Is the order of the events reversed here?

  • Thread starter Adel Makram
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Events
In summary, the conversation discusses an experiment involving a train moving in a specific direction with two slits at both ends. The first arrangement involves the source of light being placed near the front end, while the second arrangement involves the train observer closing slit B after the light reaches A but before it reaches B. The order of events is different for the train and ground observers. However, this scenario is only possible if it is pre-arranged. It is also noted that the time difference between events is related to the definition of the speed of light for different observers.
  • #1
Adel Makram
635
15
Let’s make the following experiment:
A train moves in the direction B-A where A is the front end and B is the back end. There are 2 slits at both ends. Let us make 2 arrangements:
1) The source of light is put near the front end A so as to make the light signals reach A & B at the same time relative to a ground observer
2) The train observer shuts the slit B slightly after the light reaches A but before the light reaches B
Checking the order of events relative to different observers!
For the train one:
Source emits light -> light reaches A -> B shuts -> light reaches B
For the ground one:
Source emits Light -> B shuts -> light reaches A and B at the same time
Is the order of events reversed?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You have set up an impossible situation. The train observer cannot cause slit B to shut slightly after the light reaches A but before the light reaches B, because that would be faster than light.
 
  • #3
Yes, this could definitely be arranged.

The order of events with space like separation is frame dependent. Space like separation means: in some frame, the events are far enough apart and close enough in time that light from the earlier (or simultaneous) event cannot reach the other. If two events have space like separation in one frame, they have it in all. Any two events with space like separation are simultaneous in some frame.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
ghwellsjr said:
You have set up an impossible situation. The train observer cannot cause slit B to shut slightly after the light reaches A but before the light reaches B, because that would be faster than light.

It could be a previously computed schedule. The scenario is possible to arrange.
 
  • #5
Adel, you said there was a slit at the front of the train. Why? What's it for?
 
  • #6
ghwellsjr said:
You have set up an impossible situation. The train observer cannot cause slit B to shut slightly after the light reaches A but before the light reaches B, because that would be faster than light.

That is only correct if the 2 events ( reaching A and shutting B) are time-like events. But Here they are space-like

Here is the set up of the experiment

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=44067&stc=1&d=1329562569
 

Attachments

  • train and source.png
    train and source.png
    3 KB · Views: 706
  • #7
ghwellsjr said:
Adel, you said there was a slit at the front of the train. Why? What's it for?

Because I am still working under the effect of my previous thread (Interference pattern vs SR) :)
But u can generally assign the events to any visual effects visible to both observers
 
  • #8
How does the train observer know when to shut slit B?
 
  • #9
ghwellsjr said:
How does the train observer know when to shut slit B?

My answer is a question, how does the answer to that question have to do any thing with the time of shutting B relative to A?

OK, one simple way is the observer at the source releases a light signal toward B to close it before starting the emission of lights toward A & B. And given his position in the train and the speed of light, he knows that B must be closed shortly after A
 
Last edited:
  • #10
The scenario can only work if, as PAllen says, it's pre-arranged. There is no way for a person, or a mechanism, to wait for the light to reach A, then send a signal to shut B before the light reaches B: this would require sending the signal faster than the speed of light.

Assuming that the scenario is pre-arranged to work as you describe, there's no problem with the fact that the two events "light reaches A" and "B shuts" happen in a certain order in the train frame and in the opposite order in the ground frame. The interval between these two events is spacelike, so there is no absolute way to define which one happened first: depending on the chosen frame, the events may be simultaneous, or either one may happen first.

The same cannot be said of the two events "B shuts" and "light reaches B". The interval between these two events is timelike: whatever frame we choose, B will shut before the light reaches it.
 
  • #11
Adel Makram said:
[..] one simple way is the observer at the source releases a light signal toward B to close it before starting the emission of lights toward A & B. And given his position in the train and the speed of light, he knows that B must be closed shortly after A
Yes, that should work.
Just a little remark, in view of your "knows [...] must": this time reversal is related to the way the one-speed of light is defined - and not really known - differently by the different observers.
 
