Does Relativity Affect How We See Simultaneous Events on a Moving Train?

[danielatha4]

The train example discussing non-simultaneity that I'm sure most of you have heard of:



However, wouldn't the passenger see the strikes of lightning at the same time? As she is in an inertial reference frame and is equi-distance from the front and back?

 

[Doc Al]

The light would only reach the passenger in the middle of the train at the same time if the lightning struck the ends of the train at the same time according to the frame of the train. But it doesn't.

 

[stevmg]

Yes it does

 

[stevmg]

Doc Al -

Why aren't the lightning strikes to the train at the same instant?

 

[Doc Al]

Yes it does

What makes you say that? Did you watch the video?

 

[Doc Al]

Doc Al -

Why aren't the lightning strikes to the train at the same instant?

At the same instant according to who?

Whether the lightning strikes are simultaneous depends on the frame making the observations. You are told that the strikes are simultaneous according to the frame of the platform observers. Per relativity and the invariant speed of light, the strikes cannot be simultaneous according to the frame of the train observers. (That's actually explained in the video, if I recall.)

 

[JesseM]

One key point to understand is that in relativity all frames must agree about local events which occur at a single point in space and time. So, you can't have a situation where one frame predicts that two light rays hit an observer at the same moment in time and another doesn't, because this would involve a disagreement about local events (imagine that the observer has a bomb with light detectors on either side that will cause the bomb to explode if light hits both detectors within a very short time window--if different frames could disagree on whether the bomb exploded or not, that would essentially make different frames into parallel universes rather than just different ways of assigning space and time coordinates to events). That means that if the ground frame predicts the light hits the observer at the center of the train at different moments, then the train rest frame must say the same thing. But how can this be, given that both strikes happened at the same distance from the observer at the center of the train in the train rest frame, and the observer is at rest in this frame? The answer is that the strikes must have occurred at different times in this frame, so even though the light from each strike takes the same amount of time to reach him after the moment the strike occurred, since the strikes happened at different moments the light from each strike reaches him at different moments too.

 

[stevmg]

Doc Al -

That's where my hangup is...

In the video it is NOT explained why the lightning strikes on the train are at different times than from the platform. It is stated that they are different but not explained why. It is a tautology - a supposition is presumed true and then is proven true because it was "true" from before (the assumption.) Look at the video again - look for the explanation of why the strikes are different and there is none.

I appreciate your help in understanding this - don't get me wrong.

 

[stevmg]

Jesse M -

"One key point to understand is that in relativity all frames must agree about local events which occur at a single point in space and time. So, you can't have a situation where one frame predicts that two light rays hit an observer at the same moment in time and another doesn't, because this would involve a disagreement about local events (imagine that the observer has a bomb with light detectors on either side that will cause the bomb to explode if light hits both detectors within a very short time window--if different frames could disagree on whether the bomb exploded or not, that would essentially make different frames into parallel universes rather than just different ways of assigning space and time coordinates to events). That means that if the ground frame predicts the light hits the observer at the center of the train at different moments, then the train rest frame must say the same thing."

From here on you lost me - make the sentences short, sweet and keep the references aligned:

"But how can this be, given that both strikes happened at the same distance from the observer at the center of the train in the train rest frame, and the observer is at rest in this frame? The answer is that the strikes must have occurred at different times in this frame, so even though the light from each strike takes the same amount of time to reach him after the moment the strike occurred, since the strikes happened at different moments the light from each strike reaches him at different moments too"

 

[stevmg]

Wait a minute - Jesse M - I am getting it half way.

Usin Einstein's example precisely as he states it, with reference to the ground, the light arrives at the center observer on the train at different times and WON'T explode the bomb. So, if we posited that the if the light flashes hit the observer at the same time in the frame of reference of the train, then we would have a contradiction (or "parallel universes" as you called it.) as the bomb would explode in that frame but not in the ground frame.

According to Einstein's example in section 9, it is agreed that acording to the ground frame, the flashes do not meet at the same time at the midpoint because of the motion of the train, so they likewise cannot do it in the train frame (here, that would mean that they left points A' and B' at different times in the train frmae.

I now have it half way - now I have to go and get it the full way.

I think it may be possib;e to show this by application of goods old Hugo Lorentz. Have to work on it.

Any help?

 

[Doc Al]

Doc Al -

That's where my hangup is...

In the video it is NOT explained why the lightning strikes on the train are at different times than from the platform. It is stated that they are different but not explained why. It is a tautology - a supposition is presumed true and then is proven true because it was "true" from before (the assumption.) Look at the video again - look for the explanation of why the strikes are different and there is none.

Watch it one more time. The person on the platform deduces (correctly) that the light from the two flashes reaches the person in the center of the train at different times. This is a fact that everyone must agree on, including observers on the train. (This is what JesseM was explaining.)

And if the light reaches the observer at the center of the train at different times, then the lightning flashes must have hit the train ends at different times (according to train observers) since the light travels the same distance from each end. (If the flashes were simultaneous according to train observers then the light would have reached the middle of the train at the same time--but we know it doesn't.)

 

[JesseM]

Wait a minute - Jesse M - I am getting it half way.

