’s method, special relativity [in (1+1)-dimensions] can be

developed, with physical interpretation and relatively-simple arithmetic,
from k (the Doppler factor). Note that the square-roots may appear at
the end of a calculation if one wishes to express things in terms of V
instead of k.

Further Reading
“Relativity and Common Sense” Hermann Bondi (Dover, 1962);
available at archive.org/details/RelativityCommonSense
[https://archive.org/details/RelativityCommonSense] .

“E=mc2: Thinking Relativity Through”, a series of ten lectures by

Hermann Bondi on BBC TV running from Oct 5 to Dec 7, 1963. [Are
these accessible online?]
http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbctv/1963-10-05
[http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbctv/1963-10-05]

“E=mc2: An Introduction to Relativity”, Hermann Bondi

[a pamphlet that accompanies the BBC broadcast]
(www.worldcat.org/title/emc2-an-introduction-to-

/
relativity/oclc/156217827 [https://www.worldcat.org/title/emc2-an-
introduction-to-relativity/oclc/156217827] ) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondi_k-calculus
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondi_k-calculus]

“Space-time intervals as light rectangles,” N. D. Mermin,

Am. J. Phys. 66, 1077–1080 (1998); http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.19047
[https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.19047]

“Relativity on rotated graph paper,” Roberto B. Salgado,

Am. J. Phys. 84, 344-359 (2016); http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4943251
[https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4943251]
[see also the references within]

my related Insights:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-variables-velocity-
doppler-bondi-k-rapidity/
[https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-variables-velocity-
doppler-bondi-k-rapidity/]
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-rotated-graph-paper/
[https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-rotated-graph-
paper/]

robphy
[https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/robphy/]
Professor of Physics (BS,MS,PhD), Math (BS). Interested in relativity,
physics, mathematics, computation, physics pedagogy.

Tags: relativity

Share this entry

     

You might also like

Learn A Learn A The The

Short Short Einstein Einstein
Proof of Field
Proof of Field
Birkhoff’s Equation
Theorem Birkhoff’s in a Static, Equation
Theorem Spherically in a Static,
Symmetric
Spherically
Spacetime
/
 Symmetric
Spacetime

Is
Struggles
Pressure Is Struggles
with the
A Pressure with the
Continuum:
Source
A Source General Continuum:
Of
Relativity
Gravity? Of General
Gravity? Relativity

Learn the Learn the Slowly Slowly

Relativistic Lowering
Work- Relativistic Lowering
an Object
Kinetic Work- in a Static, an Object
Energy Kinetic Spherically in a Static,
Theorem Symmetric
Energy Spherically
Spacetime
Theorem Symmetric
Spacetime

Ibix
June 21, 2017 at 7:41 am
michall

There is a circularity in the idea of measuring the speed of

light: to measure the speed you need synchronized clocks;
but you can't get distant clocks synchronized unless you
know the speed of light.The one-way speed of light, yes.
That's why it's the two-way speed that is considered
invariant. The one-way speed is conventionally assumed to
be equal to the two-way speed, but there's no way to test
this.

michall

The only way out of it, says Einstein, is to assume (stipulate)

that the time it takes light to go from A to B = the time it takes
to go from B to A.A way out of it. I derived some of the maths
for inertial frames assuming otherwise here. It's not difficult,
just ugly.

michall

Some scientists and philosophers take the "1/2" to be a

variable, as if it were an arbitrary choice among a range of
other possible values, making the definition into a
convention. But there are no other possible, ie. empirically
determinable, values,Not quite; there are no empirically
/
determinable values for the one way speed of light – that's
why it's a convention. Choosing another value is simply
choosing a different coordinate system in spacetime. Most
people don't do it for inertial frames because it's ugly,
unintuitive, makes the maths more complex, and adds
nothing over the simple symmetric assumption – but there is
nothing preventing it.

michall

and because it is a one clock measurement of a round-trip,

the constancy of the speed of the sigal follows as a logical
inference.Why do you think that this doesn't apply to one
clock measurements of the round-trip speed of a ball? Or a
sound wave? What's special about light that there is a
"logical identity" with its behaviour but nothing else?

