Are accelerating lines of simultaneity correct?

[Austin0]

Are accelerating lines of simultaneity correct??

This is an idea and question that I have been considering for a long time but put on hold while I sought a firmer grasp of the geometry of Minkowski spacetime graphs.

My current understanding is this:

Lines of simultanieity wrt inertial frames are a graphing of the interrelationship between the clocks and positions of one frame with another.
As such the points of intersection represent accurate colocations of clocks and ruler points. These are both quantitatively and geometrically (with tranformation) valid both spatially and temporally.
They are equivalent to the clocks and rulers of the frames themselves , whether actual or virtual.
This can be taken as consistent with reality as observers from both frames at these points of intersection will agree on the spatial coordinates and times of these events.

But in the case of accelerating frames this appears to no longer be valid.

The spacetime locations of a point in the accelerating frame as graphed as the worldline, is of course accurate in the coordinates of the rest frame, but the resulting lines of simultaneity no longer conform. They represent a dynamic non-uniform metric mapped onto what is essentially a Euclidean matirx (with single transform).
Taken in sum they perhaps represent varying degrees of curvature into the z plane.

SO the spatial distance between the point of the worldline and a point of intersection is no longer geometrically valid. Neither is the direction.
This is most glaringly obvious where these lines intersect. This represents the simultaneous colocation of two temporally separated points of a single frame.
As these lines can be taken to represent an extension of the frame itself this would also mean colocation of disparate clocks and observers. Clearly this can not be consistent with reality.
Looking outward past the intersection at the diverging lines it is clear that there is the representation of temporal reordering and causality reversal.

It may be suggested that this simply means that the lines are only accurate up to the points of intersection but I think this is not the case. I think they are spatially and temporally inaccurate throughout, with the degree of error a function of spatial and temporal distance from their origens at the worldline and their temporal separation on that worldline.

I have not done the math to confirm this for two reasons
1) Time
2) I unfortunately lack the calculus to derive instantaneous velocities from the slope of worldline tangents.

I am aware that due to this lack of mathematical corroboration , many will dismiss this out of hand but I am hoping that someone with the math skills will find the question interesting enough to run some numbers and put it to rest (or not).

If anybody either does not understand or disagrees with my idea of the equivalance of hyperplanes of simultaneity and the frame itself there is a recent thread addressing this and I welcome all objections and criticisms https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=415501"

Thanks

 

[yossell]

I agree there's an issue about how accelerating frames should be defined.

I agree that it is not particularly coherent to extend lines of simultaneity arbitrarily far in both the +x and -x directions in an accelerating frame, because there will be places at which these lines cross, and one and the same event will be assigned two different coordinates. (However, Starthaus seemed to think this was incorrect). This makes interpreting these coordinates as `time in a frame' and `distance in a frame' problematic when the frame is accelerating.

It may be that accelerating frames only make physical sense locally. That if our frames are too big, the concept of a well defined acceleration doesn't apply to the frame as a whole.

But when you say that the accelerating frame is inaccurate as a whole, what do you have in mind? After all, three dimensional notions of length and simultaneity make sense only with respect to a frame - there isn't a frame independent issue. But if we are after accuracy for 4-dimensional invariant quantities, proper time, minkowski separation, then, at least where the frame is still 1-1 and not degenerate, as long as we use the correct formulas for this accelerating frame, we should still be able to work them out properly and there is nothing that is misleading.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

Here are a few comments that might help:

If you draw vertical and horizontal axes corresponding to the x and t coordinates of some inertial observer (with the location of that observer being at x = 0, and his age being equal to t), you can then plot the world line of any particular accelerating traveler. (I like to plot x vertically, and t horizontally, but most people like to follow convention and make the opposite choice...whenever I need to refer to the geometical picture in this posting, I'll use my convention...be forewarned). When plotting that world line, one can also put in "tic" marks along the curve to indicate the current age of the traveler at that point.

If units are chosen so that c = 1, then any such worldline will be such that the slope of the line will everywhere be between +1 and -1. Otherwise, any (continuous) curve is allowable, although with any realizable accelerations, the curve will be "smooth" (the slope will be continuous).

For the original inertial observer, the line of simultaneity anywhere will always just be a vertical line (t = constant).

If you pick any point on the worldline being plotted, you can draw a different line of simultaneity, which has the slope 1/v, where v is the velocity of the traveler, relative to the original inertial frame, according to the original inertial frame. The slope of the worldline, at the given point, is equal to v. (v is positive when the traveler is moving away from the original observer).

The relationship between those two straight lines (the tangent to the worldline, and the (different) line of simultaneity) is easy to visualize: if alpha is the angle the worldline tangent makes with the t (horizontal) axis (positive when counter-clockwise), then the angle that the line of simultaneity makes with the x (vertical) axis (positive when clockwise) is ALSO alpha.

At that point on the world line, there is a unique inertial frame that is momentarily stationary wrt the traveler at that instant...I call that inertial frame the "MSIRF". The straight line, tangent to the worldline at the given point, is the time axis of the MSIRF. The line of simultaneity described above is the line of simultaneity, for the MSIRF, passing through that point on the world line. The point where that line of simultaneity intersects the t axis gives the current age of the original inertial observer, according to an observer in the MSIRF present at the given spacetime point on the world line.

It is possible to prove that the accelerating observer must adopt that line of simultaneity as his OWN line of simultaneity, if he wishes to avoid contradicting his own elementary measurements and elementary calculations.

That proof basically involves asking, and answering, the question: "If the traveler were to stop accelerating at that given point (and thereafter remain stationary in that MSIRF), how long would it take before his measurements and conclusions about simultaneity agreed with a perpetually-inertial observer in the MSIRF who is co-located now with the traveler"?

The answer is that he will ALWAYS agree with that MSIRF observer, at ALL times after he stops accelerating. As soon as he stops accelerating, he will immediately agree with the MSIRF.

I give this proof, in detail, in my paper:

"Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity",
PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629.

Mike Fontenot

 

[Austin0]

I agree there's an issue about how accelerating frames should be defined.

I agree that it is not particularly coherent to extend lines of simultaneity arbitrarily far in both the +x and -x directions in an accelerating frame, because there will be places at which these lines cross, and one and the same event will be assigned two different coordinates. (However, Starthaus seemed to think this was incorrect). This makes interpreting these coordinates as `time in a frame' and `distance in a frame' problematic when the frame is accelerating.

It may be that accelerating frames only make physical sense locally. That if our frames are too big, the concept of a well defined acceleration doesn't apply to the frame as a whole.

But when you say that the accelerating frame is inaccurate as a whole, what do you have in mind? After all, three dimensional notions of length and simultaneity make sense only with respect to a frame - there isn't a frame independent issue. But if we are after accuracy for 4-dimensional invariant quantities, proper time, minkowski separation, then, at least where the frame is still 1-1 and not degenerate, as long as we use the correct formulas for this accelerating frame, we should still be able to work them out properly and there is nothing that is misleading.

Hi yossell
I am not talking about accelerating frames per se. I have no doubt that the Lorentz math works just fine as applied to ICMIF's . I don't know what starthaus is referring to but I wouldn't be surprised if it was exactly that.
I am talking about the geometric representation of simultaneity lines in a Minkowski graph.
I am proposing that if you do the math for a particular line, a particular velocity of the co-moving inertial frame you will find that the spatial and temporal positions mathematically derived will not be the same as the positions indicated by the lines on the graph.
That mathematically those intersections of S lines will not occur. No temporal reordering will occur.
That these are artifacts of the Minkowski convention of sloping lines which do not cause a problem with inertial systems because they remain parallel in the quasi-Euclidean space.
That in the real world those lines are congruent with the path of motion and parallel through time. They are the frame and its clocks and ruler which cannot possibly be colocated when separated by a time-like interval. Nor can they possibly change that interval which is what is indicated by convergence,yes??
I agree that the degree of error is least, close to the worldline, but it does not just start at the points of intersection, it is only most obvious there.
Besides which, in principle both frames and hyperplanes are extended indefinitely in space and until you get to truly cosmic distances they should be accurate or there is some fundamental problem.
As I said I would do the math myself if I had the ability to draw an accurate hyperbolic worldline and then derive instantaneous velocities from the tangent slope to be able to do the math for various points to check against the geometry.
But just logically , it is clear if the geometry is accurate for one line it cannot be accurate for the next line that has a different spatial and temporal metric, with a different simultaneity , yes?
Thanks for your input.

 

[Austin0]

Here are a few comments that might help:

If you draw vertical and horizontal axes corresponding to the x and t coordinates of some inertial observer (with the location of that observer being at x = 0, and his age being equal to t), you can then plot the world line of any particular accelerating traveler. (I like to plot x vertically, and t horizontally, but most people like to follow convention and make the opposite choice...whenever I need to refer to the geometical picture in this posting, I'll use my convention...be forewarned). When plotting that world line, one can also put in "tic" marks along the curve to indicate the current age of the traveler at that point.

If units are chosen so that c = 1, then any such worldline will be such that the slope of the line will everywhere be between +1 and -1. Otherwise, any (continuous) curve is allowable, although with any realizable accelerations, the curve will be "smooth" (the slope will be continuous).

For the original inertial observer, the line of simultaneity anywhere will always just be a vertical line (t = constant).

If you pick any point on the worldline being plotted, you can draw a different line of simultaneity, which has the slope 1/v, where v is the velocity of the traveler, relative to the original inertial frame, according to the original inertial frame. The slope of the worldline, at the given point, is equal to v. (v is positive when the traveler is moving away from the original observer).

The relationship between those two straight lines (the tangent to the worldline, and the (different) line of simultaneity) is easy to visualize: if alpha is the angle the worldline tangent makes with the t (horizontal) axis (positive when counter-clockwise), then the angle that the line of simultaneity makes with the x (vertical) axis (positive when clockwise) is ALSO alpha.

