Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Time dilation — where it appears

The slowing of a moving or lower-lying clock relative to another, measured by bringing the two together or by exchanging signals. It is reciprocal between two steadily moving observers — each finds the other slow — and the reciprocity is resolved by whose slicing of simultaneity is being used.

Named by 21 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A light clock at β = 0.6. The same clock at rest and moving. Light covers the hypotenuse rather than the height, and since its speed is the same for both observers, the moving clock must take longer to tick.

The clock that has to slow, and why no clock can refuse

One constant speed and one right-angled triangle force a moving clock to tick slower. The argument is Pythagoras, which is what makes it inescapable rather than merely surprising.

relativity · Time dilation Where a clock gains, and where it loses. The rate of a clock in a circular orbit against one on the ground, in microseconds per day, plotted against altitude. Height makes it gain and speed makes it lose, and the two cancel exactly at 3186 km — where a satellite keeps the same time as the ground for two reasons that have nothing to do with each other. At 20200 km the total is 38.5 µs a day, which is about ten kilometres of position error if it is ignored.

The clock that runs slow lower down

Two identical clocks, one on the floor and one on a shelf, do not keep the same time — and the difference is large enough that a satellite navigation system which ignored it would be useless within a morning. The derivation needs nothing but a photon and a conservation law.

astrophysics · Gravitational redshift A spacetime diagram at β = 0.6. Position across, time up, in units where light travels at 45°. The shaded wedges are the future and past reachable by light; the tilted axes belong to an observer moving at 0.6 of the speed of light.

The twin who comes back younger

If motion slows a clock, and motion is relative, each twin should find the other younger — and yet when they meet, one of them has aged less. The asymmetry is not in the speed and not in the acceleration; it is in which worldline is straight.

relativity · Time dilation Three answers where sound has two, and one where it has none. The factor by which an approaching source's frequency is raised, against its speed as a fraction of the wave speed. For sound it matters which of the two is moving: a moving source gives 1/(1 − β) and a moving observer gives 1 + β, and at 0.5 of the wave speed those are 2.000 and 1.500. For light there is one answer, 1.732 — the geometric mean of the other two, exactly — because there is no medium to be moving with respect to. The fourth curve is the transverse shift, which happens at closest approach when the distance is not changing at all: 0.866, and nothing classical predicts it.

The shift that survives at right angles

For sound it matters which of the two is moving, and the two answers differ. For light there is one answer — their geometric mean — and a term with no classical counterpart at all: a source going past at closest approach, with its distance not changing, is still shifted.

relativity · Doppler Two corrections, opposite in sign and different in size. How fast a clock in a circular orbit runs compared with one on the ground, in microseconds a day, against the height of the orbit — with the two effects drawn apart rather than added. Being high speeds a clock up, by an amount that saturates: the potential term is bounded because there is only so much potential to climb out of. Moving slows it down, and a higher orbit is a slower one, so that term shrinks toward zero. They cancel at 3186 km — a radius of exactly 1.5 Earth radii, which follows from setting the sum to zero and contains neither G, nor the Earth's mass, nor the speed of light. At 20200 km the gravitational term is 45.7 µs a day and the speed term −7.2, leaving 38.5. Left uncorrected, that is 11.5 km of position error a day, growing without limit, from a clock that is working perfectly.

The clock that is wrong in two directions

A satellite clock loses 7.2 microseconds a day to its speed and gains 45.9 to its height. The two effects have opposite signs, different sizes and different dependence on the orbit, so there is exactly one altitude where they cancel — and 38.6 microseconds a day, left alone, is eleven and a half kilometres of position error.

relativity · Time dilation How far a 1-gravity ship gets, against its own clock. The distance covered by a ship accelerating steadily at 1 gravity for half the trip and braking for the other half, against the time on its own clock, on a logarithmic vertical axis. The curve is a cosine hyperbolic and therefore an exponential once the ship is relativistic, which it is after about a year: Proxima Centauri in 3.5 shipboard years, Sirius in 4.6 shipboard years, the Pleiades in 11.9 shipboard years, the galactic centre in 19.8 shipboard years, Andromeda in 28.6 shipboard years. Nothing about this violates anything. The speed never reaches c — it is the hyperbolic tangent of the rapidity and after 3.5 years it is 0.9495 at turnover — and every one of those journeys takes slightly more than the distance in years as measured from home. What is growing exponentially is not the speed but the length contraction, and the traveller's honest description of the trip is that the distance shrank. The rapidity is what accumulates steadily: it grows by one unit every 0.969 years of shipboard time, for ever, with no ceiling anywhere in the arithmetic. That is the whole reason the numbers come out survivable, and the reason the fuel does not.