Mister T
June 21, 2017 at 2:33 am
michall

There is a circularity in the idea of measuring the speed of

light: to measure the speed you need synchronized clocks;
but you can't get distant clocks synchronized unless you
know the speed of light. It's a logical circle.My desk has a
width of 0.500 000 000 m. I shall send a pulse of light from
one end to the other and have it reflect back to arrive at the
source. The time it took was f rac1299792458 seconds. I
therefore measure the speed of light to be 299 792 458 m/s.

There was nothing circular in the logic, and there was no

synchronization of clocks. I used only one clock!

michall
June 20, 2017 at 8:23 pm

There is a circularity in the idea of measuring the speed of

light: to measure the speed you need synchronized clocks;
but you can't get distant clocks synchronized unless you
know the speed of light. It's a logical circle. The only way out
of it, says Einstein, is to assume (stipulate) that the time it
takes light to go from A to B = the time it takes to go from B
to A. Now that is how Einstein originally put it, and it makes it
sound like an assumption and a matter of convention, which
happily, fortuitously, agrees with the actual behavior of light
signals. That is not the right way to put it: the language is old
/
fashioned and betrays the thought, which is that the only way
to synchronize distant clocks, A and B, is the one-clock
method of sending a signal from A to B and back again and
taking half of the interval of time and adding it to the start
time at A to get the time at B (in accordance with the
definition). Some scientists and philosophers take the "1/2"
to be a variable, as if it were an arbitrary choice among a
range of other possible values, making the definition into a
convention. But there are no other possible, ie. empirically
determinable, values, because of the logical conundrum
above. If there are other way–slow transport is rubbish–they
will be logically equivalent to Einstein's, if they are valid,
because E. has the concept of simultaneity down pat. It is
reflexive, symmetrical, and transitive–the logical form of
identity of time–and because it is a one clock measurement
of a round-trip, the constancy of the speed of the sigal
follows as a logical inference. That's why E. was not
surprised at all by the non-outcome of Michelson-Morely.

Mister T
June 20, 2017 at 6:37 pm
michall

It is a bit of logic that has to do with the only possible way of

synchronizing (distant) clocks and measuring time.Taking
advantage of the fact that the speed of light is invariant is not
the only way to synchronize spatially separated clocks. And
it's not necessary for measuring time. Time is a physical
quantity. Synchronization of spatially separated clocks is a
convention. There are many ways to do it. Some are
equivalent and some aren't.

Ibix
June 20, 2017 at 4:48 pm
michall

So he made the assumption

This puts it in the wrong light. Einstein was quite explicit: the
constancy of the speed of light is not an assumption (an
hypothesis or an empirical generalization). It is a bit of logic
that has to do with the only possible way of synchronizing
(distant) clocks and measuring time. It is a conceptual
necessity, not a fact about the nature of light.I'm not quite
sure what you mean by this. In his 1905 paper Einstein calls
the constancy of the speed of light a "principle", although it's
/
more often referred to as a "postulate". Either way, it's
something he assumed. It's the basis of his reasoning, yes,
and it isn't necessary for light to travel at the invariant speed
for there to be an invariant speed. But neither fact makes
Einstein's postulates anything other than postulates.

michall
June 20, 2017 at 2:00 pm
Ibix

About forty years before Einstein, Maxwell published

equations describing electromagnetism. One solution to the
equations was a wave, which turned out to have the
properties of light. One weird thing was that the speed of the
wave came out the same always. Naturally everyone
assumed that the equations weren't quite right and the hunt
was on to find the problem.