At that point on the world line, there is a unique inertial frame that is momentarily stationary wrt the traveler at that instant...I call that inertial frame the "MSIRF". The straight line, tangent to the worldline at the given point, is the time axis of the MSIRF. The line of simultaneity described above is the line of simultaneity, for the MSIRF, passing through that point on the world line. The point where that line of simultaneity intersects the t axis gives the current age of the original inertial observer, according to an observer in the MSIRF present at the given spacetime point on the world line.

It is possible to prove that the accelerating observer must adopt that line of simultaneity as his OWN line of simultaneity, if he wishes to avoid contradicting his own elementary measurements and elementary calculations.

That proof basically involves asking, and answering, the question: "If the traveler were to stop accelerating at that given point (and thereafter remain stationary in that MSIRF), how long would it take before his measurements and conclusions about simultaneity agreed with a perpetually-inertial observer in the MSIRF who is co-located now with the traveler"?

The answer is that he will ALWAYS agree with that MSIRF observer, at ALL times after he stops accelerating. As soon as he stops accelerating, he will immediately agree with the MSIRF.

I give this proof, in detail, in my paper:

"Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity",
PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629.

Mike Fontenot

Thanks Mike but I already was familiar with everything you have said here but it doesn't really help me to quantify MSIRF velocities from a graph . Unless I had an accurate graph and actually mechanically drew in tangents for a rough approximation.
AS for your premise that there will always be agreement with th ICMIF that is also exactly my premise . That the calculated simultaneity and spatial positions of the ICMIF will not agree with the geometric representation in a diagram.

 

[yossell]

Austin0,

I can't really follow your worry. Is your problem with the relationship between the Minkowski DIAGRAM and Minkowski space, or between Minkowski something and genuine physical clocks and rods? When you talk about the error, what is in error about what, in your view?

 

[Al68]

Lines of simultanieity wrt inertial frames are a graphing of the interrelationship between the clocks and positions of one frame with another.
As such the points of intersection represent accurate colocations of clocks and ruler points. These are both quantitatively and geometrically (with tranformation) valid both spatially and temporally.
They are equivalent to the clocks and rulers of the frames themselves , whether actual or virtual.
This can be taken as consistent with reality as observers from both frames at these points of intersection will agree on the spatial coordinates and times of these events.

But in the case of accelerating frames this appears to no longer be valid.

Lines of simultaneity are based on the SR simultaneity convention. And it's just that: a convention for assigning time coordinates based on a constant light speed of c.

The physical meaning of the time coordinate assigned to a distant event is the relationship between event occurrence and observation in the inertial frame in which it was assigned. It doesn't have that same physical meaning for observers who are not at rest in that same inertial frame for the observation of the event.

This is because the SR simultaneity convention is based on the assumption of a constant light speed of c, and light speed is not c (globally) in accelerated reference frames.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

Thanks Mike but I already was familiar with everything you have said here but it doesn't really help me to quantify MSIRF velocities from a graph . [...] That the calculated simultaneity and spatial positions of the ICMIF will not agree with the geometric representation in a diagram.

I'm sorry...I'm not following you.

If you plot the diagram that I described above, but for the special case where the traveler is always inertial, then the resulting plot follows directly from the Lorentz equations relating the two inertial frames.

Lines of simultaneity, according to the original inertial frame (whose coordinates x1 and t1 correspond to the perpendicular axes of the plot), are just lines parallel to the x1 axis (vertical lines, with my convention).

Lines of simultaneity, according to the traveler's inertial frame, are just lines parallel to the x2 axis (where x2 is the spatial coordinate of the traveler's inertial frame).

We are free to choose the traveler's frame so that he is stationary at x2 = 0, and so that the coordinate t2 corresponds to his age.

And we are free to choose the original frame so that the traveler's twin Sue is stationary at x1 = 0, and so that the coordinate t1 corresponds to her age.

When the traveler is at some (arbitrary) point on the t2 axis, his conclusion about Sue's current age at that instant is just given by the intersection of his line of simultaneity with the t1 axis.

The answer you get, for the traveler's conclusion about Sue's current age at some instant of his life, when you carry out this geometric construction, is exactly what you get (much quicker and easier) with my CADO equation (which I've described in several other threads).

But both the geometric construction, and the CADO equation, come directly from the Lorentz equations.

I don't understand what "failure to agree" you're talking about above.
The only "failure to agree" that I'm aware of, is the fact that Sue and the traveler won't agree about the correspondence between their ages. But that's just special relativity...that's inherent in the Lorentz equations, and it's unavoidable, just like quantum weirdness is unavoidable.

Mike Fontenot

 

[Austin0]

Austin0,

I can't really follow your worry. (((1))) Is your problem with the relationship between the Minkowski DIAGRAM and Minkowski space, or (((2))) between Minkowski something and genuine physical clocks and rods? When you talk about the error, what is in error about what, in your view?

Both of the above.

Actually in both cases it is inconsistency between the MINKOWKI DIAGRAM for an accelerating frame and either Minkowski space or the real world it graphically represents.

Looking at an accelerating frame over time we can say that it is represented by a series of ICMIF's and that abstractly these are different reference frames.
But in reality this is one physical system/frame which alters over time.
Every point and every clock is moving forward through time throughout the frame.
There is no possible acceleration that can violate this in the real world,, that can lead to two points and clocks from succeding spacetime points of the frame being colocated or even change the time-like separation between them.
If this is not absolutely true we have to rethink the fundamental concept of time.
My assumption is that these intersections and colocations are due to the problem of graphing a non-uniform metric into the essentially flat (single transform) Euclidean/Pythagorean plane and that they would not show up with direct application of the Lorentz transformation for the points in question.
If I am wrong about this it would seem to indicate and even bigger problem with the application of the math to accelerating systems in general.

This is why I hoped to reach an understanding with you in the other thread.
That these intersections are not just abstractions but represent actual observers and clocks from the same frame that are temporally separated yet colocated simultaneously at a single event,( spacetime point), I.e. face to face.

Would you disagree that this was an error , big time?

DO you think this can be dismissed with a shrug and " Oh ,its just a coordinate effect"

 

[yossell]

Looking at an accelerating frame over time we can say that it is represented by a series of ICMIF's and that abstractly these are different reference frames.

ICMIF = Instantaneous CoMoving Inertial Frame?

I suppose at a first attempt I would say that this is the problem. An accelerating frame can't be identified with a series of ICMIF's, as these are in conflict with each other. What we can do, is somehow try and patch various sections of these together to cover a part of space-time, and work from there.

But I agree that it can't make sense to accelerate a large physical frame so that lines of simultaneity cross, and suppose that, at the end of the process, you still have something that corresponds to anything physical. My guess is that this is because it doesn't really make sense to talk of accelerating all the parts of the frame by an equal amount.

My assumption is that these intersections and colocations are due to the problem of graphing a non-uniform metric into the essentially flat (single transform) Euclidean/Pythagorean plane and that they would not show up with direct application of the Lorentz transformation for the points in question.

I'm not sure about this - in SR, Minkowski space-time is always flat - so I tend to think that the metric - which I think of as tracking the underlying geometry - stays the same.

Minkowski space is only a kind of geometrisation of the Lorentz Transforms, so I'd be very surprised to see them coming apart. The Lorentz transformations are only valid for inertial frames too. They too say that lines of simultaneity from different inertial frames will cross.

DO you think this can be dismissed with a shrug and " Oh ,its just a coordinate effect"

I'm not sure whether I'd shrug - but I'd like to resolve it in terms of the idea that accelerating frames aren't that well defined in SR - that doesn't mean that you can't solve problems involving acceleration in SR - rather, the idea of an extended rigid system of rods and clocks accelerating doesn't make sense in SR.

 

[Austin0]

Every point and every clock is moving forward through time throughout the frame.
There is no possible acceleration that can violate this in the real world,, that can lead to two points and clocks from succeeding spacetime points of the frame being colocated .

Looking at an accelerating frame over time we can say that it is represented by a series of ICMIF's and that abstractly these are different reference frames.
But in reality this is one physical system/frame which alters over time.

ICMIF = Instantaneous CoMoving Inertial Frame?

Yes

I suppose at a first attempt I would say that this is the problem. An accelerating frame can't be identified with a series of ICMIF's, as these are in conflict with each other. What we can do, is somehow try and patch various sections of these together to cover a part of space-time, and work from there.

But I agree that it can't make sense to accelerate a large physical frame so that lines of simultaneity cross, and suppose that, at the end of the process, you still have something that corresponds to anything physical. My guess is that this is because it doesn't really make sense to talk of accelerating all the parts of the frame by an equal amount.

Well if we are going to go the Born rigid route, it's obviously going to get complicated and it becomes questionable out front, if the drawn lines of simultaneity have any real meaning at all. Even with Born rigid acceleration, all points of the system are still moving forward in time with no possibility of looping around and intersecting with any other point from a different time.
As far as accelerating all parts an equal amount, I would say that this is obviously impossible until we have a new physics that we can use to create inertialess drives.
On the other hand actual implementation of Born acceleration is just as much an abstract ideal , impossible to implement. SO if the basic premise is correct, all our attempts are doomed to stretch apart and decompose.
If we view an accelerating system as a bunch of different ICMIF's at a single point on the worldline then this makes the lines of simultaneity for any point meaningless as far as a temporal relationship with far off spatially separated points in other frames.
With inertial frames the lines of simultaneity tell you what a clock from one frame will read relative to a colocated clock at that position from the other frame.
Minkowski version of JesseM's clocks and rulers. Just more easily accessable except that to derive position values for the primed frame you have to apply the gamma transform , whereas the clocks and rulers paradigm shows you exactlyt what observers at those positions will read on their clocks and the other frames.
Useful and valid information. But does this tell you anything about any actual temporal relationship between x' and some disparate x.?