The ship that never arrives at c

Accelerate at one gravity and never stop. The speed creeps toward light and never reaches it, and meanwhile the galactic centre is twenty shipboard years away and Andromeda twenty-nine. What makes the journey survivable is that rapidity has no ceiling; what makes it impossible is that the fuel goes as the exponential of the same quantity.

relativity · Accelerated frames The clock that gains going one way and loses going the other. The rate at which a flown clock gains on a clock left at 30° latitude, in nanoseconds per hour, against the aeroplane's ground speed, with east taken as positive. Two terms are drawn and then their sum. Height alone gives 3.5 nanoseconds an hour at 9 km and does not care which way the aircraft is pointed. Motion costs time, and because the ground is already moving eastward at 402 metres a second, flying east adds to that speed and flying west subtracts from it — so the kinematic term is much larger going east and can change sign going west. The sum crosses zero at 180 metres a second eastward, which is the ground speed at which an aeroplane's clock keeps the time of the airfield it left. Over the two flights Hafele and Keating actually made, this simple model gives -61 nanoseconds eastward and +304 westward, against their own predictions of -40 and +275 and their measurements of -59 and +273. The model here uses one average altitude, one average speed and one latitude, where the real prediction integrated the flight logs; getting the signs and the rough sizes out of three lines of arithmetic is the point, and the last twenty per cent is what the logs are for. What no amount of arithmetic supplies is the thing the experiment settled: that the effect is real, that it acts on a caesium clock in a passenger seat, and that a difference of a few hundred nanoseconds after two days is measurable.

The two clocks that flew in opposite directions

Two caesium clocks were flown round the world in 1971, one each way, and came back disagreeing with the clock left behind — one having lost 59 nanoseconds and the other gained 273. Height alone would have made both gain. The sign flip comes from the ground already moving eastward at 400 metres a second before the aircraft took off.

relativity · Time dilation A circumference that is more than 2π times the radius. The ratio of a rotating disc's measured circumference to 2π times its measured radius, against the speed of the rim, together with the rate of a clock carried on the rim. Rulers laid round the rim lie along their own direction of motion and are contracted; rulers laid along a radius lie across it and are not. So the circumference takes more of them than a stationary observer counts and the radius takes the same number, and the ratio is γ: 1.091 at β = 0.4, 1.400 at β = 0.7, 2.294 at β = 0.9. The geometry a rotating observer measures is therefore not Euclidean, and it is not Euclidean by an amount that depends on where on the disc the measurement is made. That is the observation Einstein said set him on the road to describing gravity with curved geometry: here is an accelerated frame, and here is a geometry in it that no choice of Cartesian coordinates can flatten. The rim's clock runs slow by the same factor, so a rotating frame has neither a common time nor a flat space.

The disc that cannot be spun

Set a disc turning and measure its circumference with rulers carried on the rim. They lie along their own direction of motion and are contracted, so more of them fit; rulers along a radius lie across the motion and are not. The ratio of circumference to radius is therefore not two pi, in a frame where nothing is happening but rotation — and Einstein said that was what set him looking for gravity in geometry.

relativity · Length contraction One factor, defined by an experiment rather than by a transformation. A observer A stays at x = 0 and flashes a light every 1 second by their own clock. B recedes at 0.6c. The flashes are the diagonal lines; where each meets B's worldline is where B receives it. B's clock reads a longer gap between arrivals than A's read between departures, by the factor k = 2.0000, and it is the same factor between every consecutive pair — measured here off the drawn meetings rather than assumed. That single number is the whole apparatus. Nobody has written down a coordinate transformation, chosen a convention for distant simultaneity, or drawn a tilted axis; the only thing used is that light travels on the diagonals and that neither observer is special, so B's flashes reach A stretched by the same k. From it: γ = (k + 1/k)/2 = 1.2500, and β = (k² − 1)/(k² + 1) = 0.6000.

Everything from an exchange of pulses

Send a flash every second and ask how often the far observer receives them. That one measured ratio generates time dilation, the composition of velocities and the twin result, with no coordinate transformation written down anywhere and no convention chosen about what "at the same time" means far away.

relativity · Doppler The turnaround, made gentler and gentler, and the difference that does not move. A round trip to a star 4 light-years away at 0.6c, with the turnaround done at nine different accelerations from a tenth of a gravity to a thousand. The upper curve is the age difference between the twins and the lower one is how much of that difference the turnaround itself contributes. At 0.1 g the turn accounts for 51 per cent of it; at 1000 g it accounts for 0.00 per cent, and it keeps falling. The total does not follow it down: it tends to 2.67 years, which is what the instantaneous-turnaround cartoon gives. So the acceleration is not what makes the twins differ. It is what makes one twin's path the bent one, and a bent path through spacetime is shorter for the same reason a bent path on a map is longer — but the amount is in the legs, not in the corner, and the corner's contribution can be made as small as anyone likes without the difference going away.