The next forty years were a bit confusing as no one could

find anthing wrong. Experiments that were expected to help
(e.g. Michelson and Morley) didn't work as predicted, but did
provide some ad hoc patches. Einstein had the insight that if
the (apparently daft) prediction that light always travels at the
same speed for all inertial observers was correct then he
could explain all of the confusion. So he made the
assumption.So he made the assumption
This puts it in the wrong light. Einstein was quite explicit: the
constancy of the speed of light is not an assumption (an
hypothesis or an empirical generalization). It is a bit of logic
that has to do with the only possible way of synchronizing
(distant) clocks and measuring time. It is a conceptual
necessity, not a fact about the nature of light.

leader
May 19, 2017 at 5:53 am

The theory of special relativity was derived from a simple fact

based on the right triangle as follows :
Imagine a light signal is sent from a point to an observer
moving with a velocity "v". This signal will be received by this
observer moving with velocity "v" after a time delay with
respect to the initial position of this observer that forms the
hypotenus of the right triangle on which the velocity of light
"c" is the same as the one of the right sides of the right
triangle while for the other right side the velocity of the
/
observer is "v". If you multiply these velocities with the same
time difference "dt", addition of squares of the two right sides
would be greater than the square of the hypotenus that
would violate the pytogoran theorem for which it becomes
necessary to denominate the time intervals with different
indices as : :
(cdt*)^2 = (vdt*)^2 + (cdt)^2 which after a simple algebra
becomes dt* = dt / [ 1 – (v/c)^2 ]^1/2

robphy
May 4, 2017 at 9:34 pm
bahamagreen

Alice's movie is seen by Bob to be in slow motion, and Bob's

movie is seen by Alice to be in slow motion. That is similar to
SR in which Alice's and Bob's clocks would measure to each
other to run slow … but all your diagrams are presenting the
case of increasing separation of the inertial travelers.

To the degree that the diagram tends to suggest that movie

duration is a proxy for time dilation… it looks like it only
works with cases of increasing separation, not cases of
approach. Students would notice this…These viewings of
movies are not proxies for time-dilation… they are
descriptions of the Doppler effect for light.
For observers receding from each other, each observes a
"redshift" (or, in the case for sound, a lowering of frequency).
For observers approaching each other, each observes a
"blueshift" (or, in the case for sound, a raising of frequency).
In some sense, the Doppler Effect needs the time-dilation
factor in order to satisfy the principles of relativity.
Indeed, in the derivation of receding sources and receding
receivers,
one gets expressions involving the sound-Doppler factor and
the time-dilation factor:
gamma(1 + beta) = lef t(f rac1sqrt(1 − beta)(1 + beta)righ

and
f rac1gammalef t(f rac11 − betaright) = lef t(sqrt(1 − beta

It might be useful to point out a distinction between time-

dilation and the Doppler effect for light.
For two inertial observers Alice and Bob that met at event O,

time-dilation involves two spacelike-

related events,
say "event P on Alice's worldline" and "event
/
 Q on Bob's worldline that Alice says is
simultaneous with P"
(so, vecP Q is a purely-spatial displacement
vector according to Alice… it is Minkowski-
perpendicular to vecOP ).

Doppler-effect involves two lightlike-

related events,
say "event P on Alice's worldline" and "event
S on Bob's worldline which is in the lightlike-
future of P"
(so, vecP S is a future-lightlike displacement
vector).

bahamagreen

If these movies were youtube videos, there would be a time

indicator rolling at the bottom of the screen, so for example,
both Alice and Bob could see that Alice's movie indicates
that it starts at 00:00:00 and increments to 00:60:00 at the
end. Although Bob can't necessarily "view Alice's clock" , he
can see by the video time index that in comparison to his
own clock her video is running slow… suggesting that her
time is slower relative to his (and likewise his to hers when
he sends video to her).

When Alice and Bob approach each other, it looks like Bob is
going to see Alice's movie running faster (shorter time), and
Bob's movie will be seen by Alice to be running faster… so
this is not similar to SR which would maintain that each
measure each others clocks running slow.In the case of
approaching, one has a diagram like this [based on reflecting
the original diagram from the Insight]:
View attachment 198701
where I have used a "factor" kappa (kappa).
So, as you said, Bob would view Alice's T-hour broadcast
"sped up", in only kappaT hours (where kappa < 1 ).
By similar triangles,
displaystylef rackappaT T = f rackT k T
2
, which implies
that kappa = f rac1k .
Note that since k = sqrtf rac1 + beta1 − beta ,
we have kappa = f rac1k = sqrtf rac1 − beta1 + beta ,
which is the original expression for "k" with "velocity −beta".
Thus, there's no need to use kappa… "receding and
approaching" are handled by k.