My assumption is that these intersections and colocations are due to the problem of graphing a non-uniform metric into the essentially flat (single transform) Euclidean/Pythagorean plane and that they would not show up with direct application of the Lorentz transformation for the points in question.

I'm not sure about this - in SR, Minkowski space-time is always flat - so I tend to think that the metric - which I think of as tracking the underlying geometry - stays the same.
Minkowski space is only a kind of geometrisation of the Lorentz Transforms, so I'd be very surprised to see them coming apart. The Lorentz transformations are only valid for inertial frames too. They too say that lines of simultaneity from different inertial frames will cross.

My point exactly. The space maintains a uniform geometry but the lines of simultaneity do not. With a line for an inertial frame you can take a segment, literally an inch in the physical drawing space and this will have a discrete geometric length interpretation. A definite dx' with definite x' coordinates at each end. This holds true for any line .
This is not true for accelerating lines. Successive segments one inch from the world line do not represent the same x' , so their intersections with other points of the unprimed frame will not be geometrically valid.
Of course lines from different inertial frames can cross, this is not a problem. A given point can have any number of clocks and observers from different frames colocated and not conflict with reality whatsoever as they will all agree on these events and the lines of simultaneity in a diagram retain their useful coorespondence with actuality.

DO you think this can be dismissed with a shrug and " Oh ,its just a coordinate effect"

I'm not sure whether I'd shrug - but I'd like to resolve it in terms of the idea that accelerating frames aren't that well defined in SR - that doesn't mean that you can't solve problems involving acceleration in SR - rather, the idea of an extended rigid system of rods and clocks accelerating doesn't make sense in SR.

I agree , and was not suggesting that SR could not handle acceleration problems, only that the information in diagrams was not a valid representation of the mathematical results regarding simultaneity. Unless you tell me that direct application of the fundamental Lorentz transformation can indicate these intersections and temporal reorderings. If that is the case then it becomes a whole different question , doesn't it?

As far as accelerating " an extended rigid system of rods and clocks"

1) there are no systems of completely rigid rods and Born rigidity is a pure abstraction.

2) What else can we possibly accelerate except a system that is as close as we can get to rigid rods? I.e. ship or whatever.

Thanks

 

[Austin0]

Lines of simultaneity are based on the SR simultaneity convention. And it's just that: a convention for assigning time coordinates based on a constant light speed of c.

The physical meaning of the time coordinate assigned to a distant event is the relationship between event occurrence and observation in the inertial frame in which it was assigned. It doesn't have that same physical meaning for observers who are not at rest in that same inertial frame for the observation of the event.

This is because the SR simultaneity convention is based on the assumption of a constant light speed of c, and light speed is not c (globally) in accelerated reference frames.

Well the first part I certainly agree with as it is so elementary I have to wonder why you brought it up. The second part regarding accelerating frames I am unsure of the relevance you are trying to explain. Are you saying the lines of simultaneity are not corresponding to reality because c is not invariant in such frames??

 

[Al68]

Well the first part I certainly agree with as it is so elementary I have to wonder why you brought it up. The second part regarding accelerating frames I am unsure of the relevance you are trying to explain. Are you saying the lines of simultaneity are not corresponding to reality because c is not invariant in such frames??

I'm saying that the lines of simultaneity in any frame correspond to a convention, not any deeper physical reality.

The physical reality is that a distant event cannot be compared directly to a local clock. A distant event must be assigned a local time coordinate by convention, and the result is "correct" if that convention is used.

 

[yossell]

I'm saying that the lines of simultaneity in any frame correspond to a convention, not any deeper physical reality.

Does this imply that it's a convention that the speed of light is always the same in any frame?

 

[Austin0]

I'm saying that the lines of simultaneity in any frame correspond to a convention, not any deeper physical reality.

The physical reality is that a distant event cannot be compared directly to a local clock. A distant event must be assigned a local time coordinate by convention, and the result is "correct" if that convention is used.

So you don't think that lines of simultaneity wrt inertial frames represent a physical reality as far as frame agreed clock colocations??

 

[DrGreg]

Inertial frames using standard Minkowski coordinates can be pictured as a grid of rulers with clocks attached to them. They have the following properties

1. each ruler measures the "correct" local distance
2. each clock measures the "correct" local time
3. the clocks are synchronised by Einstein's synchronisation convention

If you want to picture a non-inertial frame in the same way, you run into a problem: you find that you can't satisfy all three of the above conditions and at least one of them must be sacrificed. And because you have a choice, we can't really talk about the frame of a non-inertial observer, only one choice of a frame. Note that (3) now has to be interpreted as the clocks are synchronised to the clocks of a co-moving inertial frame.

For example in Rindler coordinates for a uniformly accelerating observer, we can keep conditions (1) and (3), but (2) gets thrown away: most of the "coordinate clocks" have to be deliberately adjusted to run too fast or too slow (relative to "correct" proper clocks) in order to meet condition (3). As you move behind the observer, the clocks run slower and slower until you reach a point where they stop. In fact it's even worse than that: at that point, the clock ought to show all possible times simultaneously! And if you went beyond that point, the clocks would have to go backwards! This ugliness is usually avoided simply by stipulating that our coordinate system doesn't extend that far. (For a mathematically rigorous definition of coordinates, this is essential: we can't have the same coordinates for two different events.) This is a convention, but all coordinate systems and all frames are conventions anyway.

For what it's worth, in a rotating coordinate system, it turns out that (3) is very problematic; you can't choose a system where (3) is true in all directions relative to every point.

 

[DrGreg]

So you don't think that lines of simultaneity wrt inertial frames represent a physical reality as far as frame agreed clock colocations??

No. Simultaneity is a human-invented convention: very useful for doing calculations but of no experimentally-verifiable physical significance.

Does this imply that it's a convention that the speed of light is always the same in any frame?

If you refer to the "one-way" speed of light from A to B, yes it's a convention determined by the definition of simultaneity you choose. But the "two-way" speed of light, from A to B and back to A again, is no convention, it's experimentally measurable and constant.

(To be pedantic, the last statement hasn't been strictly true since 1983, when the two-way speed of light became constant by definition. So I'm thinking in terms of the old definition of the metre.)

 

[yossell]

If you refer to the "one-way" speed of light from A to B, yes it's a convention determined by the definition of simultaneity you choose. But the "two-way" speed of light, from A to B and back to A again, is no convention, it's experimentally measurable and constant.

I'm surprised that the one-way speed of light turns out to be a convention. Is this the mainstream view? I've seen a lot of stuff about the conventionality of coordinates in the textbooks, but not about one way speed of light being a convention. I'm usually told that the speed of light is a constant in an inertial frame is an experimental fact.

What about the Lorentz transformations? I understood these to be an empirically discovered fundamental symmetry in our laws of nature. But they say the one-way speed of light is a constant. I'm not sure how this could be if the one-way speed of light is really a convention.

 

[DrGreg]

I'm surprised that the one-way speed of light turns out to be a convention. Is this the mainstream view? I've seen a lot of stuff about the conventionality of coordinates in the textbooks, but not about one way speed of light being a convention. I'm usually told that the speed of light is a constant in an inertial frame is an experimental fact.

If the books don't discuss the conceptual difference between the one-way & two-way speed then they are brushing the issue under the carpet. You could interpret Einstein's two postulates as an implicit assumption that we are going to use "Einstein-synchronised" coordinates (and indeed Einstein's original paper says something on this in the paragraphs before he states his postulates).

Any "one-way" measurement needs two clocks to measure the start & finish of the journey, and those clocks have to be synchronised somehow. Einstein's method assumes a two-way light trip takes equal times for both legs of the journey, so it's inevitable that Einstein-synced clocks measure the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed.

Another practical way of syncing clocks is to use "slow transport": move a third clock C slowly from A to B and sync C to A at the start, and B to C at the end. Anyone who understands the twin paradox will appreciate this won't work if C is moved quickly, but we can consider the mathematical limit as the speed of C tends to zero. It turns out this method gives exactly the same synchronisation as Einstein's method.

If you don't use Einstein synchronisation (= slow transport) you find that the one-way speed of light varies with direction and many of the time-dependent equations of the laws of physics look a lot more complicated. You could argue this invalidates such a coordinate system from consideration under Einstein's first postulate.

I'm not sure what is standard terminology, but I think you could argue that a coordinate system that uses non-standard synchronisation is not an "inertial frame" (even if the observer is inertial). Under that terminology, "the (one-way) speed of light is a constant in an inertial frame is an experimental fact" would be correct, because your definition of "inertial frame" implies the one-way and two-way speeds are equal.

What about the Lorentz transformations? I understood these to be an empirically discovered fundamental symmetry in our laws of nature. But they say the one-way speed of light is a constant. I'm not sure how this could be if the one-way speed of light is really a convention.

Again, there is an implicit assumption that Einstein-synced coordinates are being used. If you used non-standard coords, you get a more complicated transformation than Lorentz's. (One version of this is called Edwards' transformation.)

________

As a final thought, it is worth pointing out that in an accelerating frame, even the two-way speed of light needn't be constant.

 

[yossell]

Thanks, DrGreg, these are interesting posts.

I'm still not clear on whether the view that the one way speed of light is constant is just a convention, like choice of coordinate system or inertial frame, or whether it is something that is factual, which we may reasonably believe based on some kind of inductive grounds, a reasonable and justified extrapolation from our measurements of the two way speed.

Poincare believed that geometry of space was merely conventional: one could explain the behaviour of rods either by supposing that space was curved, or by working in a flat space in which new forces acted that deformed all bodies, whatever their composition, to the same degree. He thought which system we used was a matter of convention. This seems too strong and the kinds of forces we'd have to postulate to give the same results look ad hoc, giving rise to a more complex theory which complicated laws.

It's not clear to me that the kind of system that results on the supposition that the one-way speed of light can vary are like the choice of a complex and ugly coordinate system, or form a theory with a complicated and strange law (how come the speed of light can vary, yet always vary by the right amount to make the two-way speed a constant?) which should be rejected in favour of the simpler theory.

