Talk:Time dilation

	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  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics: Relativity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. 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. Time High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. 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. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

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)Reply

In the quoted text we have ε = 1/(1−v²/c²), and so, as you can verify, ϵ^(−½) = √(1—v²/c²), which is, as you can also verify, (1 — ½v²/c²) to first order in v²/c². In this article, we have simply left it as √(1—v²/c²), in stead of going to first order. Look at it as a semi-quote. I removed the double quotes. - DVdm (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am 87 now ! Must I await to be 100 years before you will accept my suggestions formulated in 2017 ! 🤔

See https://phymatheco.github.io

Read it before suppressing it , Non second chance !!! Chessfan (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Still no need to read it, as Wikipedia still does not accept wp:original research - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You cheat ! See Gourgoulhon General Relativity ! Chessfan (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

All or most of your discreptions of the speed of light are in a mind set of the distance light travels in one second. these figures of 186,000 miles are the distance that light travels in one second. The actual speed of light is approximately 171,000,000, 171 million miles per hour. Maybe you could pass this information on to the science laboratories around the world so they could be brought up to date in their mind sets. Professor of Advance Mechanical Physics 2600:6C48:407F:CFC2:FC88:DAE:2D58:D39F (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The speed off light is 3e8 m/s. This number is consistent with what the article writes. Squalbert (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's a mirror on the bottom. Why? KISS.

"Right: Events according to an observer moving to the left of the setup"

Seems wrong to me. According to the diagram, the moving person emits the light and gets back the reflected light in the right panel, and he is moving to the right, not to the left. Jasontaylor7 (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

The caption was correct but confusing. The mirror setup is moving to the right which means the "observer" is moving relative, to the left. I changed the caption.

The Cassidy textbook image is clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply