Lorentz concept of Time Dilation

Much of Einsteins work on time dilation was based on Dutch Scientist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz concept called 'Local Time' which he published in his Lorentz transformations in 1904. However, in Einsteins 1905 theory of special relativity (at one time called the Lorentz-Einstein theory), Einstein changed the concept of time dilation.

Lorentz model describes directional time dilation linked to centre's of gravitational mass with only the moving object undergoing time dilation.
Einsteins theory of special relativity describes reciprocal time dilation, both parties experience the same time dilation.

Lorentz had this to say about the differences in Time Dilation

Provided that there is an aether, then under all systems x, y, z, t, one is preferred by the fact, that the coordinate axes as well as the clocks are resting in the aether. If one connects with this the idea (which I would abandon only reluctantly) that space and time are completely different things, and that there is a "true time" (simultaneity thus would be independent of the location, in agreement with the circumstance that we can have the idea of infinitely great velocities), then it can be easily seen that this true time should be indicated by clocks at rest in the aether. However, if the relativity principle had general validity in nature, one wouldn't be in the position to determine, whether the reference system just used is the preferred one. Then one comes to the same results, as if one (following Einstein and Minkowski) deny the existence of the aether and of true time, and to see all reference systems as equally valid. Which of these two ways of thinking one is following, can surely be left to the individual

One would think today that Einstein's model of time dilation has been proven beyond a doubt but a UGA Study has found that many proofs for Einstens time dilation would also prove true for Lorentz model. If today we used Lorentz model for time dilation we come up with some astonishing differences. There would be no need for dark energy because the passage of time during the hubble expansion would have been in a faster time frame than present so expansion would have been slower if we convert the faster time frames back into todays time frame (aka Universe much older in todays time frame). Universal time dilation implies a non-accelerating universe which would explain the perplexing discovery that quasars in our observable universe don't show time diluation.

Link

Who was right, the chap on the left (Einstein) or the chap on the right (Lorentz).

a reply to: glend

If Einstein was wrong, GPS wouldn't work since the clocks integral to the satellite transmissions are programmed in accordance with the Special Theory because they are moving. .00003 of C (relative to earth) but enough to make a difference.

a reply to: glend

You have swapped the word 'dilution' for 'dilation' in several places in your post.


But I do like your post, so S&F.

a reply to: F4guy

Time dilation for the GPS satellite would be identical for both Einsteins and Lorentz models when viewed from earth. The difference is that Einsteins theory also states that because earth is moving at speed relative to the position of the GPS satellite, the GPS satellite should see earth slowing down as well.

"If you look at the GPS satellites, the satellite time is slowing down, but according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal. Instead, our time is going faster relative to the satellites, and we know that because of constant communication with the satellites."

Link

originally posted by: glend
Lorentz model describes directional time dilation linked to centre's of gravitational mass with only the moving object undergoing time dilation.

All motion is relative. That's why time dilation due to motion is called relativistic time dilation. Gravitational time dilation, on the other hand, is absolute.

a reply to: glend

If instead we use Lorentz model for time dilution we come up with some astonishing differences. There would be no need for dark matter because the passage of time during the hubble expansion would have been in a faster time frame than present so expansion would have been slower if we convert the faster time frames back into todays time frame (aka Universe much older in todays time frame).

I think you mean dark energy, but I like it.

a reply to: glend

Just read the article. I think the gist is that reference frames are relative, but that the Lorentz time dilation effect is the result of the objects relativistic acceleration plus its acceleration due to the warping of space due to mass, ie; gravity. I like it: it also solves the twin dilemma!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

thanks for the correction

a reply to: DJW001

Can you explain how it solves the twin dilemma please?

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: DJW001

Can you explain how it solves the twin dilemma please?

Yes! The twin on Earth is in a deep gravity well, which means that time will move more slowly for him/her than it will for the twin in a spacecraft that makes hardly a dent space-time. In other words, the twin on Earth has relativistic dilation + massive gravitational dilation, but the twin in the starship only has relativistic dilation. The twin on the starship winds up aging faster relative to the twin on Earth. Not what you were expecting, I know.

Double post.

a reply to: DJW001

Thanks for that, to the contrary I find it still a good argument. Any spacecraft leaving earth should see us a slowing down relative to speed of spacecraft. Its similar to comment made on this article.

To repeat, as Dingle, and not a few other prominent physicists, have argued, “the theory [Special Relativity] unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A –which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible.” However, Dingle’s (and others’) irrefutable logic has had no impact on the relativists. But now a hopefully inescapable avalanche of empirical data will open some minds. This blog entry summarizes the mismatch between Special Relativity and empirical data from GPS and other sources

Historical background: Before Einstein wrote his 1905 paper deriving time dilation, Lorentz derived his clock retardation equation which can be written as T = To/(1 – v2/c2)1/2 and which said that as absolute velocity (velocity with respect to a unique frame) increased, clock rates would decrease. This was an asymmetric equation based on absolute velocity and addressed clocks that were in inertial and non-inertial (e.g., accelerating, rotating) frames. If one wants to compare the rates of two clocks that are not at rest in the preferred frame using the Lorentz formula, one uses the velocity of each clock relative to the preferred frame to determine how much each clock has slowed relative to a clock at rest in the preferred frame and then computes the ratio of those rates to compare the two clocks that are NOT at rest in the preferred frame.

Subsequently, Einstein derived his time dilation equation which looked very much like Lorentz’s clock retardation equation except that absolute velocity was replaced by the relative velocity between the two clocks being compared. Hence, Einstein’s time dilation equation was inherently symmetric as it was based on relative velocity. Also, Einstein’s time dilation equation was said to be limited to comparing clocks at rest in inertial frames. Since Special Relativity’s version of the formula is symmetric, clock A “measures” clock B to be slow AND clock B “measures” clock A to be slow, so that would presumably indicate that Special Relativity’s time dilation is NOT describing (asymmetric) physical clock slowing.

a reply to: glend

That's what I said. I forwarded this to a physicist friend of mine. I'll let you know what he says about it.