But I agree I need to think about it more! Thanks for the information.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]
If we view an accelerating system as a bunch of different ICMIF's at a single point on the worldline [...]

That's not what I'm doing. At each point on the accelerating traveler's worldline (when that worldline is plotted on perpendicular axes corresponding to the x,t coordinates of some inertial frame), there is a SINGLE inertial frame which is momentarily stationary with respect to the traveler (the "MSIRF").

The only sense in which that inertial frame is not unique is that we are free to choose the location of the origin of that inertial frame as we wish. But the time axis of the MSIRF will always be parallel to the tangent to the worldline at the given point. To that extent, the MSIRF is unique at the given point on the worldline.

For different points on the worldline, the MSIRFs are different. But they change in a continuous way, for physically realizable accelerations.

Mike Fontenot

 

[DrGreg]

Thanks, DrGreg, these are interesting posts.

I'm still not clear on whether the view that the one way speed of light is constant is just a convention, like choice of coordinate system or inertial frame, or whether it is something that is factual, which we may reasonably believe based on some kind of inductive grounds, a reasonable and justified extrapolation from our measurements of the two way speed.

Poincare believed that geometry of space was merely conventional: one could explain the behaviour of rods either by supposing that space was curved, or by working in a flat space in which new forces acted that deformed all bodies, whatever their composition, to the same degree. He thought which system we used was a matter of convention. This seems too strong and the kinds of forces we'd have to postulate to give the same results look ad hoc, giving rise to a more complex theory which complicated laws.

It's not clear to me that the kind of system that results on the supposition that the one-way speed of light can vary are like the choice of a complex and ugly coordinate system, or form a theory with a complicated and strange law (how come the speed of light can vary, yet always vary by the right amount to make the two-way speed a constant?) which should be rejected in favour of the simpler theory.

But I agree I need to think about it more! Thanks for the information.

The Michaelson-Morley experiment implied that the two-way speed of light was constant, and Lorentz and his contemporaries worked on theories to explain this before Einstein. They were able to do this by postulating length contraction and time dilation relative to a postulated aether. This was good enough to explain a constant two-way speed of light but didn't imply a constant one-way speed.

However, length contraction and time dilation were not enough to satisfy Maxwell's equations in the "moving" frame, so Lorentz came up with what he called "local time", a resynchronisation of the already dilated time. This seems to have been a mathematical trick to get Maxwell's equations to work and wasn't considered to have much other significance. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that this was equivalent to what became Einstein's synchronisation convention.

Contracted length and dilated "local" time went into the equations which we now call the Lorentz transform.

The point of all this is to give an example of non-constant one-way speed, using Lorentz's contracted length and dilated time without the "local" offset.

You can read some more about one-way speed in the first chapter of Zhang's book which is available online at www.worldscibooks.com/physics/3180.html (from page 8).

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]
The only sense in which that inertial frame is not unique is that we are free to choose the location of the origin of that inertial frame as we wish. But the time axis of the MSIRF will always be parallel to the tangent to the worldline at the given point. To that extent, the MSIRF is unique at the given point on the worldline.

I should have added that, although the choice of origin (for the MSIRF at any given point on the worldline of the accelerating traveler) is arbitrary, we can use that flexibility to choose the origin in a way that simplifies things, in any particular situation.

In "current age of a distant object" type problems, it's usually simplist to choose the origin of the MSIRF so that the traveler (at the given point on his worldline) is located at x = 0, i.e., so that the time axis of the MSIRF lies on the tangent to the worldline.

The origin still hasn't been completely determined by the above choice...we've just constrained the origin to lie somewhere on the tangent. The simplist additional choice is to choose the origin so that the value of the time coordinate, at the given spacetime point, is equal to the traveler's age.

With the above two choices (which DO fix the location of the origin), the statements that one needs to make about the correspondance between the ages of the traveler and the distance object (which is most often his twin, in these problems), are especially simple. They also make the MSIRF strictly unique.

To get the simplist possible statements, we also need to choose the original inertial frame (which we are using to plot the traveler's worldline) so that the distant object is stationary at x = 0 in that frame, and so that the time coordinate in that frame is equal to the object's age.

Mike Fontenot

 

[Austin0]

If we view an accelerating system as a bunch of different ICMIF's at a single point on the worldline then this makes the lines of simultaneity for any point meaningless as far as a temporal relationship with far off spatially separated points in other frames.

Inertial frames using standard Minkowski coordinates can be pictured as a grid of rulers with clocks attached to them. They have the following properties

1. each ruler measures the "correct" local distance
2. each clock measures the "correct" local time
3. the clocks are synchronised by Einstein's synchronisation convention

If you want to picture a non-inertial frame in the same way, you run into a problem: you find that you can't satisfy all three of the above conditions and at least one of them must be sacrificed. And because you have a choice, we can't really talk about the frame of a non-inertial observer, only one choice of a frame. Note that (3) now has to be interpreted as the clocks are synchronised to the clocks of a co-moving inertial frame.

Hi DrGreg This great as I am very interested in gaining understanding of Rindler coordinates.

So is what you are saying here consistent with my quote above?? That every R_n

has a different co-moving inertial frame ?

That there can't be considered to be one CMIF for the whole frame?

For example in Rindler coordinates for a uniformly accelerating observer, we can keep conditions (1) and (3), but (2) gets thrown away: most of the "coordinate clocks" have to be deliberately adjusted to run too fast or too slow (relative to "correct" proper clocks) in order to meet condition (3). As you move behind the observer, the clocks run slower and slower until you reach a point where they stop. In fact it's even worse than that: at that point, the clock ought to show all possible times simultaneously! And if you went beyond that point, the clocks would have to go backwards! This ugliness is usually avoided simply by stipulating that our coordinate system doesn't extend that far. (For a mathematically rigorous definition of coordinates, this is essential: we can't have the same coordinates for two different events.) This is a convention, but all coordinate systems and all frames are conventions anyway.

I think I follow you wrt the clocks having to have different rates to compensate for the g dilation factor. But to my understanding this could be easily accomplised if the clocks from the rear forward were calibrated to run faster with the factor diminishing from the rear to front. Or am i missing something??
As for the clocks running slower and slower or showing all times simulateously , that one is over my head. I would like to know more.
Obviously we can't have the same coordinates for two events. But in this case isn't it a case of having two coordinates for a single event?? I.e. the intersecting lines of simultaneity?

SO from this would you say the ugliness only starts from the points of intersection??
How do you decide where the lines become inaccurate or where are the limits of the coordinate frame??

It seems that Schwarzschild coordinates have indefinite extension in radius , is this not so??
Certainly an accelerating system can be extended indefinitely in space, if nothing else by the expedient of have a second ship at whatever distance that co-accelerates ,yes??

For what it's worth, in a rotating coordinate system, it turns out that (3) is very problematic; you can't choose a system where (3) is true in all directions relative to every point.

I believe you and plan to stay out of rotating coordinate systems altogether. I like my c invariant and constant thank you

 

[Austin0]

Well if we are going to go the Born rigid route, it's obviously going to get complicated

If we view an accelerating system as a bunch of different ICMIF's at a single point on the worldline then this makes the lines of simultaneity for any point meaningless as far as a temporal relationship with far off spatially separated points in other frames.

That's not what I'm doing. At each point on the accelerating traveler's worldline (when that worldline is plotted on perpendicular axes corresponding to the x,t coordinates of some inertial frame), there is a SINGLE inertial frame which is momentarily stationary with respect to the traveler (the "MSIRF").

The only sense in which that inertial frame is not unique is that we are free to choose the location of the origin of that inertial frame as we wish. But the time axis of the MSIRF will always be parallel to the tangent to the worldline at the given point. To that extent, the MSIRF is unique at the given point on the worldline.

For different points on the worldline, the MSIRFs are different. But they change in a continuous way, for physically realizable accelerations.

Mike Fontenot

Hi Mike If you will note I was referring to a Born rigid system. I know you were not using this perspective.
In that previous thread I tried to make it clear I understand the basis of your system , agree with it completely and have done my calculations on the same premise for a long time.
So if you want to really help with this question pick a Minkowski diagram for an accelerating system and run the numbers for two intersecting simultaneity lines and see what CADO says about those coordinate events. I.e. DO the colocations occur?
DO the coordinate locations in the two lines of S correspond to the geometric distances of the line segments between the world lines and the point of intersection; the coordinate positions indicated by the geometry??

BTW No problem wrt assigning origen or other details you are referring to.
Thanks austin0

 

[Austin0]

If the books don't discuss the conceptual difference between the one-way & two-way speed then they are brushing the issue under the carpet. You could interpret Einstein's two postulates as an implicit assumption that we are going to use "Einstein-synchronised" coordinates (and indeed Einstein's original paper says something on this in the paragraphs before he states his postulates).

Given the convention is there really any issue??

ANy meaningful difference between one and two measurements or even between one and two way synchronization??

Any "one-way" measurement needs two clocks to measure the start & finish of the journey, and those clocks have to be synchronised somehow. Einstein's method assumes a two-way light trip takes equal times for both legs of the journey, so it's inevitable that Einstein-synced clocks measure the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed.

But not neccessarily equal distances for both legs , right??

I always thought the basis of the two way reflected measurement was that in any system with constant velocity the two way measurements must be of equal summed distance independent of direction?

That synching clocks based on equal time of both legs was an accomodation for the requirement of a constant c?

As a final thought, it is worth pointing out that in an accelerating frame, even the two-way speed of light needn't be constant.

Well we used to think it could not possibly be isotropically invariant in an inertially moving system either , but that didn't work out to be the case did it??

 

[Austin0]

So you don't think that lines of simultaneity wrt inertial frames represent a physical reality as far as frame agreed clock colocations??