The clock that does not feel the turn

Proper time is the integral of dt over gamma, which presumes that a clock's rate depends on its speed and on nothing else — not on its acceleration, not on how long it has been accelerating. That is an assumption about clocks rather than a theorem about spacetime, and the twin result is empty without it.

relativity · Accelerated frames Every detour costs time. 4 routes between the same two events, 10 seconds apart in the frame drawn, each swinging out and back 1 time on the way. The proper time each carries is the integral of the square root of one minus the speed squared, computed by Simpson's rule along each curve: the straight route, 10.0000 s; wandering 1 light-seconds, 9.7485 s; wandering 2 light-seconds, 8.9245 s; wandering 3 light-seconds, 7.0935 s. The straight one carries the most, and every other one carries less — checked, on each drawn route. That is the opposite of what a length behaves like on paper, where the straight line is the shortest, and the whole difference is the minus sign in front of the space term.

The longest way round is the shortest clock

Of all the routes between two events, the one with no acceleration in it carries the most time on its own clock. That is the opposite of the Euclidean statement about straight lines, it comes entirely from one minus sign, and in a gravitational field it is why a thrown ball follows the path it does.

relativity · Time dilation The height a clock can see. The fractional difference in rate between two clocks against how far apart in height they are, on logarithmic axes — a straight line of slope one, since the shift is gh/c² and comes to 1.09e-16 per metre near the ground. a caesium fountain, good to 1e-16, resolves 91.6 cm; an optical lattice clock, good to 1e-18, resolves 0.9 cm; the best clocks built, good to 8e-19, resolves 0.7 cm. The caesium fountains that define the second reach about a metre. The optical clocks that will replace them reach a centimetre, and the best of them a few millimetres. That is the whole of why this has stopped being a test of relativity and become a way of measuring the ground. A shift once so small that it took a Mössbauer experiment in a tower to see at all is now large enough to be a nuisance: two clocks in the same building disagree, and the disagreement has to be corrected for before either can be used to keep time.

The clock that measures a height

A clock a metre higher runs faster by a part in ten thousand million million million. That was once so small it took a tower and a Mössbauer source to see; the best clocks now resolve a centimetre of height, at any distance, without a line of sight. What began as a test of general relativity has become a surveying instrument that measures the quantity surveying actually wants.

astrophysics · Gravitational redshift The paths in space: orbits of one period, and a throw straight up. The same free falls drawn in space around the Earth, which is the filled disc. All start at the marked point 2 Earth radii from the centre. The circle is the circular orbit. The ellipses, of eccentricity 0.2 and 0.4, have the same period, so they come back to the start at the same moment. The straight line is the thrown clock's path: straight up to 4.46 Earth radii and back down the same line, arriving as the orbits complete one revolution. The Earth's rotation is ignored and it is treated as a point mass for the paths that pass close to it.

The orbit that ages less than a throw

A clock in orbit and a clock thrown straight up leave the same point at the same moment and meet there again one period later. Both fall freely the whole way, so both follow paths of stationary proper time — and the thrown clock comes back 4.1 microseconds older. Even a clock held still by a rocket, which is not falling at all, beats the orbit. Free fall picks out a path that is stationary, not one that is longest.

relativity · Time dilation How much slower a warm atom ticks. The fraction by which a free atom's clock runs slow on average because of its thermal motion, (3/2)kT/mc², against temperature on logarithmic axes, for five atoms used in clocks or tests of relativity: hydrogen 4.1 × 10⁻¹¹ at 300 K, aluminium ion 1.5 × 10⁻¹² at 300 K, strontium 4.8 × 10⁻¹³ at 300 K, caesium 3.1 × 10⁻¹³ at 300 K, mercury ion 2.1 × 10⁻¹³ at 300 K. Every line falls in proportion to the temperature and to one over the mass. A clock aiming at one part in 10¹⁸ must hold strontium below 0.63 mK and hydrogen below 7.3 µK — or know their temperature well enough to correct for it. Pound and Rebka's gravitational shift across 22.5 m, 2.46 × 10⁻¹⁵, is marked for scale.