  • #12
harrylin said:
Yes, that should work.
Just a little remark, in view of your "knows [...] must": this time reversal is related to the way the one-speed of light is defined - and not really known - differently by the different observers.

I am not sure if I got ur point. Do you mean that knowing the time difference based on calculation of c and observing it experimentally are 2 different things?
 
  • #13
Michael C said:
The scenario can only work if, as PAllen says, it's pre-arranged. There is no way for a person, or a mechanism, to wait for the light to reach A, then send a signal to shut B before the light reaches B: this would require sending the signal faster than the speed of light.

Assuming that the scenario is pre-arranged to work as you describe, there's no problem with the fact that the two events "light reaches A" and "B shuts" happen in a certain order in the train frame and in the opposite order in the ground frame. The interval between these two events is spacelike, so there is no absolute way to define which one happened first: depending on the chosen frame, the events may be simultaneous, or either one may happen first.

The same cannot be said of the two events "B shuts" and "light reaches B". The interval between these two events is timelike: whatever frame we choose, B will shut before the light reaches it.

I guess no need to have absolute way to know what is the order of the events. Every observer has the right to consider his way is an absolute way
 
  • #14
Adel Makram said:
I guess no need to have absolute way to know what is the order of the events. Every observer has the right to consider his way is an absolute way

I don't think that's a useful way to look at it. It doesn't take into account this most important point about relativity: it does not consider that "everything is relative". Certain things change depending on the point of view of the observer, but other things don't. We can say that things that do not change depending on the point of view of the observer are indeed "absolute".

For instance, in your example all observers will agree that the slit at B opens before the light hits B: the order of these two events is absolute. In contrast, the order of the two events "light hits A" and "slit at B opens" is not absolute.
 
  • #15
Michael C said:
I don't think that's a useful way to look at it. It doesn't take into account this most important point about relativity: it does not consider that "everything is relative". Certain things change depending on the point of view of the observer, but other things don't. We can say that things that do not change depending on the point of view of the observer are indeed "absolute".

For instance, in your example all observers will agree that the slit at B opens before the light hits B: the order of these two events is absolute. In contrast, the order of the two events "light hits A" and "slit at B opens" is not absolute.

good. Here, it is all about the second example
 
  • #16
Adel Makram said:
I am not sure if I got ur point. Do you mean that knowing the time difference based on calculation of c and observing it experimentally are 2 different things?
No, I mean that the experimental observation of clocks that were set based on your assumption that you "know" the one-way speed of light, simply confirms what your assumption was. In other words, you omitted the standard disclaimer: he knows that B must be closed shortly after A according to his rest system.
 

1. What is meant by "reversed order of events"?

When we say the order of events is reversed, it means that the sequence in which the events occurred has been changed. The last event in the original sequence now appears first, and the first event appears last.

2. How can I tell if the order of events is reversed?

You can tell if the order of events is reversed by looking at the sequence of events and comparing it to the original sequence. If the events appear to be in the opposite order from the original, then the order of events is reversed.

3. Why would someone reverse the order of events?

There are a few reasons why someone might reverse the order of events. It could be to create a more dramatic effect, to emphasize a particular event, or to make the story more interesting. It could also be a mistake or an error in the storytelling.

4. Is there a correct or incorrect way for the order of events to be presented?

There is no right or wrong way to present the order of events in a story or event. It ultimately depends on the purpose and intention of the storyteller. However, it is important for the audience to understand and follow the sequence of events to fully comprehend the story or event.

5. How can I avoid confusing the audience when using a reversed order of events?

To avoid confusion when using a reversed order of events, it is important to provide clear and consistent clues to the audience that the events are not being presented in chronological order. This could be through the use of flashbacks, time stamps, or clear transitions between events. It is also helpful to provide context and explanations for the events to help the audience understand the story or event better.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
747
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
521
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
582
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
789
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
614
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
82
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
849
Back
Top