Usin Einstein's example precisely as he states it, with reference to the ground, the light arrives at the center observer on the train at different times and WON'T explode the bomb. So, if we posited that the if the light flashes hit the observer at the same time in the frame of reference of the train, then we would have a contradiction (or "parallel universes" as you called it.) as the bomb would explode in that frame but not in the ground frame.

According to Einstein's example in section 9, it is agreed that acording to the ground frame, the flashes do not meet at the same time at the midpoint because of the motion of the train, so they likewise cannot do it in the train frame (here, that would mean that they left points A' and B' at different times in the train frmae.

Yes, exactly. But then, why do you say you only have it "half way"? It sounds like you got it. I'll try spelling out the steps in the argument in more detail, maybe it'll help:
1. In the ground frame, the light from the flashes reaches the observer M at the midpoint of the train at different moments. Since this is a local event, it must be true in the train frame too.
2. In the ground frame, the two lightning strikes happened right next to either end of the train. Since these are local events, the strikes must happen at either end of the train in the train frame too.
3. The observer M is equal distances from either end of the train, and in the train frame he isn't moving. Since the strikes happened at either end of the train (2), both strikes happened at an equal distance from M in the train frame.
4. In the train frame, the light from both strikes must travel towards M at c. Since the strikes happened the same distance from M and M isn't moving in the train frame (3), that means that the time for the light to get from the position of each strike to M must be the same. For example, if it's 3 light-seconds from M to either end of the train in the train frame, then the time between a strike and the light from that strike reaching M must be 3 seconds in the train frame.
5. If there's the same amount of time (in the train frame) between the event of each strike and the event of the light from that strike reaching M's eyes (4), and yet the light reaches M's eyes at different times (1), then the strikes themselves must have happened at different times in the train frame.

 

[grav-universe]

Let's say that according to an observer in the center of a platform, lightning strikes occur on each side of the platform simultaneously and the light from each strike travels at c to meet the observer in the center at the same time. This is a given since it is how the scenario is set up. Now let's say that we are traveling toward the platform, so from our perspective, the platform is moving toward us. According to us, then, the light from the strikes also travels at c in both directions toward the center of the platform, but since the platform is also traveling toward us, the light from the strike on the furthest side of the platform takes a greater time to reach the center since the center of the platform is also moving away from the strike as the strike catches up to it, so has a further way to go overall. The strike from the closest side takes a lesser time to reach the center since the center of the platform moves toward the light from the strike on that side as the light moves toward it also, so has a lesser distance to go overall. Therefore the light from the strike on the closest side of the platform will reach the center in a lesser time than that from the furthest side from our perspective. All observers must agree, however, that the light from both strikes coincide in the center of the platform at the same time. That means that according to our perspective, in order for the light from both strikes to meet in the center, the strike on the furthest side of the platform must occur first, then the strike on the closest side a short time later, so not occurring simultaneously from our point of view.

What might confuse the issue somewhat in the video is that the lightning strikes occur at the front and back of the boxcar simultaneously according to the platform observer, so one might think that means they strike the front and back of the boxcar simultaneously to the boxcar observer as well since it is the boxcar they are striking after all. But that would only be true if the platform observer and boxcar observer had the same idea of simultaneity, which they don't. If the strikes occur simultaneously to the boxcar observer, they would not occur simultaneously to the platform observer, and vice versa. Another way to picture it is to see that the lightning could just as easily strike the ground next to the boxcar instead of the boxcar itself. The platform observer would still see the lightning strikes occur in the same places as the front and back of the boxcar simultaneously. The boxcar observer, while also seeing the lightning strikes occur at the front and back of the boxcar, would not say, however, that they occurred simultaneously, but that the lightning struck in the front first, then the back.

 

[TcheQ]

I thought this video was a little clearer.



2:00-2:20

Pay attention to what happens with the expanding yellow circles

 

[danielatha4]

I think Stevmg said it perfectly. The video makes it seem as though the observer observes the passenger to see the front strike first (which maybe he does) but because of his reference frame it is concluded that in her reference frame she sees the flashes not simultaneously??

What DocAl initially said makes sense too:

"The light would only reach the passenger in the middle of the train at the same time if the lightning struck the ends of the train at the same time according to the frame of the train. But it doesn't."

But why doesn't it? according to the train frame. the video lends no credibility as to why the train passenger wouldn't see them at the same time, other than: that's the way the observer on the platform sees it. Is this credible?

 

[E=mc^84]

I think Stevmg said it perfectly. The video makes it seem as though the observer observes the passenger to see the front strike first (which maybe he does) but because of his reference frame it is concluded that in her reference frame she sees the flashes not simultaneously??

What DocAl initially said makes sense too:

"The light would only reach the passenger in the middle of the train at the same time if the lightning struck the ends of the train at the same time according to the frame of the train. But it doesn't."

But why doesn't it? according to the train frame. the video lends no credibility as to why the train passenger wouldn't see them at the same time, other than: that's the way the observer on the platform sees it. Is this credible?

Hi, you should watch this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch
v=uJFUmBUwZjg&feature=related This explains simply that it is the act of moving away from a light beam that slows down time so the light beam can catch up. So, from the reference frame of the train the light beam in which the train is approaching is "seen" first because the light beam at the end of the train has to "catch up" with the train, so the observer on the train will the 2 simaltaneous flashes happen at different times.