Mister T
/
May 4, 2017 at 9:05 pm
bahamagreen

To the degree that the diagram tends to suggest that movie

duration is a proxy for time dilation… it looks like it only
works with cases of increasing separation, not cases of
approach. Students would notice this…That's difference
between "see" and "observe". We see Doppler shifted light
as it enters our eyes in the same way as we see the movie
running slow as its images enter our eyes.

But if you want to observe what is really happening you have

to allow for the light travel time. That will lead you to time
dilation.

Note that even for the case of increasing separation the time
dilation factor is not the same as the Doppler factor.

If the relative speed is beta then the time dilation factor is

(1 − beta )
2 f rac12
whereas the Doppler factor is
big(f rac1 + beta1 − betabig)
pmf rac12
.

bahamagreen
May 4, 2017 at 4:49 am

Alice's movie is seen by Bob to be in slow motion, and Bob's

movie is seen by Alice to be in slow motion. That is similar to
SR in which Alice's and Bob's clocks would appear to each
other to run slow … but all your diagrams are presenting the
case of increasing separation of the inertial travelers.

To the degree that the diagram tends to suggest that movie

duration is a proxy for time dilation… it looks like it only
works with cases of increasing separation, not cases of
approach. Students would notice this…

If these movies were youtube videos, there would be a time

indicator rolling at the bottom of the screen, so for example,
both Alice and Bob could see that Alice's movie indicates
that it starts at 00:00:00 and increments to 00:60:00 at the
end. Although Bob can't necessarily "view Alice's clock" , he
can see by the video time index that in comparison to his
own clock her video is running slow… suggesting that her
time is slower relative to his (and likewise his to hers when
he sends video to her).

When Alice and Bob approach each other, it looks like Bob is
going to see Alice's movie running faster (shorter time), and
Bob's movie will be seen by Alice to be running faster… so

/
this is not similar to SR which would maintain that each see
each others clocks running slow.

Ibix
May 3, 2017 at 9:56 am

About forty years before Einstein, Maxwell published

equations describing electromagnetism. One solution to the
equations was a wave, which turned out to have the
properties of light. One weird thing was that the speed of the
wave came out the same always. Naturally everyone
assumed that the equations weren't quite right and the hunt
was on to find the problem.

The next forty years were a bit confusing as no one could

find anthing wrong. Experiments that were expected to help
(e.g. Michelson and Morley) didn't work as predicted, but did
provide some ad hoc patches. Einstein had the insight that if
the (apparently daft) prediction that light always travels at the
same speed for all inertial observers was correct then he
could explain all of the confusion. So he did.

skanskan
May 3, 2017 at 9:41 am

Why does he assume the velocity of light is the same for all
inertial observers?

robphy
April 12, 2017 at 7:19 pm

Thanks. I was torn between making it as elementary as

possible for a beginner (which would only be a tweak on
Bondi or just the equations already provided by Wikipedia) or
making clarifications and connections to geometry (the
logical next step).

pervect
April 12, 2017 at 6:21 pm

Thanks for posting this. A lot of times I want to refer people

to Bondi's approach, as I also feel it's one of the best
elementary treatments for the person new to relativity. I can

/
and do refer interested people to his book, but it's nice to
have a more accessible source.

houlahound
April 12, 2017 at 4:01 am

Yeah like anyone would click those links.