No. Simultaneity is a human-invented convention: very useful for doing calculations but of no experimentally-verifiable physical significance.

Certainly simultaneity is a human convention in the sense we are talking about generally.
But that is not what I am referring to here.

I am referring to lines of simultaneity in a Minkowski diagram and relating them to actual clocks and rulers in the systems in question.

We had a long conversation last year about this very thing , do you remember?

That these lines simply graph the relationship of the clocks on the train to the clocks on the tracks. And the train and tracks can be considered to extend spatially however long we wish.

As we believe SR to be a valid description of reality ,this means that given an actual relativistic train that the colocated clocks and observers in the real world would reflect these same graphed relationships,,, true or not?

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]
So if you want to really help with this question pick a Minkowski diagram for an accelerating system and run the numbers for two intersecting simultaneity lines and see what CADO says about those coordinate events. I.e. DO the colocations occur?
[...]

I still don't understand what you're asking.

Suppose the traveler Tom is at some distance L (according to the home twin Sue) at some instant tau1 in his life, and that he is moving TOWARD Sue at some speed -v1. His line of simultaneity then will have a negative slope (with my convention), and so he will say that Sue's age is t1, whereas Sue will say she was age T1 when Tom was age tau1, with t1 > T1...i.e., Tom will say that Sue was OLDER than Sue says she was, when Tom was age tau1.

Then, Tom accelerates with some constant acceleration a = a1 g, so as to (eventually) get him back to the SAME distance L from Sue, and with a speed v1 (the same speed as before, but now moving AWAY from Sue. His age at that instant is tau2. His line of simultaneity now has a positive slope, and so he will say that Sue's age is t2, whereas Sue will say she was age T2 when Tom was age tau2, with t2 < T2...i.e., Tom will say that Sue was YOUNGER than Sue says she was, when Tom was age tau2.

Now, those two lines of simultaneity will cross somewhere, in the direction toward Sue from Tom.

For small enough acceleration, the intersection will be BELOW the horizontal (Sue's time) axis (i.e, at a distance greater than L...on the other side of Sue from Tom). The intersection will always lie on a vertical line midway between t1 and t2.

For large enough accelerations, the intersection will be ABOVE the horizontal (Sue's time) axis (i.e, at a distance less than L...between Tom and Sue). Again, the intersection will always lie on a vertical line midway between t1 and t2.

There is obviously SOME acceleration where the intersection will be exactly ON the horizontal (Sue's time) axis.

I don't know if any of the situations above have any relevance to your question (since I don't understand the question). If you'd like, I can email you an executable computer program that I use for doing these constant acceleration problems, and you can perhaps generate the data you're wanting to investigate. I've got two versions, one for microsoft machines, and one for linux machines...I don't have a version for the Mac.

Mike Fontenot

[ADDENDUM:] If you haven't seen it before, you might want to take a look at my webpage, where I give a specific example with lots of "yo-yo-like" 1g accelerations, in which the traveler must conclude that his sister's age fluctuates back and forth between young and old age. But I still don't know if that behavior is what is bothering you or not. The link is:

http://home.comcast.net/~mlfasf

 

[DrGreg]

If we view an accelerating system as a bunch of different ICMIF's at a single point on the worldline then this makes the lines of simultaneity for any point meaningless as far as a temporal relationship with far off spatially separated points in other frames.

I can't work out what you have in mind by this -- it makes no sense to me. Mike_Fontenot gave a response to this in post #21.

I don't know if you have a good picture of Rindler coordinates. Have a look at the diagram attached to this post. Ignore the right hand diagram, look at the left only.

The black line is the worldline of the accelerating observer. Each red line is a constant distance from the observer. Each green line is the line of simultaneity of a comoving inertial observer.

That every R_n has a different co-moving inertial frame ?

That there can't be considered to be one CMIF for the whole frame?

I don't know what R_n means, but, yes, each event along the observer's worldline has a different co-moving inertial frame.

I think I follow you wrt the clocks having to have different rates to compensate for the g dilation factor. But to my understanding this could be easily accomplised if the clocks from the rear forward were calibrated to run faster with the factor diminishing from the rear to front.

Well, yes that's what I'm saying, the "frame clocks" have to run too fast or too slow compared with a local "proper" clock if you want to keep all the frame clocks synced along the green lines.

As for the clocks running slower and slower or showing all times simulateously , that one is over my head. I would like to know more.

Actually I made a mistake in my last post. The clocks behind the observer (to the observer's left on the diagram) have to go faster (not slower) to keep synced along the green lines. The red dots (which represent ticks of the frame clocks) get closer together as you go to the left. Eventually they all merge into a single point and if the diagram continued even further to the left, the frame clocks would be going backwards relative to proper clocks.

Obviously we can't have the same coordinates for two events. But in this case isn't it a case of having two coordinates for a single event?? I.e. the intersecting lines of simultaneity?

Yes, you are right, that's actually what I meant to say but I wrote it the wrong way round.

SO from this would you say the ugliness only starts from the points of intersection??
How do you decide where the lines become inaccurate or where are the limits of the coordinate frame??

In my diagram you'd restrict to x + 10 > |t| (or X > −10) to avoid the "coordinate singularity".

It seems that Schwarzschild coordinates have indefinite extension in radius , is this not so??
Certainly an accelerating system can be extended indefinitely in space, if nothing else by the expedient of have a second ship at whatever distance that co-accelerates ,yes?

Schwarzschild coordinates are really two sets of different coordinates, one set outside the horizon and another set inside the horizon. The horizon itself lies outside both systems. So the outside coordinates can be extended indefinitely outwards but only go as far as the horizon inwards. At the horizon you get a "coordinate singularity" similar to the "crossing simultaneity lines" you get with Rindler coordinates.

 

[Al68]

So you don't think that lines of simultaneity wrt inertial frames represent a physical reality as far as frame agreed clock colocations??

I'm not sure what you mean here. If two clocks in relative motion are colocated (at the same place) they may be compared directly at that time in each frame. It's every other time on each worldline that we use the SR simultaneity convention for, ie when the clocks (or events) are separated by a distance. Lines of simultaneity connect non-local clocks or events.

 

[Austin0]

So you don't think that lines of simultaneity wrt inertial frames represent a physical reality as far as frame agreed clock colocations??

Certainly simultaneity is a human convention in the sense we are talking about generally.
But that is not what I am referring to here.

I am referring to lines of simultaneity in a Minkowski diagram and relating them to actual clocks and rulers in the systems in question.

That these lines simply graph the relationship of the clocks on the train to the clocks on the tracks. And the train and tracks can be considered to extend spatially however long we wish.

As we believe SR to be a valid description of reality ,this means that given an actual relativistic train that the colocated clocks and observers in the real world would reflect these same graphed relationships,,, true or not?

I'm not sure what you mean here. If two clocks in relative motion are colocated (at the same place) they may be compared directly at that time in each frame. It's every other time on each worldline that we use the SR simultaneity convention for, ie when the clocks (or events) are separated by a distance. Lines of simultaneity connect non-local clocks or events.

I mean that the lines of simultaneity in a diagram are graphical representations of the frame itself. If the physical size of the frame is limited in extent the graph is of virtual observers and clocks of the frame at those distant locations. That there is no significant difference between the two. YOu can just consider the frame extending however long you want.
The graph is just portraying what the fundamental Lorentz math would tell you about the
clocks at that specific point on the hyperplane/line. It gives direct temporal readings and spatial location in x and geometrically correct spatial locations in x' , but to read this requires the transform (gamma).
Is this any clearer? In the OP there is a link to a thread discussing if you don't agree.

 

[Austin0]

If we view an accelerating system as a bunch of different ICMIF's at a single point on the worldline then this makes the lines of simultaneity for any point meaningless as far as a temporal relationship with far off spatially separated points in other frames.

I can't work out what you have in mind by this -- it makes no sense to me. Mike_Fontenot gave a response to this in post #21.

Hi ...this is not my idea but one I have encountered by many in other threads.
That each R location in an accelerating frame has a unique CMIF due to the difference in instantaneous velocity between the front , back and in between.

I don't know if you have a good picture of Rindler coordinates. Have a look at the diagram attached to this post. Ignore the right hand diagram, look at the left only.

The black line is the worldline of the accelerating observer. Each red line is a constant distance from the observer. Each green line is the line of simultaneity of a comoving inertial observer.

According to this it looks like at any moment there is a single CMIF for the entire system.

Not only that but considered over time they all seem to converge and be simultaneous with a single event.
Of course this is just the kind of apparent separation from reality that motivated this thread.
What kind of meaning do you attach to this ?
I have read and reread the description of the Born hypothesis and can't make any connection to physics as we know it. It is not like we can't accelerate a system to 1 g
, Einsteins elevator. Without Born rigid acceleration. Is there anything to actually compel us to think this acceleration could not just continue indefinitely?

So is what you are saying here consistent with my quote above?? That every R_n

has a different co-moving inertial frame ?

That there can't be considered to be one CMIF for the whole frame?

I don't know what R_n means, but, yes, each event along the observer's worldline has a different co-moving inertial frame.

R_n was just my inept way of indicating different R locations in the frame.
So am I correct in thinking you mean each point along the worldline of a single location has a different frame but the frame as a whole has a single CMIF for each point on the composite worldline?

SO from this would you say the ugliness only starts from the points of intersection??
How do you decide where the lines become inaccurate or where are the limits of the coordinate frame??

The clocks behind the observer (to the observer's left on the diagram) have to go faster (not slower) to keep synced along the green lines. The red dots (which represent ticks of the frame clocks) get closer together as you go to the left. Eventually they all merge into a single point and if the diagram continued even further to the left, the frame clocks would be going backwards relative to proper clocks.

In my diagram you'd restrict to x + 10 > |t| (or X > −10) to avoid the "coordinate singularity".

How does this relate to an accelerated frame in MInkowski space then??