 

[TcheQ]

What DocAl initially said makes sense too:

"The light would only reach the passenger in the middle of the train at the same time if the lightning struck the ends of the train at the same time according to the frame of the train. But it doesn't."

But why doesn't it? according to the train frame. the video lends no credibility as to why the train passenger wouldn't see them at the same time, other than: that's the way the observer on the platform sees it. Is this credible?

It's hard to 'think' relativistic without diagrams. The whole point is that a different timeline of events are observed depending on where you are due light having to travel further/shorter distances.. If we use "according to the frame of the train" we assume the train is at rest for that calculation, which would mean the observer according to us travels at speed. But it is the reverse of this in the 'actual' situation.

One thing they don't explicitly mention is that the first bolt the person in the train sees is blue, while the second is red. The observer in the train would, if they had a sensitive enough detector with them, be able to calculate their speed from the redshift+blueshift of the light spectrum.

 

[E=mc^84]

It's hard to 'think' relativistic without diagrams. The whole point is that a different timeline of events are observed depending on where you are due light having to travel further/shorter distances.. If we use "according to the frame of the train" we assume the train is at rest for that calculation, which would mean the observer according to us travels at speed. But it is the reverse of this in the 'actual' situation.

One thing they don't explicitly mention is that the first bolt the person in the train sees is blue, while the second is red. The observer in the train would, if they had a sensitive enough detector with them, be able to calculate their speed from the redshift+blueshift of the light spectrum.

your right, they should aplly the doppler effect to more visual diagrams ;)

 

[JesseM]

I think Stevmg said it perfectly. The video makes it seem as though the observer observes the passenger to see the front strike first (which maybe he does) but because of his reference frame it is concluded that in her reference frame she sees the flashes not simultaneously??

Since she sees them non-simultaneously in spite of the fact that they happened at equal distances from her, that means that in her reference frame they happened non-simultaneously. Keep in mind that seeing events simultaneously is distinct from them happening simultaneously in your frame. For example, if in 2010 I see the light from an event 5 light-years away in my frame, and in 2015 I see the light from an event 10 light-years away in my frame, then in my frame both events happened simultaneously in 2005.

What DocAl initially said makes sense too:

"The light would only reach the passenger in the middle of the train at the same time if the lightning struck the ends of the train at the same time according to the frame of the train. But it doesn't."

But why doesn't it? according to the train frame. the video lends no credibility as to why the train passenger wouldn't see them at the same time, other than: that's the way the observer on the platform sees it. Is this credible?

Yes, it was part of the starting premise of the problem that the lightning strikes happened simultaneously in the platform frame, and you can use that to conclude that in the platform frame the light must hit the train-observer at different times. And as I said above, all frames must agree on local events, so the train frame must predict the light hit the train observer at different times too. Of course you'd be free to imagine a different case where the strikes happened simultaneously in the train frame and thus their light hit the train-observer simultaneously, but this would be a physically different situation that isn't compatible with the premises that were used to define the physical facts of this problem.

 

[stevmg]

Sports Fans...

I didn't mean to create such a furor. I will now go and review all the videos.

As I said in my last answer to JesseM, I will try to "work it out" with Hugo Lorentz - the evil genius who concocted all this business and created all this confusion yet he was right, as far as I know.

Has Loretz (or Einstein) ever been disproven empirically. I have seen enough "garbage" on the Internet with fantastic "thought experiments" and logic which states that Simple Relativity is wrong. Since I couldn't follow the original logic by Lorentz or Einstein I surely couldn't follow the so-called arguments these other individuals used.

Finally, is there any other explanation for e = mc^2? I can derive it from momentum and work and wind up with the equation:

e = mc^2 + (1/2)mv^2 + ... (trial "tails" to an infinite series based on the biomial expanion) but I get no intuitive "feel" to the e = mc^2 part.

 

[stevmg]

To summarize -

The train observer "sees" the lightning strike from the front earlier than the one from the back. So, this sequence must be the same in all time frames. The central point of reference is the train observer herself (as depicted in the video).

Even though this satisfies the concept by JesseM as no parallel but different universes there appears to be a contradiction in the times of the train frame. If one had atomic clocks all along the train synchronized together and atomic clocks on the ground synchronized together, one would still assume that the time in the front of the train the same as the back of the train. If one were to synchronize the train such that the lightning strikes would occur when the two observers passed each other, it would appear that the flashes would emanate at the same time and reach the on board observer at the same time as the speed of light is constant within the train and the distance covered - front and back is the same to the observer in the train. At the instant of the lightning strikes the time in the front of the train would be the same as in the back of the train with reference to the train so the observer would see both flashes simultaneously.

Rather than using words, one might be best served by using Lorentz to explain this as words are just confusing.

 

[JesseM]

Even though this satisfies the concept by JesseM as no parallel but different universes there appears to be a contradiction in the times of the train frame. If one had atomic clocks all along the train synchronized together and atomic clocks on the ground synchronized together, one would still assume that the time in the front of the train the same as the back of the train.

Do you understand that because of the relativity of simultaneity, clocks that are synchronized in one frame are unsynchronized in another? Specifically, if the clocks at rest at either end of the train are at synchronized in the train frame and a distance X apart in that frame, then in the ground frame where the train is moving at speed v, the two clocks are out-of-sync by vX/c^2 (the time on the trailing clock will be ahead of the time on the leading clock).

