Does Special Relativity Affect Clock Synchronization on a Moving Spaceship?

In summary: The spaceship has two clocks that have been synchronized, one at the bow and one at the stern. When the bow of the ship reaches the observers, both observers' clocks read 0. At this time, the clock at the stern should read something, right? My friend argues that the time at the stern must be 0 because the clock at the stern and clocks synchronized in the observers' frame are synchronized. I argue that the clock at the stern should read more than 0 because the ship is moving. According to the Lorentz transformation, the time at the stern should be gamma (t'+\frac{ux'}{c^2}), where t' is the time at the stern and x' is the distance from the stern
  • #1
E92M3
68
0
My friend and I disagree on this problem:

A spaceship of proper length 200m moves with respect to
us at 0.6c. There are two clocks on the ship, at the bow and stern, that
have been synchronized with each other in their rest frame. We, also
have a number of clocks synchronized in our frame. Just as the bow
of the ship reaches us, both our clocks and the clock at the bow read
t = 0. At this time t = 0 (to us), what does the clock in the stern of the
ship read?

My friend claim that the time at the stern must be zero since clocks are synchronized. But I said no, I want to apply lorentz transformation and found a positive time. Which of us is right? I used this argument:

[tex]t=\gamma (t'+\frac{ux'}{c^2})[/tex]
In which the prime denotes quantity in the spaceships's frame. I then set t=0 and x'=-200m and solved for t'.

I really think that I am right but don't know why he is wrong. Please help us settle this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You are correct. Clocks synchronized in one frame (that of the ship, for instance) will not be synchronized when observed from a frame in which they are moving. Another way of saying this is that simultaneity is frame dependent.
 
  • #3
Let me add that according to the ship when its bow clock passes your clock all of the ship clocks will read zero. But to them your clocks are not synchronized. (Clock desynchronization works both ways.)
 
  • #4
E92M3 said:
I used this argument:

[tex]t=\gamma (t'+\frac{ux'}{c^2})[/tex]
In which the prime denotes quantity in the spaceships's frame. I then set t=0 and x'=-200m and solved for t'.

I really think that I am right but don't know why he is wrong. Please help us settle this.

Think of it like this. Say a sychronising flash at the centre of the spaceship triggers the clocks fore and aft to start ticking. The rear going start signal gets to the back first (from the point of view of the ground observers) because the rear of the ship and the signal are heading towards each other, so the rear clock starts ticking first. In the meantime the forward going signal is catching up with the front of the spaceship which is going away from it. By the time the forwards going signal reaches the front and starts the front clock the rear clock will already have:

[tex] T = \frac{L_o v}{c^2} [/tex] seconds elapsed on it, where [itex]L_o[/itex] is the proper length of the spaceship. In your example the rear clock will show 200*0.6/1^2 = 120 seconds in the ground frame, when the front clock is reading zero.

This fairly simple formula takes length contraction and time dilation into account and can be obtained from rearranging the transformation you quoted and using a displacement of -200m for x. This negative displacement comes about because the origin of the moving frame is the nose of the ship and the displacement of the rear of the ship from the origin is in the opposite direction to the velocity vector which is taken as positive. I hope that makes some sort of sense :P
 

1. What is special relativity?

Special relativity is a theory proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905 that explains the relationship between space and time. It states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers moving at a constant velocity, and the speed of light is constant for all observers regardless of their relative motion. This theory has been extensively tested and is one of the cornerstones of modern physics.

2. How does special relativity differ from Newton's laws of motion?

Special relativity differs from Newton's laws of motion in that it takes into account the effects of high speeds and the constancy of the speed of light. While Newton's laws apply to objects in everyday situations, special relativity is necessary to accurately describe the behavior of objects moving at speeds approaching the speed of light.

3. What is the twin paradox and how does it relate to special relativity?

The twin paradox is a thought experiment that demonstrates the effects of time dilation in special relativity. It involves one twin traveling at high speeds, while the other remains on Earth. When the traveling twin returns, they will have aged less than the stationary twin, due to time passing more slowly for objects in motion.

4. Can special relativity be observed in everyday life?

While the effects of special relativity are not noticeable in everyday situations, they can be observed in certain circumstances, such as in the Global Positioning System (GPS). The satellites in the GPS system must take into account the effects of both special and general relativity in order to provide accurate location data.

5. Is special relativity still a valid theory?

Yes, special relativity is still a valid theory and has been extensively tested and confirmed through experiments. It is used in many fields of science, including particle physics and astrophysics, and has been instrumental in our understanding of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
642
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
782
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
660
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
54
Views
637
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top