Jacky_Nine Sky
April 12, 2017 at 3:56 am

Preface to <<The Theory of Nature’s Mystery>> – The

Paradox of the Basic Unit of the Universe
The basic unit of the universe, it is the composition material
of any natural existence, the atoms, molecules, electrons,
ions, photons etc particles of all substances . What is the
basic unit of our universe? This is a problem that has
plagued mankind for thousands of years. Formerly people
brought up the atomism, but later it has been discovered that
the atom can be split, and now it has been demolished to the
quark, and the theory of chord can be made, but for the
understanding of the basic unit of the universe become more
uncertain, and even denied its existence.
However, the basic unit of the universe is necessary! If there
is no basic unit, with "no" can be combined into all exist?
While it is unclear what it is, since it is real, we first name it
as X.
Paradox 1: If the universe is composed of numerous X, then
is there gap between any two X? If there is no gap, all X will
lose the movement space, but also may produce fusion, the
whole universe has become a static big X, if there is a gap,
which space is composed of what material?
If we call this gap material is “Y”, then is there gap between
any two Y? If there is no gap, Y becomes ether, if there is a
gap, then the gap between Y will be named Z … …, which
fell into an infinite loop, because the ether proved to be non-
existent, then we have to find some Something to fill the gap
between X, but this gap cycle is no end.
Paradox 2: the basic unit of the universe X must be able to
exercise, otherwise there will be no movement in the
universe. Where is the power of X from ? There is a saying
that the high-dimensional film caused by the X-movement,
where is the power of the membrane from? What is the
reason that what energy leads to the movement of the
membrane? What is the principle if the reason and energy
/
are intrinsic of the membrane? If it is outside the membrane,
whether it is necessary to introduce the movement outside
the membrane? What is the principle that reason and energy
for the movement of the membrane, … this is another infinite
cycle!
Paradox 3: Is the movement of the basic unit X of the
universe orderly or disorderly? If it is disorderly, why the
composition of the macro by the X, the movement is orderly?
Put ten thousand crazy together, can form a neat pace of
parade team? If the movement of X is orderly, what is the
order of this order? What is the cause of the order? The
reason is external or internal? What is the reason for the
inner reason? If the external reason … … this is an infinite
cycle!

To solve the idea of the paradox: the key to cracking is

that we must realize that X composed by at least two
different things from the nature! One thing is A and the other
is B. Because the nature of A and B is different, so many of
the basic unit of the universe will not be integrated into a
large X.
A and B have excellent plasticity, can be arbitrarily change
their shape according to external circumstances, so there is
no gap existed.
There must be a power function between A and B, according
to the phenomenon analysis of nature, A and B have the
phenomenon of "homogeneous repulsion, heterogeneous
absorption “, it is the function of gravity and repulsion, so that
X has a movement.
X is bound to do the orderly movement, although in the
quantum state, this order is not obvious, but due to a large
number of quantum polymerization become into large
objects, then numerous small order to complete the
quantitative change to qualitative change, so it is
performance for orderly state on the macro.
Verification of the idea: "level double watches" test — take
two very sophisticated watches, after calibration, one put in
the cave, one put on the out of cave, keep the position of two
watches at level. After a period of time (depending on the
precision of the clock), you will find that the watch go fast in
the cave, and the another watch go slow out of the cave
Attached: Horizontal double watches test

Relativism derives two phenomena about time: moving clock

running slow and low clock running slow. Its verification is as
follows:
Moving clocks running slow: In 1971, physicists placed the
high accurate atomic clock on the plane around the world,
/
and then compared with the clock that put same accurate
atomic clock as plane on the ground. The results verified: the
time on the plane was slower than in the lab. According to
Einstein's theory of relativity, when the speed of the
movement is faster, then the time go speed is slower.
Low clock running slow: the physicists of the Unite State
America National Institute of Standards and Technology used
to a pair of most accurate atomic clocks of the world. In one
experiment, the researcher placed two atomic clocks on two
table, and then the researcher raised the table face by 33cm
than another table, and found The atomic clock runs more
slow in the low position than high position, and slow about 90
billion of a second in 79 years. This result demonstrates that
Einstein's closer to the source of gravity, the time is going
more slow.
In this case, two precise atomic clocks (such as clock used
low clock running slow in test ), according to the theory of
relativity in the same speed and same height, , two watches
will not produce difference in fast and slow. But is that so?
You can design a horizontal double watches test to study this
problem. As below picture:

