Talk:Time dilation

Clarification on clock gif

I'm not a physicist, but I don't completely see how the Nonsymmetric velocity time dilation.gif in the article relates to time dilation. Regardless of whether the red clock revolves around the blue one or is stationary, the red clock has a period of 6 seconds, and the blue one has a period of 3 seconds. So, because the blue clock is twice as fast, every 6 seconds both clocks will be aligned once more. What does this have to do with time dilation? In this image the speed of the dials of the red and blue clocks have nothing to do with the fact that the blue clock is stationary and the red is revolving around it.

Albatronix (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the place where we discuss the article, not the subject. The place to ask questions about the subject is the wp:Reference desk/Science. See wp:Talk page guidelines. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing archive ?

Why is 2017 archive for time dilation missing ? Chessfan (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Pointers added now . - DVdm (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

About twin paradox

The article explanation about twin paradox is that the earth brother will only experience negligible acceleration, due to rotation and revolution of Earth. In twin paradox page something more intuitive is provided, that the turnover acceleration of the traveling twin makes the difference. I assume that the rotation and revolution of the earth, as explanation, is not only a special case but also it presupposes something useless. It presupposes that the traveling twin direction is perpendicular to the rotation axis or parallel to the plain of revolution. I am a biologist not a physicist, so someone more qualified can explain me.Vardos (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Explanations about this can be on-topic at our wp:Reference desk/Science. Here we discuss the article, not its content. See wp:Talk page guidelines. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This criticism appears to be a misapplication of wikipedia rules. The question is directly relevant to the article, and the article is nothing but its content. To argue that users cannot discuss article content would seem to imply that article content can only be changed, and that no discussion about such content can ever take place. This is clearly not the intent of any reasonable set of participation rules. In fact, the Talk page guidelines explicitly say "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Regarding the initial question, it seems directly relevant to the article, since the explanation currently provided implies, I assume incorrectly, that only differences in acceleration are important in the twin paradox. As the 2013-11-26 version of the article says:

The dilemma posed by the paradox, however, can be explained by the fact that the traveling twin must markedly accelerate in at least three phases of the trip (beginning, direction change, and end), while the other will only experience negligible acceleration, due to rotation and revolution of Earth. During the acceleration phases of the space travel, time dilation is not symmetric.

If only differential acceleration mattered, any acceleration (assuming one could deal with the likely fatality such acceleration would cause to any human twin) to some high % of C, turn-around, and deceleration to again match velocity with the "stationary" twin should be sufficient to induce the same time dilation of a longer term journey. Yet it is my understanding that the length of time the traveling twin actually travels at near C is the primary determining factor in observable time dilation. Assuming that no far weirder effects of relativistic travel than I have read/heard are operating (such that, for example, a 100 year journey at .99999999 C creates the same time dilation as a 1 year journey at .99999999 C), the example given is at the very least incomplete. The earlier observation by Vardos seems directly relevant to the article. LUxlii (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The acceleration explanation is not true, according to FermiLab's Don Lincolm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4 LosD (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Edge of the universe

Paragraph 2 of Time dilation#Velocity time dilation says “At a constant 1 g traveling up to 0.99999999 c it would take 30 years to reach the edge of the universe 13.5 billions lightyears away. [13]” But I thought that there’s a symmetry feature of the universe such that no place is the “edge” of the universe. Should this be reworded? Loraof (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

They probably meant the edge of the the entire known Universe, as it is expressed in the previous—better worded and sourced—sentence. I have removed the repeated poorly youtube-sourced sentence. - DVdm (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I also removed the remainder of that sentence, per less relevant and unsourced. - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Velocity time dilation

The statement in the Velocity time dilation section of Sergei Krikalev that "He gained 22.68 milliseconds of lifetime" seems incorrect. Krikalev gained no lifetime from his own perspective, but his idiosyncratic reference frame slowed such that his clock is that much behind a stationary clock. Perhaps it should be reworded to something like "He is 22.68 milliseconds younger than he would have been had he stayed stationary on Earth." Alas, I am far from sufficiently versed in relativistic time effects to be comfortable making such a change without some discussion attempt first. LUxlii (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done: see [1]. Good suggestion! - DVdm (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)