If one were to synchronize the train such that the lightning strikes would occur when the two observers passed each other

But because of the relativity of simultaneity, the notion that the strikes happened "when the two observers passed each other" has no frame-independent meaning. After all, "when the two observers passed each other" is equivalent to "the event of each strike happens simultaneously with the the event of the two observers passing each other", but because of the relativity of simultaneity, events at different locations which occur simultaneously in one frame occur non-simultaneously in other frames. And that's exactly what this thought-experiment is intended to show--that if we want to require that the speed of light be c in both frames, there's no way of avoiding the conclusion that the two frames disagree about whether the two strikes were simultaneous!

Rather than using words, one might be best served by using Lorentz to explain this as words are just confusing.

But the point of the thought-experiment is to show conceptually how the relativity of simultaneity follows from the basic postulates of relativity without having to go through the trouble of deriving the full Lorentz transformation from the two postulates. Of course if you already have the Lorentz transformation, it's quite trivial to show that events which are simultaneous in one frame are non-simultaneous in another. For example, say that in the unprimed frame event #1 happens at coordinates (x=0, t=0) and event #2 happens at coordinates (x=X, t=0). Since both these events happen at t=0, they are simultaneous in this frame. But now use the Lorentz transformation to see what coordinates each of these events will have in the primed frame and see what happens...the Lorentz transformation equations are:

x' = gamma*(x - vt)
t' = gamma*(t - vx/c^2)
with gamma = 1/squareroot(1 - v^2/c^2)

 

[grav-universe]

Rather than using words, one might be best served by using Lorentz to explain this as words are just confusing.

It's even simpler than involving the Lorentz transforms. All we really need to know is that light travels at c to all observers regardless of the motion of the source. So let's say the platform has a width of d_p and that the light from the strikes is seen simultaneously by the platform observer. So the time the light takes to travel from each side of the platform according to that observer in the center is just t_p = (1/2 d_p) / c. Now let's look at what the train observer sees with a relative speed of v. From the perspective of the train, the platform has a width of d_t and the light from each side of the platform is still measured to be traveling at c, but the center of the platform is also moving at v while the light travels to the center of the platform as well. The time the light takes to travel from the lightning strike on the furthest side of the platform to the center while the center of the platform also moves away from the light over the same time at v is c t_f = 1/2 d_t + v t_f, t_f = (1/2 d_t) / (c - v). The time that the light takes to travel from the lightning strike on the closest side of the platform while the center of the platform also moves toward the light over the same time at v is c t_c = 1/2 d_t - v t_c, t_c = (1/2 d_t) / (c + v).

So while the light takes the same amount of time to travel from each side of the platform to the center according to the platform observer, according to the passenger on the train it takes longer for the light to travel from the furthest side while the center moves away from the light than it takes to travel from the closest side as the center of the platform moves toward the light from that side. However, all observers must agree that both rays of light will coincide in the same place at the center of the platform, so in order for this to occur, then according to the passenger on the train, the lightning must strike on the furthest side first since it takes longer for the light to travel to the center, then the lightning strikes on the closest side a time of tl = (1/2 d_t) / (c - v) - (1/2 d_t) / (c + v) = (1/2 d_t) [(c + v) - (c - v)] / [(c - v) (c + v)] = (1/2 d_t) [2 v] / (c^2 - v^2) = d_t v / (c^2 - v^2) later according to the passenger's clock, so that both rays of light will coincide in the center of the platform.

 

[stevmg]

To JesseM

Actually that does it (I'm almost there again) as you stated (I cannot as yet wrap my brain around it) that the lead clock is "behind" the trailing clock even though all these clocks on the train are in the same time frame. Accepting that I can understand what this is all about.

I cannot see (and you will not be able to explain to me as I am too stupid) any deeper than this but I DO appreciate the time you spent trying to enlighten me. You did get me to a higher level but I will never get any further than this.

Again, thanks for your help.

 

[JesseM]

To JesseM

Actually that does it (I'm almost there again) as you stated (I cannot as yet wrap my brain around it) that the lead clock is "behind" the trailing clock even though all these clocks on the train are in the same time frame. Accepting that I can understand what this is all about.

I cannot see (and you will not be able to explain to me as I am too stupid) any deeper than this but I DO appreciate the time you spent trying to enlighten me. You did get me to a higher level but I will never get any further than this.

Again, thanks for your help.

Well, the fact that clocks synchronized in their own rest frame are out-of-sync in other frames can be understood as just a consequence of the presupposition that every frame should measure the speed of light to be c. This implies that clocks in any frame must be synchronized in such a way that, if you set off a flash at the midpoint of the two clocks, they should both read the same time when the light reaches them. But now imagine a ship moving past you at high speed, with clocks on either end, and someone on board sets off a flash at the middle of the ship and sets the clocks to read the same time when the light hits them, so they're synchronized in the ship's frame. In your frame, the back clock was moving towards the point where the flash was set off, while the front clock was moving away from that point--so naturally if you assume the light travels at the same speed in both directions in your frame, the light should catch up to the back clock before it catches up to the front clock, meaning the clocks will necessarily be out-of-sync in your frame.