The clock that runs slow because it is warm

Every atom in a gas is moving, and every moving clock runs slow. The first-order Doppler shifts of a hot gas cancel on average; the time dilation does not, because it has only one sign. A hydrogen maser at 40 °C runs slow by four parts in a hundred billion from this alone, a nucleus in a crystal runs slow even at absolute zero, and the first test of gravitational time dilation nearly drowned in a one-kelvin temperature difference.

relativity · Time dilation Two straight worldlines that meet twice. A spacetime diagram of a universe whose space is a circle 10 light-years round, drawn unrolled: the shaded strip is the whole of space, and the strips beside it are the same space again, so the dashed lines are the same stay-at-home twin A seen in the copies. Twin B leaves A at 0.6c and never changes speed or direction. After 16.67 years by A's clock B has gone once round and meets A again — the line reaches A's copy at 10 light-years. Neither twin has accelerated at any moment; both worldlines are straight. A has aged 16.67 years and B 13.33, less by the factor 1/γ = 0.800. The usual resolution of the twin paradox, that the travelling twin is the one who turned round, is not available: here nobody turned.

The twin who never turns round

The twin paradox is usually settled by pointing at the turn: the travelling twin is the one who fired the engines and came back, and so the one whose worldline is not straight. Put the twins in a universe whose space closes on itself, like the surface of a cylinder, and the traveller can come home by going straight on. Neither twin ever accelerates, both worldlines are straight, and the traveller still comes back younger. What decides it is not any motion but the shape of space, which picks out one state of motion as special — and hands every observer a way to measure it.

relativity · Time dilation Two pushes that nearly cancel. The forces between two equal charges moving side by side at the same speed, measured in the laboratory, in units of the Coulomb force the same two charges exert at rest, against their speed. Electric repulsion grows as γ, because a moving charge's field is stronger across its motion: 2.29 at β = 0.9, 7.1 at 0.99. The magnetic attraction of two parallel currents grows as γβ² and eats it almost entirely: the net push is γ(1 − β²) = 1/γ — 0.436 at 0.9 and 0.141 at 0.99. Measured in the pair's own frame the push is exactly the Coulomb force at every speed; the difference is not a force that exists in one frame and not another but a difference in how fast the two frames' clocks run while the charges drift apart.

The beam that stops pushing itself apart

A beam of electrons is a crowd of like charges, and a crowd of like charges flies apart. A slow beam does, within centimetres. A fast one hardly does at all: at a gigaelectronvolt the same current travels kilometres before its width doubles. The electric repulsion has not weakened — it has grown, by the factor γ. What has grown faster is a magnetic attraction between parallel currents, which cancels all but 1/γ² of the push. Seen from the beam itself there is no magnetism at all, only Coulomb repulsion acting while the beam's clocks run slow.

relativity · Field transformation An orbit that flattens without being told to. The path of a classical electron relative to its nucleus, in the laboratory, before and after the nucleus has been accelerated gently — over 200 orbits — from rest to 0.6 of the speed of light along the horizontal, computed from Maxwell's field of a moving charge and the relativistic law of motion alone. Before, the orbit is a circle of radius 1. After, it is an ellipse 0.810 wide along the motion and 1.012 across it, a ratio of 0.8003 against 1/γ = 0.8000, and one turn takes 1.2504 times as long as before, against γ = 1.2500. Nothing in the calculation assumed a contraction or a slowing clock: the forces between the moving charges produced both.

The contraction the forces work out for themselves

Relativity usually introduces length contraction as a consequence of how moving observers disagree about simultaneity, not as something that happens to matter. There is a second way to reach the same number, and it is worth knowing because it is the way the idea was first found. Take an atom, accelerate its nucleus gently, and compute what the electron does using only Maxwell's field of a moving charge and the law of motion. Nobody tells the orbit to contract, and it does, by exactly 1/γ, while each turn takes exactly γ times as long. The forces holding matter together work out the contraction for themselves.

relativity · Length contraction A muon's spin lapping its own momentum round a storage ring. Snapshots of a muon circling a storage ring at γ = 29.3, taken every four turns (not to scale in time: the muon is drawn at a different place on the ring for each snapshot so they do not overlap). The dashed arrow is the direction of motion, tangent to the ring; the solid arrow is the spin. On each turn the spin gains 12.3° on the momentum — 2πaγ — so after 29.3 turns it has gained a full lap. That lap takes 4.37 microseconds, and the muon, whose lifetime is stretched from 2.2 to 64.4 microseconds by its speed, lives for about fifteen of them.