ANd does this mean that beyond this point the lines orf simultaneity should be disregarded altogether??

 

[Austin0]

I still don't understand what you're asking. Now, those two lines of simultaneity will cross somewhere, in the direction toward Sue from Tom.

For small enough acceleration, the intersection will be BELOW the horizontal (Sue's time) axis (i.e, at a distance greater than L...on the other side of Sue from Tom). The intersection will always lie on a vertical line midway between t1 and t2.

For large enough accelerations, the intersection will be ABOVE the horizontal (Sue's time) axis (i.e, at a distance less than L...between Tom and Sue). Again, the intersection will always lie on a vertical line midway between t1 and t2.

There is obviously SOME acceleration where the intersection will be exactly ON the horizontal (Sue's time) axis.

I don't know if any of the situations above have any relevance to your question (since I don't understand the question). If you'd like, I can email you an executable computer program that I use for doing these constant acceleration problems, and you can perhaps generate the data you're wanting to investigate. I've got two versions, one for microsoft machines, and one for linux machines...I don't have a version for the Mac.



in which the traveler must conclude that his sister's age fluctuates back and forth between young and old age. But I still don't know if that behavior is what is bothering you or not. The link is:

http://home.comcast.net/~mlfasf

Hi Mike It is not the age fluctuations per se that I am talking about.

It is the intersections that are the problem and whether this problem is confined to these points and outwards or if it indicates a more pervasive problem.
If you haven't realized it so far I am working on the premise that lines of simultaneity are representative of the frame itself. That it can be considered that some observer from Tom's frame is colocated with Sue simultaneous with Tom's time and lookling at Sues clock.
I don't know if your program also dervives the spatial location in Tom's frame of the proximate observer but the lines in a diagram for inertial frames contains that information which is completely accurate in that case but I am trying to find out if the spatial information is geometrically accurate with accelerating frames.
As I said in th OP if you don't understand or disagree with what I mean by the equivalence of the hyperplane and the frame itself there is a link there to another thread addressing this concept.
I hope this makes it clearer at least what I am asking.
Dont you find the intersecting lines to be inconsistent with any possible reality?

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]
Dont you find the intersecting lines to be inconsistent with any possible reality?

No, there is no inconsistency.

In the example I gave in my previous posting, I indicated that Tom's acceleration could be chosen so that the intersection between Tom's two lines of simultaneity (before and after his acceleration) would occur directly on Sue's time axis...which means that Tom would say that Sue is the SAME age before and after his acceleration. Sue, of course, doesn't agree.

There isn't any inconsistency there...Sue and Tom NEVER agree about the correspondence between their ages, unless their relative speed is zero, or unless they are co-located.

The above scenario is an example of a more general result:

I prove, toward the end of my paper, that for any given acceleration A, and initial speed v at the beginning of that acceleration, that there is a critical separation L_c such that the distant object's (Sue's) age won't change at all, regardless of how long the acceleration persists, if their separation at the beginning of the acceleration is L_c.

The equation is

L_c = gamma / A,

where gamma is the usual time-dilation factor (which is a function of the absolute value of the speed), and A is in units of ly/y/y. (1 ly/y/y is about 0.97 g).

(For simplicity, I omitted a factor of c*c in the above equation, which is needed for dimensional correctness, but since I'm using units where c has the value 1, the omission doesn't affect the numerical values being computed).

So not only is Sue's age the same (according to Tom) at the beginning and at the end of his acceleration, it remains constant during his whole segment of acceleration.

Bizarre? Yes, but it's not inconsistent. It is REQUIRED by the combination of the Lorentz equations and my proof that the accelerating traveler must always adopt the simultaneity of his current MSIRF, if he is to avoid contradicting his own elementary measurements and elementary calculations.

I gave a reference early in this thread for my paper that I referred to several times above. In case you missed it before, the reference is:

"Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity",
PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629.

Mike Fontenot

 

[Al68]

I mean that the lines of simultaneity in a diagram are graphical representations of the frame itself. If the physical size of the frame is limited in extent the graph is of virtual observers and clocks of the frame at those distant locations. That there is no significant difference between the two. YOu can just consider the frame extending however long you want.
The graph is just portraying what the fundamental Lorentz math would tell you about the
clocks at that specific point on the hyperplane/line. It gives direct temporal readings and spatial location in x and geometrically correct spatial locations in x' , but to read this requires the transform (gamma).

Yes, but the time coordinate t' assigned by frame S to be simultaneous with t is convention, not directly observed until a later time t, unless the clock (or event) is local. Lines of simultaneity connect t with t' by using the SR simultaneity convention.

 

[Austin0]

No, there is no inconsistency.

In the example I gave in my previous posting, I indicated that Tom's acceleration could be chosen so that the intersection between Tom's two lines of simultaneity (before and after his acceleration) would occur directly on Sue's time axis...which means that Tom would say that Sue is the SAME age before and after his acceleration. Sue, of course, doesn't agree.

There isn't any inconsistency there...Sue and Tom NEVER agree about the correspondence between their ages, unless their relative speed is zero, or unless they are co-located.

The above scenario is an example of a more general result:

I prove, toward the end of my paper, that for any given acceleration A, and initial speed v at the beginning of that acceleration, that there is a critical separation L_c such that the distant object's (Sue's) age won't change at all, regardless of how long the acceleration persists, if their separation at the beginning of the acceleration is L_c.

The equation is

L_c = gamma / A,

where gamma is the usual time-dilation factor (which is a function of the absolute value of the speed), and A is in units of ly/y/y. (1 ly/y/y is about 0.97 g).

(For simplicity, I omitted a factor of c*c in the above equation, which is needed for dimensional correctness, but since I'm using units where c has the value 1, the omission doesn't affect the numerical values being computed).

So not only is Sue's age the same (according to Tom) at the beginning and at the end of his acceleration, it remains constant during his whole segment of acceleration.

Bizarre? Yes, but it's not inconsistent. It is REQUIRED by the combination of the Lorentz equations and my proof that the accelerating traveler must always adopt the simultaneity of his current MSIRF, if he is to avoid contradicting his own elementary measurements and elementary calculations.

I gave a reference early in this thread for my paper that I referred to several times above. In case you missed it before, the reference is:

"Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity",
PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629.

Mike Fontenot

Hi Mike I tried accessing your paper. unfortunately I am living in S E Asia and my crdit card has lapsed.
Though in actuality I have no questions regarding your conclusions as your premise makes complete sense.
I do have one question; In the case where Toms CMIF's remain temporally constant with Sues time during acceleration do the colocated (with Sue) coordinate positions in Tom's CMIF's remain constant also ?

What you are describing seems the same as the Born hypothesis picture of constant simultaneity with a single spacetime pivot point. Would you agree ??
Of course I agree that there will never be agreement between Sue and Tom and no actual temporality can be ascribed to any of these calculations.
But I don't think that this question is just an abstract exersize either.

In priciple. is there any reason against positing Tom's frame as a physical system extended beyond Sue's location so there will at all times be a proximate clock and observer from his frame for direct comparison with Sue's clock?

 

[Austin0]

I mean that the lines of simultaneity in a diagram are graphical representations of the frame itself. If the physical size of the frame is limited in extent the graph is of virtual observers and clocks of the frame at those distant locations. That there is no significant difference between the two. YOu can just consider the frame extending however long you want.
The graph is just portraying what the fundamental Lorentz math would tell you about the
clocks at that specific point on the hyperplane/line. It gives direct temporal readings and spatial location in x and geometrically correct spatial locations in x' , but to read this requires the transform (gamma).
QUOTE]

Yes, but the time coordinate t' assigned by frame S to be simultaneous with t is convention, not directly observed until a later time t, unless the clock (or event) is local. Lines of simultaneity connect t with t' by using the SR simultaneity convention.

Certainly clocks are synched by "convention" but relative simultaneity appears to be inherent in the fundamental Lorentz transforms.
Certainly the math is consistent with the invariance of c but do you think the clock convention determined the math ?
As such isn't it implicit that it also relates to elementary particles in electrodynamics whose clocks and temporal relationships are physical not conventional??
Or do you think it is only a matter of synching the lab clocks by convention to achieve corrospondence??

Yes lines of simultaneity are used where there is no direct observation but do you disagree, that in principle in all cases, we can consider the frame itself extended to include that disparate region and the relationships would be exactly the same? Actual observers??

DO you think there is no real problem with the implications of intersecting lines and diverging lines i.e. the simultaneous colocations of observers from the same frame, temporal reordering etc.?
Is the relationship of clocks at relative velocities the result of convention or is the convention an accomodation of a real relative simultaneity implicit in the physics it is describing??

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]
I tried accessing your paper. Unfortunately, I am living in S E Asia and my credit card has lapsed.

I had figured you must be many time zones away from me, because we're never on line at the same time!

Did you try to get my paper from the journal publisher...i.e., is that why you needed your credit card? I didn't know if they would supply an individual paper or not, and if so, how much they would charge.

Are you anywhere near a university library? At least in the U.S., I think any university library can get a journal volume (or maybe even a copy of a specific paper) via an inter-library loan from another university. But I don't know if that's true internationally or not.

I do have one question: In the case where Tom's CMIFs remain temporally constant with Sue's time during acceleration, do the co-located (with Sue) coordinate positions in Tom's CMIFs remain constant also ?

At each instant during Tom's acceleration, there is a different MSIRF. You can imagine that each of those MSIRFs has its own large number of inertial observers spread out along the spatial axis. In each MSIRF, one of those inertial observers is (momentarily) co-located with Sue, at the given instant of Tom's life. That observer can directly observe Sue's age, and the answer he gets is exactly the same answer given by the Lorentz equations (and, much easier and quicker, by my CADO equation). But each of the MSIRFs has its own set of inertial observers, so the observer who happens to be momentarily stationary next to Sue, at some instant of Tom's life, is NOT the same observer who is momentarily stationary next to her at a different instant of Tom's life (and, the spatial distance between the Sue-co-located observer and the Tom-co-located observer will generally be different in different MSIRFs) . All of those different momentarily stationary observers, however, will observe that same age for Sue (during the particular constant acceleration by Tom that we are considering in this example).