 

[stevmg]

To JesseM

By using the Lorentz equations you HAVE demonstrated this effect. Under Galilean equations
x' = x - vt
t' = (t - vx/c^2)
With the above one could "line up" points on x and x' as well as t and t' that "match" and simultaneity would be preserved in one way or another (too difficult to do the math here)
Putting the fudge factor of gamma [SQRT(1 - V^2/c^2) in as you did you get the equations (and I quote)
x' = gamma*(x - vt)
t' = gamma*(t - vx/c^2)
For large enough v, note how this really distorts the relationship between x' and t'. Clearly non-linear and no way to line up the x and x's "opposite" each other and likewise the t and t'

Also, the t' "drops" the bigger the x which likewise screws up any simultaneity. i.e., the faster you and the longer out the x the flash comes much earlier in the "cycle." Short distance, short time = almost simultaneous. Long distance long toime = earlier the time on the advancing part of the train so the observer would percive the forward flash much earlier.

Now, you may think this is strange but I understand that better than any of all the verbal explanations given so far by anyone.

Thank you for using Lorentz to show me what was going on and actually, it IS because of the veracity of Lorentz that this non equivalence of simultaneity is true.

Again the question - has anybody ever disproven Lorentz? He was not the Son of God and technically, this is a conjecture (although with more and likelighood of being a true theory.)



By Einstein (from Appendix I, equation 11a in "Relativity;" (x')^2 - c^2(t')^2 = x^2 - c^2t^2. Hence the non linear and compressing effect on t ' by x' is demonstrarted.

 

[JesseM]

To JesseM

By using the Lorentz equations you HAVE demonstrated this effect. Under Galilean equations
x' = x - vt
t' = (t - vx/c^2)

Your time equation is wrong there. The Galilei transform does not include any disagreements about simultaneity, the correct equations are:

x' = x-vt
t' = t

So if two events happen at the same t-coordinate in the unprimed frame, then according to the Galilei transform they automatically happen at the same t'-coordinate in the primed frame.

Now, you may think this is strange but I understand that better than any of all the verbal explanations given so far by anyone.

But do you actually understand why the postulate that all frames measure c the same automatically implies disagreements about simultaneity? Or do you just understand that the Lorentz transformation implies disagreements about simultaneity, but not really understand how the Lorentz transformation follows from the two postulates of SR?

Again the question - has anybody ever disproven Lorentz? He was not the Son of God and technically, this is a conjecture (although with more and likelighood of being a true theory.)

Although Lorentz came up with the transformation equation, I believe Einstein was the first to propose that all laws of physics should be invariant under this transformation (not just the laws of electromagnetism), which is the physical content of special relativity. And so far all the most fundamental laws of physics discovered since have indeed obeyed Lorentz-invariant equations.

 

[stevmg]

Thanks for the correction on the t = t' issue. I was going from memory (did not have Einstein's Relativity book in front of me) but what I was getting at was the compression of t' by the x and x' which does not happen under Galilean rules.

I still don't coonceive of this verbally, onlly mathematically. Similar to my knowledge of e - mc^2 (at v = 0) by using momentum, the gamma factor and energy equations and some calculus. I don't have a "feel" for why that is true just that at v = 0 after the mathematical derivation, e = mc^2.

This is not my field of endeavor and so it may take some time to internalize it.

Yes, I think you are correct. Einstein generalized Lorentz to all fields of physics and not just electromagnetic waves (particles.)

 

[JesseM]

I still don't coonceive of this verbally, onlly mathematically.

But then I take it you don't understand why the second postulate of SR (the one that says light moves at c in every inertial frame) implies the relativity of simultaneity, without the need to derive the Lorentz transformation? Did you read my post #25? Do you understand why the second postulate of SR implies that, in order for two clocks to be synchronized in their own rest frame, it must be true that if we set off a flash at the midpoint of the two clocks, they will read the same time when the light from the flash reaches them? If you understand that part, it wouldn't be hard to come up with a numerical example showing why, if a flash is set off at the middle of a ship and clocks at either end are set to the same time when the light reached them, then in a frame where the ship is moving, the light must reach the clocks at different times and therefore they must be out-of-sync in this frame. I can give you such a numerical example if you don't see how to construct it yourself...

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

Dear JesseM, in post 7 you wrote ;

One key point to understand is that in relativity all frames must agree about local events which occur at a single point in space and time. So, you can't have a situation where one frame predicts that two light rays hit an observer at the same moment in time and another doesn't, because this would involve a disagreement about local events (imagine that the observer has a bomb with light detectors on either side that will cause the bomb to explode if light hits both detectors within a very short time window--if different frames could disagree on whether the bomb exploded or not, that would essentially make different frames into parallel universes rather than just different ways of assigning space and time coordinates to events). That means that if the ground frame predicts the light hits the observer at the center of the train at different moments, then the train rest frame must say the same thing. But how can this be, given that both strikes happened at the same distance from the observer at the center of the train in the train rest frame, and the observer is at rest in this frame? The answer is that the strikes must have occurred at different times in this frame, so even though the light from each strike takes the same amount of time to reach him after the moment the strike occurred, since the strikes happened at different moments the light from each strike reaches him at different moments too.

I’m having difficulty following this, especially with the bolded segments. Imo, the only time we can use/say that the train’s frame is at rest is for the very short moment both strikes hit the train (later shown to be simultaneous, as confirmed by the stationary observer situated precisely at an equidistant location from the train’s back and front when the strikes hit), and that would be what you refer to as the single point in space and time.

