Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:08, 21 April 2023

Template:Vital article

	Time dilation was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 16, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Relativity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Time High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

October 2005 - October 2005 October 2005 - December 2005 February 2006 - June 2006 July 2006 - September 2006 August 2006 - November 2007 November 2007 - August 2008 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Time contraction

Regarding this reversion, what is this arXiv excuse? What is wrong with a source from American Journal of Physics? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Every once in a while, a bad paper slips through the review process. J. H. Field is a respected experimental physicist who, unfortunately, has turned his hand to theoretical work, publishing in arXiv a series of fringe articles. In arXiv:1405.5174, he says that the Hafele-Keating experiment was incorrectly analyzed and that length contraction is false, thus resolving the Ehrenfest paradox. In arXiv:1307.7962, he claims that length contraction is spurious. In arXiv:1210.2270, he claims that relativity of simultaneity is unphysical. In arXiv:0811.3562, he claims that the conventional analysis of the twin paradox is full of holes. Naturally, he has self-published (arXiv:physics/0612041) an "Einstein was wrong" paper. And so on and so forth. He also has a lot of fringe stuff in arXiv on quantum mechanics. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

... which is one of the many reasons why WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says that "arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable..." - DVdm (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I rephrase the question: On what grounds an article from J. H. Field that is published in American Journal of Physics is deemed as unreliable? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

By reason of the fact that a consensus of Misplaced Pages editors consider it so. WP:RELIABLE provides guidelines, which are interpreted and enforced by Misplaced Pages editors in a consensus process. You will find not find it possible to overturn this consensus, so I would advise you to just drop the matter. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Really? By WP:CCC, I request that you point me to the discussion which establishes that an article from J. H. Field that is published in American Journal of Physics is unreliable. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the discussion. I consider the article, by a known fringe contributor to arXiv, to be unreliable. DVdm also considers it to be unreliable. I suspect that you have some personal stake in seeing the reverted material going into Misplaced Pages, in which case, WP:CONFLICT may bear on this topic. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Not much to be found on the topic: Google Books: mostly off-topic, other wp:FRINGE, so definitely wp:UNDUE here. - DVdm (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I also consider articles by a known fringe contributor (in this case J. H. Field) published at arXiv to be unreliable. Coldcreation (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I ask for the last time here: What does arXiv have anything to do with American Journal of Physics? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated before, occasional mistakes happen in the review process, and bad papers do get published in reputable journals. That is one reason why Misplaced Pages also includes recommendations to avoid primary sources whenever possible, but to instead use mainly secondary sources so that primary source material can be put into proper context.

We have so far, without any attempt at "canvassing" on my part, three editors (including me) who agree that material based on J. H. Fields' work should not be in Misplaced Pages. It will not be allowed in, so give it up. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So you are implying that this source from Am. J. Phys. is unreliable without any reliable source proving this is the case indeed. I propose a compromise: I will use conditional tense, like "Time contraction would be a similar special relativistic effect", to soften the certainty of the claim. If you disagree and feel we have discussed enough, I will continue to the dispute resolution noticeboard. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

By itself, the unconditional would stack wp:original research on top of an wp:unreliable source, making the edit even worse. - DVdm (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess you mean "the conditional would stack". No problem, I will not use conditional. We are not going to reach a compromise. Are we done discussing here? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the conditional, yes. Struck the un. - DVdm (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: anon filed Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Time dilation without notifying community. - DVdm (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: RFC closed: . - DVdm (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It has now been brought to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#J._H._Field_on_American_Journal_of_Physics. Plumbum208 (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor has been extremely persistent in the discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Time contraction --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Time contraction

How should we solve the WP:R#PLA in Time contraction? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• As there is no such thing as time contraction, and as this was discussed here, let's get rid of that redirect. - DVdm (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• From the WP:RFC

Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.

I have seen no prior discussion on the fate of the redirect Time contraction and the proper place to discuss that is at RfD. Consensus at this page and in related discussions seem to fall against including a mention of the idea in this page. The RFC is beginning to look a bit pointy. --Salix alba (talk): 09:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"Time contraction" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Time contraction. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 18#Time contraction until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DVdm (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect was deleted - DVdm (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Combined effect of velocity and gravitational time dilation" has a mislabeled metric

The section on "Combined effect of velocity and gravitational time dilation" claims it is using the Schwarzschild metric, and links to the Schwarzschild metric page, but it looks more like a misformed representation of isotropic coordinates, and it cites a source that uses what the source calls an "ECI frame" which looks like a weak-field Newtonian metric. 5.57.12.217 (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

To me it looks like conforming to the cited sources and like pure Schwarzschild. - DVdm (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Misleading Animation

The animation where the red clock rotates around the blue clock as illustration for special relativistic effects is misleading, since at least one of the two clocks is not part of an inertial system and thus SRT does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.168.158 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

How do you figure? SRT applies to the red clock; the animation shows the effect on that clock compared to the frame of reference of the blue clock. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The red clock is rotating around the blue clock so it is not representing an inertial system and so the SRT approach to time dilation does not apply to the red clock. (Well: Of course also the blue clock could be rotating around the red clock, if we take the red clock to be inertial. However, at least one of the systems is not an inertial system.) Of course, in this situation there also is time dilatation, but it is not a special relativistic effect alone. We have general relativistic effects as well, since acceleration is part of the game (or, locally equivalently, gravitation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.198.2 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You share a common misconception that SRT does not apply to accelerated systems. It does. Where SRT does not apply is in the presence of gravitation. See Spacetime_diagram#Accelerating_observers Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting argument. Agreeing to yours. Mine runs as follows: The red clock is accelerated. By the equivalency principle this acceleration is locally equivalent to a gravitational field. This gravitational field produces a time dilatation. This effect is not predicted by SRT. So while the SRT might mathematically be used (as your citation suggests), the SRT formula will produce an incorrect result. I agree that the SRT can be used. I fear it will produce an incorrect prediction in the scenario we are looking at. Which leaves us with an illustration in the article suggesting a theory which will be delivering a result which is different from current state of the art (which should use ART, despite the fact that SRT does produce a consistent result, different from experiment). Interested in your opinion on this. 87.163.198.2 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

language

Can we read by myanmar subject ? Waiyanaungphyo (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Waiyanaungphyo Looking at the links to the article in other languages (at the top of the article page), this article is available in Bangla and Sinhala. Does that help? —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the forward nature of this kind of time dilation, I would also as do many people like to see a theoretical description of backwards time dilation since this topic has become an interesting point by travel through wormholes or possibly an Alcubiere drive. This of course remains theory how many times the speed of C should one go to travel back in time using a spaceship equiped with an Alcubiere drive if York time concept is non existant. One would as to obide to the law of conservation of energy need to replicate the ships matter except the fuel many rockets are 70 percent fuel and 30 percent matter unless a closed loop engine is used. But in this case nuclear fuel would be used possibly even fusion if attainable since it is more lightweight than fission materials. This of course is strictly theoretical but none the less an aspect that should as theory be added to this time dilation topic, with mention of its theoretic nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.84.243 (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Larmor misquoted

The quote starting "individual electrons describe corresponding.." gives the incorrect equation. From the paper the quote should be "and the individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the latter system in the ratio e^-1/2 or (l — ½v²/c²), while those less advanced in the direction of v are"

In the article text the equation is given as √(1—v²/c²) which is the the inverse of the Lorentz and Einstein equation for gamma 2001:8003:146B:CD00:819A:61CD:C43C:35E1 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of High-importance
• B-Class relativity articles
• Relativity articles
• B-Class Time articles
• High-importance Time articles