What you are describing seems the same as the Born hypothesis picture of constant simultaneity with a single spacetime pivot point. Would you agree ??

Sorry, I can't help you there...I don't know anything about that Born hypothesis. Maybe someone else on this forum can comment.

In priciple, is there any reason against positing Tom's frame as a physical system extended beyond Sue's location so there will at all times be a proximate clock and observer from his frame for direct comparison with Sue's clock?

That's definitely not what I'm doing. Although each of those MSIRFs has observers stationed at all spatial locations, the observers in different MSIRFs are completely different observers. There isn't any kind of permanent, spatially-extended structure attached to Tom in my approach (not even conceptually). I suspect that any attempt to set up some kind of permanent spatially-extended frame, all or which is accelerating together somehow, is either doomed to failure, or, at best, is an inferior way to proceed.

It's important to understand that the MSIRF at tau1 of Tom's life, which has a momentarily stationary observer next to Sue, who observes that she is age t1, will conclude (using another of its observers) at a slightly later instant tau2 in Tom's life, that Sue's age is NOT t1 then. Once an inertial frame is no longer momentarily stationary wrt Tom, it is of no value to Tom at that later instant in Tom's life.

It is probably a good idea to try to always refer to an MSIRF of Tom's as "MSIRF(tau1)" or as "MSIRF(tau2)", to emphasize that there is generally a different MSIRF at each instant of Tom's life.

Mike Fontenot

 

[Al68]

Certainly clocks are synched by "convention" but relative simultaneity appears to be inherent in the fundamental Lorentz transforms.
Certainly the math is consistent with the invariance of c but do you think the clock convention determined the math ?

Of course, since the math assumes the convention.

Yes lines of simultaneity are used where there is no direct observation but do you disagree, that in principle in all cases, we can consider the frame itself extended to include that disparate region and the relationships would be exactly the same? Actual observers??

DO you think there is no real problem with the implications of intersecting lines and diverging lines i.e. the simultaneous colocations of observers from the same frame, temporal reordering etc.?
Is the relationship of clocks at relative velocities the result of convention or is the convention an accomodation of a real relative simultaneity implicit in the physics it is describing??

I'm not sure what you mean by any of this.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]
At each instant during Tom's acceleration, there is a different MSIRF. You can imagine that each of those MSIRFs has its own large number of inertial observers spread out along the spatial axis. In each MSIRF, one of those inertial observers is (momentarily) co-located with Sue, at the given instant of Tom's life. That observer can directly observe Sue's age, and the answer he gets is exactly the same answer given by the Lorentz equations (and, much easier and quicker, by my CADO equation).
[...]

I should have also added that the answer obtained by the MSIRF(tau1) observer who is momentarily co-located with Sue, is also exactly the same answer obtained by the MSIRF(tau1) observer who is momentarily co-located with Tom. That observer obtains the answer by having received transmissions from Sue giving her age (at the instant when she transmits the message), and then correctly allowing for Sue's ageing that occurred while that message was in transit.

Mike Fontenot

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

I encourage anyone, who has never done it, to spend some quality time PLOTTING the Lorentz equations, and trying to wring as much out of them (geometrically) as you can.

Just start with the simplist form of the equations (one spatial dimension, and the one time dimension), that everyone has seen. I.e., start with the set of two equations, which give x2 and t2 as functions of x1 and t1 (and with the simplist initial condition x2 = x1 = 0 when t2 = t1 = 0). For simplicity, use units where c = 1 (like years and lightyears).

Plot the x1 and t1 coordinates on perpendicular axes. (I prefer to plot x1 vertically, and t1 horizontally, but you may prefer to stick to convention and do the opposite). Put in "tic" marks, for those axes, with equal spacing on both axes.

With a little thought, you should be able to draw in the x2 and t2 axes, and also to determine the location of the "tic" marks along each of those axes. How are the angles of those axes related to each other, with respect to the horizontal and vertical axes? And you should be able to determine the lines of simultaneity and stationarity that pass through any spacetime point (for both the x1, t1 frame AND the x2, t2 frame). And you should be able to see that the intersection of a line of simultaneity with the time axis of the other frame gives the current time in that other frame, according to the frame "owning" that line of simultaneity.

All of the above stuff comes purely from those Lorentz equations...nothing else is needed.

Once you've done the above (and really understand it), it should be easy to see how I originally inferred my CADO equation while staring at such diagrams (called Minkowski diagrams)...the CADO equation just does the geometry for you.

I remember seeing this process of plotting done many years ago, in one of the many books I've used to learn SR...maybe Taylor and Wheeler, but I'm not sure. But it's very important to mess around with it yourself. It'll be time well spent.

Mike Fontenot

 

[Austin0]

I encourage anyone, who has never done it, to spend some quality time PLOTTING the Lorentz equations, and trying to wring as much out of them (geometrically) as you can.

And you should be able to determine the lines of simultaneity and stationarity that pass through any spacetime point (for both the x1, t1 frame AND the x2, t2 frame). And you should be able to see that the intersection of a line of simultaneity with the time axis of the other frame gives the current time in that other frame, according to the frame "owning" that line of simultaneity.

All of the above stuff comes purely from those Lorentz equations...nothing else is needed.

Once you've done the above (and really understand it), it should be easy to see how I originally inferred my CADO equation while staring at such diagrams (called Minkowski diagrams)...the CADO equation just does the geometry for you.

But it's very important to mess around with it yourself. It'll be time well spent.

Mike Fontenot

Hi Mike I am in total agreement here. I did exactly this myself years ago from the opposite direction. Took diagrams for two inertial systems and went through them and applied the math and checked the correspondences , It was through this exercise that I realized both the geometric spatial correspondence and accuracy of lines of simultaneity as well as the fact that it was really the frame itself that was being graphed.
I think perhaps it is this point that is at the root of our failure to communicate.
I have told you from the beginning that I understood and agreed with your system but you seem stuck thinking that because you don't understand what I am talking about that it stems from a lack of understanding on my part or disagreement.

 

[Austin0]

Of course I agree that there will never be agreement between Sue and Tom and no actual temporality can be ascribed to any of these calculations.
But I don't think that this question is just an abstract exersize either.

At each instant during Tom's acceleration, there is a different MSIRF. You can imagine that each of those MSIRFs has its own large number of inertial observers spread out along the spatial axis. In each MSIRF, one of those inertial observers is (momentarily) co-located with Sue, at the given instant of Tom's life. That observer can directly observe Sue's age, and the answer he gets is exactly the same answer given by the Lorentz equations (and, much easier and quicker, by my CADO equation). But each of the MSIRFs has its own set of inertial observers, so the observer who happens to be momentarily stationary next to Sue, at some instant of Tom's life, is NOT the same observer who is momentarily stationary next to her at a different instant of Tom's life (and, the spatial distance between the Sue-co-located observer and the Tom-co-located observer will generally be different in different MSIRFs) . All of those different momentarily stationary observers, however, will observe that same age for Sue (during the particular constant acceleration by Tom that we are considering in this example).

OK we seem to be in agreement here and I assume we would agree this all applies to inertial frames as well.
In the case of inertial frames it should be easy to see that the clocks and observers for the succeeding instants of Tom's passage through spacetime [i.e. lines of simultaneity]
are in fact a single system of clocks. Each instant [LoS] is the same system with an infinitesimal change in proper time.
WHen graphing an accelerating system it is the convention to consider each succeeding instant as a separate, different system of clocks and observers. But this is just an abstraction , arising as far as I can see, from the idea that an accelerating system is not a valid frame of reference so must be replaced by a series of "valid " instantaneous inertial frames.

In priciple. is there any reason against positing Tom's frame as a physical system extended beyond Sue's location so there will at all times be a proximate clock and observer from his frame for direct comparison with Sue's clock?

That's definitely not what I'm doing. Although each of those MSIRFs has observers stationed at all spatial locations, the observers in different MSIRFs are completely different observers. There isn't any kind of permanent, spatially-extended structure attached to Tom in my approach (not even conceptually). I suspect that any attempt to set up some kind of permanent spatially-extended frame, all or which is accelerating together somehow, is either doomed to failure, or, at best, is an inferior way to proceed. Mike Fontenot

I understand that is not what you are doing.
It is also clear that an accelerating system as a singular extended reference frame has problems computationally as well as conceptually. I don't think anyone thinks a Rindler coordinate system is particularly neat and tidy.
I am not suggesting that.
Only that in principle , if our coordinate system and concepts are to have any real meaning related to the real spacetime , we should be able to make that conceptual shift and have it conform to a possible reality. We can do this with inertial frames without reservation.
However extended in space the events graphed by lines of simultaneity [the frame] will correspond to actual frame agreed colocations of clocks.
This is not the case with accelerated lines of simultaneity. They indicate colocations, as you have detailed above, that could not take place with an actual system. I.e. various clocks and observers from different locations and times , simultaneously colocated with SUe at a single time [event].
To simply say; that is not a problem because you are talking about different, only instantaneously existing, clocks and observers is just to admit that they are meaningless abstractions with no relation to any actual system or the real world.

Number two: as you know, in an inertial diagram a geometric line segment of a line of simultaneity, indicates a clock at a specific location in that frame. Wrt the moving frame this requires the gamma transformation to derive a quantitaive value but it is always accurate.
True?
WIth an accelerated system every line has a different gamma factor so how could the segment lengths of succeeding lines be geometrically accurate as defining a specific location in the frame?