At that point, if you take an instantaneous snapshot of the scene when the strikes hit, both passenger and ground observer, in their own respective frames, are located exactly at the same distance from each end of the train, while being perfectly aligned orthogonally. Here, if we could remain at rest and let the flashes follow their course, everyone would be happy to see that all happens simultaneously, give mirrors to the ground observer and synchronised detector/clocks to the passenger and he will observe that both reflected light flashes stop the clocks simultaneously.

Let it roll on and the reflected light waves from both strike impact locations will travel, at c, eventually being perceived simultaneously by the ground observer, who is stationary with respect to the strikes, while the passenger will see a slight difference because, while the light waves travel at c, he is moving away from the back / towards the front strike locations, making it appear that they were not simultaneous when indeed they were.

The ground observer’s predictions are not for the train’s rest frame, they are for the train’s frame as it is in motion. So, I think that the agreement about preserving local events when viewed from the passenger’s perspective should be that, although they did, she sees that the strike flashes have not reached the stationary ground observer simultaneously, keeping in line with observations made in her own frame. This will always appear to be true as the passenger is in motion with respect to the reflected light from the ground observer, exactly as it was inside the train with respect to the original strikes.

Does that make sense?


Regards,

VE

 

[stevmg]

****No****

 

[stevmg]

Sports Fans -

I am a doctor (MD) so give me a break here.

Blood doesn't move that fast and we cannot prove Fizeau's experiment with it...

 

[stevmg]

To JesseM

Reread #25 and you were clearer than Albert was in that you specifically identified both the observer (on the desert island) and the ship's separate time frames and the behaviour of light in each frame from the identical flash. Got it. See clearly why the observer on the desert island would not see the flashes as simultaneous and wouldn't know it. Now, I have to work with the second part of the experiment and understand that applicability to the problem.

Well, actually, that proves that the flashes are simulataneous in one frame and not another even though these flashes are physically the same flash for both frames.

Don't worry, I didn't do brain surgery when I was in practice.

 

[JesseM]

I’m having difficulty following this, especially with the bolded segments. Imo, the only time we can use/say that the train’s frame is at rest is for the very short moment both strikes hit the train

What do you mean? By definition, the inertial rest frame of an object moving inertially is the frame where it's always at rest, that's just what "rest frame" means, in both Newtonian physics and relativity. In the train's rest frame, each part of the train remains at a fixed position coordinate while the ground moves at constant velocity past it.

(later shown to be simultaneous, as confirmed by the stationary observer situated precisely at an equidistant location from the train’s back and front when the strikes hit), and that would be what you refer to as the single point in space and time.

"Single point in space and time" means a single time coordinate and a single position coordinate--the two lightning strikes happen at different position coordinates, in both frames.

At that point, if you take an instantaneous snapshot of the scene when the strikes hit, both passenger and ground observer, in their own respective frames, are located exactly at the same distance from each end of the train, while being perfectly aligned orthogonally. Here, if we could remain at rest

At rest relative to what? Rest and motion have no absolute meaning in relativity, you can only define them relative to particular objects or particular coordinate system. If you are at rest relative to the ground, you are moving relative to the train (and thus moving relative to the train's rest frame), while if you are at rest relative to the train, then you are moving relative to the ground (and thus moving relative to the ground's rest frame).

and let the flashes follow their course, everyone would be happy to see that all happens simultaneously

But the whole point of the thought-experiment is to show that different frames define "simultaneity" differently--if the flashes are simultaneous in the ground frame, they cannot also be simultaneous in the train frame without violating the postulate that every frame should measure the speed of all light rays to be c.

give mirrors to the ground observer and synchronised detector/clocks to the passenger and he will observe that both reflected light flashes stop the clocks simultaneously.

I don't understand, why does the passenger need two clocks? Are they at different positions on the train? And why is he stopping the clocks when he receives the reflected light from the mirrors (and where are the mirrors positioned on the ground?) as opposed to stopping them when he receives the light from the flashes themselves?

Let it roll on and the reflected light waves from both strike impact locations will travel, at c, eventually being perceived simultaneously by the ground observer, who is stationary with respect to the strikes, while the passenger will see a slight difference because, while the light waves travel at c, he is moving away from the back / towards the front strike locations, making it appear that they were not simultaneous when indeed they were.

Why do you say "reflected" light waves? It sounds like you're just talking about the ordinary light waves that proceed directly from the flashes to each observer here, no?

In any case, I think what you're not understanding here is that in relativity there is no objective truth about whether events "were" or "were not" simultaneous, all we can say is whether they happen at the same time coordinate in a given coordinate system. I'll lay out the steps of the argument in order so you can tell me where you disagree with a step:

1. Both strikes happen at the same time coordinate in the ground frame, and both the ground-observer and the train-observer are equidistant from the strikes at the time they occur in the ground frame.

2. In the ground frame, the train-observer is moving towards the position of one strike and away from the position of the other. If we assume the light from each strike heads towards the train-observer at a speed of c in this frame (as is required by the 2nd postulate of relativity), the light from one strike must reach the train-observer before the light from the other.

3. Since all frames must agree about local events, all frames must agree the light from the strikes reaches the train-observer at different times.