Choose a hillside, first burst into a platform of more than10

square meter, and then at the bottom of the platform along
the horizontal direction drill a mouth more than 10 meters
deep across well in the mountain, a person go in the well,
and detect whether have the radiation in the well.
prepare two precision watches, named A and B. Take one of
them, placed in the well and another placed outside of the
well to the weighing (in order to exclude "space-time
distortion”, and there may be exist differences), if no
abnormalities, record the temperature inside the well.
take a 10-meter-long steel pipe, one end of the steel pipe
placed A watch, the other end placed B watch,after
proofreaded time, put the steel pipe into the wells about eight
or nine meters and in a level position with leveling. Finally,
use the multi-layer heavy metal plate to closed well mouth.
The watch that stay outside the hole covered by the seal
box, so that the temperature, humidity, magnetic field etc
keep the same as inside hole, the experimental steps to
complete. After a period of time, compared to AB two
watches go time, measure the experimental results.
Forecast: the watch outside the hole go slower than the
watch in the hole.
Two watches at the same state of motion and the same
horizontal position, according to the theory of relativity, the
two watches should be the same time. What reason cause /
the difference? <<The Theory of Nature’s Mystery>>
elucidated the "complex particle" theory can be explained,
see the original. This test is very simple, but the significance
is extremely important. If successful, mankind will explore the
true face of the ultimate unit of the universe, thus recognizing
the fundamental structure of the universe and the mode of
movement.
Need the original text of <<The Theory of Nature’s
Mystery>>, please send email to

1577386889@qq.com
Attn: Jiu Tian Ling Yu
More information, please click the link:

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_72a90e010102wrst.html

houlahound
April 11, 2017 at 8:33 pm

Please keep us posted, I will enjoy following your work.

robphy
April 11, 2017 at 5:15 pm

Any approach I use must use the spacetime diagram

because I think it is difficult to represent the relativity-of-
simultaneity using boxcars as "moving frames of reference".

Any approach I use must use radar methods

to motivate measurements and the assignment of
coordinates.
I think radar methods are more straightforward than lattices
of "clocks" and "rods".
(For inertial motions in special relativity, they are equivalent.
However, for more general motions in special and general
relativity, they may differ….
and would require more advanced discussion to address.)

In my opinion, the Bondi k-calculus method (with its

emphasis on radar measurements) is the best starting point,
especially for algebra-based physics. With the k-calculus
methods, the standard textbook formulas are straightforward
to derive and fall out naturally.

A related but even less well known approach by Geroch (in

his General Relativity from A to B) is also a good starting
point. Geroch uses radar methods to emphasize the square-
interval and give operational interpretations of the geometry
/
 of spacetime (e.g., what simultaneity means to an observer)
in both Special Relativity and Galilean Relativity. My AJP
article (which inspired the Insight
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-rotated-
graph-paper/ ) was my attempt to combine Bondi's and
Geroch's approaches.

From here, I would go on to develop the geometry of

Minkowski spacetime, while comparing and contrasting with
Euclidean geometry, using the [unappreciated] geometry of
Galilean spacetime (e.g.,
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ti58l2sair … play with the
E-slider) …something I call "Spacetime Trigonometry", a
large ongoing project with many aspects which generates
lots of posters for me at AAPT meetings. (I should really
write this up soon… but it would have to be broken into a
series of AJP articles.) These are examples of Cayley-Klein
geometries, which includes the deSitter spacetimes.. This
"unification" can help formalize the numerous analogies
mentioned in the literature. In addition, I can develop vector
and tensorial methods (algebraically, graphically, and
geometrically) in order to make contact with traditional
intermediate and advanced presentations of relativity.

houlahound
April 11, 2017 at 8:42 am

To the author, you have exposed different approaches to this

body of knowledge. What approach or ways would you use
and sequence say for undergraduate instruction.

houlahound
April 10, 2017 at 11:13 pm

Great insight.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

© Copyright 2020 - Physics Forums Insights - Contact Us - Privacy Policy - About PF Insights   