Three: Even as abstractions, succeeding CMIF's in the real world are congruent to the path of the system , true?
All the clocks in each succeeding CMIF must be advanced some infinitesimal amount forward in time from the last one. true?
Then I ask you how , without time going backward, could one CMIF be colocated with another at a different proper time?

 

[Passionflower]

It is also clear that an accelerating system as a singular extended reference frame has problems computationally as well as conceptually. I don't think anyone thinks a Rindler coordinate system is particularly neat and tidy.
I am not suggesting that.
Only that in principle , if our coordinate system and concepts are to have any real meaning related to the real spacetime , we should be able to make that conceptual shift and have it conform to a possible reality. We can do this with inertial frames without reservation.
However extended in space the events graphed by lines of simultaneity [the frame] will correspond to actual frame agreed colocations of clocks.
This is not the case with accelerated lines of simultaneity. They indicate colocations, as you have detailed above, that could not take place with an actual system. I.e. various clocks and observers from different locations and times , simultaneously colocated with SUe at a single time [event].
To simply say; that is not a problem because you are talking about different, only instantaneously existing, clocks and observers is just to admit that they are meaningless abstractions with no relation to any actual system or the real world.

Just transport tetrads instead! As someone once wrote:

"The physics is more transparent when expressed in a locally inertial frame (or some other frame adapted to the physics), as opposed to the coordinate frame, where Salvador Dali rules."

As a final thought, it is worth pointing out that in an accelerating frame, even the two-way speed of light needn't be constant.

So you are talking about the two-way instantaneous speed not being constant here?

When physicists or mathematicians say "speed" they mean "instantaneous speed" unless they explicitly say "average speed". Nothing wrong with average speed, but if that's what one is talking about, one needs to insert the word "average" otherwise one will be misunderstood.

 

[Austin0]

Just transport tetrads instead!

I'll expose my ignorance here...what are tetrads? Tropical fish perhaps??

As someone once wrote:

"The physics is more transparent when expressed in a locally inertial frame (or some other frame adapted to the physics), as opposed to the coordinate frame, where Salvador Dali rules."
?

Well you have turned my question on its head here. In this case it is with instantaneously co-moving inertial frames that the Daliesque effects are in full reign.
Unless you find temporal reordering as transparent and rational physics.

So you are talking about the two-way instantaneous speed not being constant here?

Speed of light has absolutely no bearing on this question nor do any of the other questions of length etc. that are problematic in accelerating frames

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...] but you seem stuck thinking that because you don't understand what I am talking about that it stems from a lack of understanding on my part or disagreement.

I just haven't been able to understand your concerns, despite my best efforts. I've done my best to at least guess at your concerns, and I've tried to supply some specific examples that I think might address those (presumed) concerns.

I think one way that might let me understand your concerns, would be for you to take that previous scenario I outlined (with the two lines of simultaneity (owned by the two different MSIRFs at the two specific instants of Tom's life in that example) intersecting at the same spacetime point in Sue's life), and try to formulate a extremely precise question, that exactly captures your concern, about that scenario.

I've learned the hard way that, in SR, all statements must be stated in an excruciatingly precise way...in a way that would seem ridiculously overdone and unnecessarily verbose in Newtonian physics. Any wiggle-room at all in the statements can create all sorts of perceived contradictions and paradoxes that don't actually exist.

When I gave that scenario previously, I didn't provide any specific numbers...they weren't necessary then, for the argument I was making. But if you need specific numbers in order to give a precise formulation of your concern, I'll be glad to supply them.

Mike Fontenot

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

When graphing an accelerating system it is the convention to consider each succeeding instant as a separate, different system of clocks and observers. But this is just an abstraction , arising as far as I can see, from the idea that an accelerating system is not a valid frame of reference so must be replaced by a series of "valid " instantaneous inertial frames.

I would say that there IS a valid frame for an accelerating observer.

That frame consists of the (infinite) collection of inertial frames (the MSIRFs), one for each instant of the accelerating observer's life, each of which being momentarily stationary wrt the accelerating observer at that given instant in his life.

This frame is a well-defined...there is no ambiguity or inconsistency at all. And it is NOT a "convention": there are no other reasonable alternatives, because it is the ONLY possible frame for the accelerating observer which doesn't contradict his own elementary measurements and elementary calculations.

This frame certainly does NOT consist of any spatially-extended collection of permanently identifiable clocks and rulers that are being dragged around with the accelerating observer as he (and they) accelerate. I don't think any such approach would be productive.

Of course, in practice you obviously wouldn't want to have to actually construct that infinite set of infinite collections of inertial clocks and rulers to "build" the accelerating observer's frame. But that practical impossibility is of no importance. The accelerating observer can simply CALCULATE what all those MSIRFs would tell him, if they DID exist. Those calculated results provide everything he needs from his frame.

(As far as the other questions in your above posting, I wasn't able to understand them. I think the only way forward is for you to construct the kind of extremely precise statement of your concerns that I described in my last response).

Mike Fontenot

 

[DrGreg]

As a final thought, it is worth pointing out that in an accelerating frame, even the two-way speed of light needn't be constant.

So you are talking about the two-way instantaneous speed not being constant here?

When physicists or mathematicians say "speed" they mean "instantaneous speed" unless they explicitly say "average speed". Nothing wrong with average speed, but if that's what one is talking about, one needs to insert the word "average" otherwise one will be misunderstood.

OK, I was a bit vague in my choice of words in the first quote, but to be fair I did say "in an accelerating frame", so I had in mind non-local instantaneous two-way "coordinate speed" rather than "locally measured speed" (="physical speed" in the terminology of Anamitra in the "On the Speed of Light Again!" thread).

 

[Austin0]

I would say that there IS a valid frame for an accelerating observer.

That frame consists of the (infinite) collection of inertial frames (the MSIRFs), one for each instant of the accelerating observer's life, each of which being momentarily stationary wrt the accelerating observer at that given instant in his life.

This frame is a well-defined...there is no ambiguity or inconsistency at all. And it is NOT a "convention": there are no other reasonable alternatives, because it is the ONLY possible frame for the accelerating observer which doesn't contradict his own elementary measurements and elementary calculations.

This frame certainly does NOT consist of any spatially-extended collection of permanently identifiable clocks and rulers that are being dragged around with the accelerating observer as he (and they) accelerate. I don't think any such approach would be productive.

Of course, in practice you obviously wouldn't want to have to actually construct that infinite set of infinite collections of inertial clocks and rulers to "build" the accelerating observer's frame. But that practical impossibility is of no importance. The accelerating observer can simply CALCULATE what all those MSIRFs would tell him, if they DID exist. Those calculated results provide everything he needs from his frame.

(As far as the other questions in your above posting, I wasn't able to understand them. I think the only way forward is for you to construct the kind of extremely precise statement of your concerns that I described in my last response).

Mike Fontenot

Hi Mike We are agreed on the difficulties if removing any possible ambiguity.

So I will try again with your parameters.
We have the accelerating frame. For illustration let's assume the set of inertial frames moving at greater velocities along the x axis, not as instantaneously ephemeral abstractions
but as a permenent set or bundle of clocks and rulers. Spatially extended and sharing the same space, conguent or intimately cojacent or whatever as long as they can all mutually observe each other. Then as the frame accelerates it simply comes into phase with successive frames with greater velocities, Of course all these frames have different spatial metrics , clock rates and synchronization but they all are moving though time and their clocks are all positively incrementing.
From this it is axiomatic : #1) No local observer in whatever location in any of these frames can possible observe the passing clocks in any other frame at whetever velocity decreasing in displayed proper time. Agreed?
#2) No local observer in any frame can possibly coexist and be colocated with any observer from any point in any frame at a previous time in that frame or in the past time of the complete set.
Is this understood and agreed?
No matter what may be calculated from comparisons with other observers at separated locations in the same frame with the same clock reading all the clocks are moving forward in time.
Objective reality in this case rests with local observations. It is fundamental to SR that any notions of simultaneity wrt spatially separated events is without any real temporal meaning in any frame.
If this is understood it is clear that the mapping within Minkowski with its convention of differing slopes for CMIF's cannot correspond with reality. Because that is exactly what is indicated by intersections etc. Not only that, as the lines converge it is equivalent to local observers in the set of congruent frames observing passing clocks in another frame with decreasing displayed proper times. Which we know is not possible.

A last thought; if you consider a case where two lines intersect and diverge before meeting Sues worldline...what if the proximate observer on the line intersecting Sue at an earlier age shoots her? You then have the choice either she is dead beforealready having seen alive by the earlier CNIF observer or the earlier observer sees her tombstone before a later CMIF observer shoots her

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]

Your statements still aren't precise enough to make it crystal-clear to me what you are saying. Please try to be more precise and specific, if you can. Perhaps, just pick one of your numbered items, and try to make your statements absolutely crystal-clear.

It is fundamental to SR that any notions of simultaneity wrt spatially separated events is without any real temporal meaning in any frame.

I don't agree at all. For any given inertial frame, the simultaneity specified by the Lorentz equations is completely meaningful for the observers in that frame. In fact, it is the ONLY simultaneity that IS meaningful for those observers, because it corresponds to what any of the observers in that frame can observe and calculate on his own, using only elementary, fundamental methods. (In my paper, I spell out in detail exactly how those elementary observations and calculations are accomplished).

Different inertial frames don't agree about simultaneity. In that sense, simultaneity isn't absolute. But simultaneity is perfectly meaningful for any GIVEN inertial frame, for the observers in that frame.

And simultaneity is also perfectly meaningful for any given ACCELERATING observer, because at any instant in his life, he COULD (if he chose) quit accelerating. At that instant, it can be shown (see my paper) that he will IMMEDIATELY be in agreement with the inertial observers with whom he is now stationary. It follows that the accelerating observer must, at each instant of his life, adopt the simultaneity of the inertial frame with which he is momentarily stationary at that instant, if he wants to avoid contradicting his own (potential) elementary observations and calculations.

Mike Fontenot