4. In the train-observer observer's rest frame, the train-observer is at rest at a fixed position, as are the front and back of the train which are both at an equal distance D from the train-observer.

4. If the time coordinate of the strike at the front is t1 in the train-observer's frame, then assuming the light moves at c in this frame and the distance from the front to the train-observer is D, the light must reach the train-observer at time coordinate t = t1 + D/c in this frame.

5. If the time coordinate of the strike at the back is t2 in the train-observer's frame, then assuming the light moves at c in this frame and the distance from the back to the train-observer is D, the light must reach the train-observer at time coordinate t = t2 + D/c in this frame.

6. If the light from both strikes reaches the train-observer at different times, that must mean t1 + D/c is not equal to t2 + D/c.

7. The only way for them not to be equal is if t1 is not equal to t2. Therefore, the strikes must have happened at different time-coordinates in the train-observer's rest frame.

The ground observer’s predictions are not for the train’s rest frame, they are for the train’s frame as it is in motion.

Again, "in motion" means nothing in itself in relativity. The train is in motion relative to the ground's rest frame, and the ground is in motion relative to the train's rest frame. Also, it's not clear you understand that the phrase "train's rest frame" specifically refers to the inertial coordinate system where the train is at rest, i.e. its position coordinate remains unchanged as the time coordinate varies in this coordinate system.

So, I think that the agreement about preserving local events when viewed from the passenger’s perspective should be that, although they did, she sees that the strike flashes have not reached the stationary ground observer simultaneously, keeping in line with observations made in her own frame.

But in the ground frame, the strikes occurred simultaneously at equal distances from the ground observer, no? Therefore, if we assume the light moves at c in the ground frame, we must predict in the ground frame that the light from each strike reaches the ground observers simultaneously. And this means that the events of both light rays reaching the ground observer happen at the same position and time in the ground frame, so this is a fact about local events coinciding which different frames must agree on. Thus it must also be true in the train frame that the light from each strike reached the ground observer simultaneously.

This will always appear to be true as the passenger is in motion with respect to the reflected light from the ground observer, exactly as it was inside the train with respect to the original strikes.

Still don't understand what you mean by "reflected light"--reflected from where? The thought-experiment as Einstein stated it was only meant to deal with the light traveling directly from the strikes to each observer, not with any light reflected off mirrors.

Maybe it would help to put some numbers on this problem? Suppose that in the ground frame, at t=0 seconds both the ground-observer and the train-observer are right next to each other at position x=0 light-seconds on the x-axis. The strike at the back of the train happens at x=-8, t=0. The strike at the front of the train happens at x=+8, t=0. The train observer is moving in the +x direction at 0.6c, so for example at x=10 seconds in the ground frame he will be at position x=6 light-seconds (in general his position as a function of time will be given by x(t) = 0.6c*t). The light from each strike must move at c = 1 light-second/second in the ground frame, so if the strike at the back happened at x=-8, t=0, that means at t=1 the light from that strike has reached x=-7, at t=2 the light from that strike has reached x=-6, and so forth (in general for this light ray we have x(t) = -8 + 1c*t). And if the strike at the front happened at x=8, t=0 that means at t=1 the light from that strike has reached x=7, at t=2 the light from that strike has reached x=6, etc. (for this light ray we have x(t) = 8 - 1c*t)

Given these numbers, would you agree that at t=8, the light from both strikes will be at position x=0, the same as the position of the ground-observer (who isn't moving in this frame)? And would you agree that at t=5, the train-observer will be at position x=3, and the light from the strike at the front is also at x=3? Finally, would you agree that at t=20, the train-observer will be at position x=12, and the light from the strike at the back is also at x=12?

 

[TcheQ]

Sports Fans -

I am a doctor (MD) so give me a break here.

Blood doesn't move that fast and we cannot prove Fizeau's experiment with it...

If mathematics is your thing, use these calcs:
Train length 10m
Observer at a point equidistant from each point of light (5m)
speed of light=c
train speed =100m/s
how long does it take the light to reach the observer from each point? given velocity=d/t, d=distance, t=time (solve for T)

example solution:
If the train was at rest, t= 5/c for left and right.

 

[stevmg]

I was a math major but branched into statistics and not relativity. I still didn't do brain surgery when I became a doctor so don't worry.

Actually, all this explaining got me back to Einstein Section 9 "Relativity" where he gives his example of the lack of simultaneity in the moving frame (I guess we call that S') while there is simultaneity in S. He doesn't use Lorentz's equations to show it but just gives us a feel for it by describing it. By using the equations that JesseM alluded to:

(x')^2 - (c^2)(t')^2 = x^2 - (c^2)t^2 (I dropped the y, y', z, z' coordinates) one sees the effect of x' on t' for given x and t. Because c is constant there is a non-linear change in x' with a change in t' which makes any attempt at simutaneity impossible. Holding c as constant and having t as a variable that changes, even without knowing what the Lorentz equations are, it would be impossible to alter the x or x' without non-linearly altering the t and this would throw the t off fourse and appear before of after it should by a linear (or Galilean) approach. In other words, by holding c constant, we alter the t. The x is also altered in S' by Lorentz too which makes it even more complicated. The Lorentz equations were derived in a strict mathematical sense from the assumption of constant c. The gamma correction [SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2)] and all the Lorentz equations are obtained by mathematical derivation from that assumption (constant c, all else change may be variable) [Appendix I, Einstein "Relativity"] and is not a "gift from God." Therefore, one cannot separate the explanation of lack of simultaneity because of a constant c from the actual equations (once derived) as they are equivalent in the logical sense (statement A is true if and only if statement B is true.)