The spin that runs ahead of its own motion

A charged particle circling in a magnetic field has two directions that turn: the direction it is moving, and the direction its spin points. If the particle's magnetism were exactly what Dirac's equation first gave — a g-factor of exactly two — the two would turn together at every speed, the spin locked to the motion as a compass needle is locked to a car. The muon's g is not quite two, and its spin creeps ahead by a fixed rate that is the same at a crawl and at 99.94 per cent of the speed of light. That constancy is a delicate cancellation between a magnetic field made stronger by motion and a rotation that exists only because the particle is being turned, and it is what made the most precise measurements of the muon possible — at one magic speed, where the electric fields that steer the particles stop affecting the spin at all.

relativity · Field transformation Two clocks that slow together. For a muon circling a 1.45 T magnetic field, its mean life as the laboratory measures it and the time it takes to go round once, against its Lorentz factor γ, on logarithmic scales. Time dilation stretches the life to γ × 2.197 μs: 6.6 μs at γ = 3, 64.4 μs at γ = 29.3, the muon g − 2 experiments' value. The orbit grows with the momentum, so the revolution takes γ times longer too: 15.3 ns at γ = 3, 149 ns at γ = 29.3. The two lines are parallel. Their ratio, the number of turns in one mean life, is 431 at every energy — set by the field and the muon's own properties, eBτ/2πm, with γ cancelled out.

The turns a muon makes at any energy

A muon lives two microseconds, and in a storage ring it lives longer the faster it goes, because its clock runs slow. Its orbit runs slow too: a faster muon carries more momentum, bends less in the same field and takes longer to go round. The two slowings are the same factor of gamma, so they cancel. A muon in a 1.45 tesla ring makes 431 turns in a mean life whether it is moving at nine-tenths of the speed of light or at nine nines, and the only way to more turns is a stronger magnet. The same cancellation is why the first cyclotrons stopped working near twenty million electronvolts.

relativity · Time dilation The tick an elliptical orbit adds to a clock. The periodic part of the time a satellite clock gains or loses against one on the ground, after its constant rate offset is removed, against hours from closest approach, for the two Galileo satellites stranded in 2014 on orbits of eccentricity 0.156 and period 12.9 hours, a GPS satellite at 0.01 and a Galileo satellite on its intended near-circular orbit. The stranded satellites' clocks run ahead and behind by ±367 ns every orbit: slow near closest approach, where they are deepest and fastest, fast near the far point. A GPS clock wobbles by ±23 ns, and a satellite on a circular orbit by almost nothing. The wobble is −2√(GMa) e sin E/c², fixed by the orbit alone, which is what makes it a test.

The satellites launched into the wrong orbit

In August 2014 two European navigation satellites were left on the wrong orbit by a frozen fuel line in their rocket's upper stage: an ellipse instead of a circle. For navigation they were nearly useless. For relativity they were a gift. A clock on an elliptical orbit dips deeper into the Earth's gravity and speeds up as it falls, then climbs and slows, and both effects make it lose time near the bottom of the ellipse and gain it back near the top — a wobble of 367 nanoseconds every 12.9 hours, set by the orbit alone. Watching that wobble for three years checked the gravitational slowing of clocks five times more closely than anything had in the forty years before.

relativity · Time dilation The readings of the moving clocks along one instant: a wave. The cosine of each moving clock's phase, read along a single laboratory instant, against position in light-periods of the clock, for clocks moving at 0.3c, 0.6c, 0.85c. The readings make a wave whose wavelength, measured from the drawing, is 3.18, 1.33, 0.62 light-periods: c²/(γvν₀), shrinking as the clocks move faster. For a clock that ticks at its rest energy over Planck's constant, ν₀ = mc²/h, that is h/γmv — de Broglie's wavelength, h over the momentum. Nothing about waves was assumed: only clocks, synchronised where they rest, read from a frame in which they move.

The wave a row of moving clocks leaves on an instant

Line up identical clocks, synchronise them where they stand, and send the whole row past a laboratory at a steady speed. On any one laboratory instant the clocks do not agree: the ones further ahead read less, by an amount that grows steadily along the row. The readings form a wave laid out in space, its crests are the moving row's instants, and they sweep along faster than light. Give each clock the frequency of its rest energy and the wavelength is exactly h/p. De Broglie's matter wave began, in 1923, as an argument about the relativity of simultaneity.

relativity · Simultaneity

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Proper timeThe Lorentz factorEquivalence principleGravitational redshiftThe twin paradoxSimultaneityReference framesAtomic clockGeodesicGravitational time dilationLength contractionThe Lorentz transformation

All concepts