 

[JesseM]

Therefore, one cannot separate the explanation of lack of simultaneity because of a constant c from the actual equations (once derived) as they are equivalent in the logical sense (statement A is true if and only if statement B is true.)

I don't think you need both postulates to demonstrate lack of simultaneity, you can demonstrate it with the postulate of constant c without needing to refer to the postulate that the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame. In any case, just because A logically implies B which logically implies C, that doesn't mean that from a pedagogical point of view it's always good to go through the intermediary of B if there's a way to explain how C follows from A directly. For example, it might be true that we can use the axioms of arithmetic to prove some esoteric theorem from number theory, and then use that theorem to prove that 1+1=2, but if you want to show how 1+1=2 follows from the axioms of arithmetic it'll be a lot less confusing if you choose a more direct route!

 

[stevmg]

True - Einstein does assume that the laws of physics are true in all inertial frames and it is from that that the Lorentz equations are derived (the constancy of c being the central or core theme.) But, as you say, his example of the train and embankment does not require that the laws of physics be the same. Of course, if the laws of physics were different in different inertial frames, I suppose it would be possible for one to offset a non simultaneity by a fluke of a complementary action by a different law of physics in another frame. Of course, Albert did not go into that.

 

[danielatha4]

If for the observer on the platform the time at which the front strike occurs is t=0 then the time the back strike occurs must also be t=0.

According to the Lorentz transformation for time: t’= gamma(t – (vx/c^2))

Then the passenger must have seen the front strike at t’=-gamma(vx/c^2) and the back strike must have occurred at t’=-gamma(vx/c^2)

Where gamma, v, x, and certainly c are not different in either of the time equations to describe the front and back strike.

t-t=0

t’-t’=(-gamma(vx/c^2))-(-gamma(vx/c^2))=0

 

[JesseM]

Where gamma, v, x, and certainly c are not different in either of the time equations to describe the front and back strike.

What do you mean? The front and back strike occurred at different positions in the platform frame, so the two strikes should have different x-coordinates. If you assume the platform observer is at x=0 and the strikes occurred at equal distances from him, then if the front strike occurred at x=X, the back strike must have occurred at x=-X.

 

[danielatha4]

My mistake, so let me make sure I'm going about this the right way.

I'm going to give numbers to all these variables.

t for front strike and back strike = 0
v=.8c
length of train=L=100

X coordinate for front strike = .5L = 50
X coordinate for back strike = -.5L = -50

For front strike:
t' = 0 - ((.8c)(50)/c^2) * gamma
gamma ends up being 5/3
t' = -2.22E-7

Does this mean the front strike for the observer on the train happens before the front strike for the observer on the platform?

For the back strike:
t' = 0 - ((.8c)(-.5L)/c^2) * gamma
where gamma again equals 5/3
t' = 2.22E-7

So the back strike for the train observer happens after the back strike for the platform observer?

And the delay between the front strike and back strike for the observer is 4.44E-7s ?

Did I just correctly confirm why the flashes are not simultaneous in the train frame of reference?

 

[ValenceE]

Hello again dear JesseM,

OK, let’s forget about clocks and mirrors, didn’t really take the time to explain it all and, furthermore, I think I got it wrong in the last part, but on to my main arguments, which are more important, so here are my replies to your comments…

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you say "reflected" light waves? It sounds like you're just talking about the ordinary light waves that proceed directly from the flashes to each observer here, no? yes, I was referring to the flashes as they reflect from the train’s surface, but this is irrelevant as you point out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

”In any case, I think what you're not understanding here is that in relativity there is no objective truth about whether events "were" or "were not" simultaneous, “

Indeed, here is precisely where I have difficulty. It is only because of SR’s use of the constant speed of light that events as seen from observers in different frames cannot be said to be simultaneous. Every measurement made that involves light (or any EM wave) is based on ‘c’ , so of course if measurements from inertial/rest VS moving frames are compared, the results will differ. However, imo, that does not invalidate simultaneity, it just proves that c is constant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

all we can say is whether they happen at the same time coordinate in a given coordinate system. I'll lay out the steps of the argument in order so you can tell me where you disagree with a step:

1. Both strikes happen at the same time coordinate in the ground frame, and both the ground-observer and the train-observer are equidistant from the strikes at the time they occur in the ground frame. agreed

2. In the ground frame, the train-observer is moving towards the position of one strike and away from the position of the other. If we assume the light from each strike heads towards the train-observer at a speed of c in this frame (as is required by the 2nd postulate of relativity), the light from one strike must reach the train-observer before the light from the other. agreed

3. Since all frames must agree about local events, all frames must agree the light from the strikes reaches the train-observer at different times. agreed

4. In the train-observer observer's rest frame, the train-observer is at rest at a fixed position, as are the front and back of the train which are both at an equal distance D from the train-observer. agreed

4. If the time coordinate of the strike at the front is t1 in the train-observer's frame, then assuming the light moves at c in this frame and the distance from the front to the train-observer is D, the light must reach the train-observer at time coordinate t = t1 + D/c in this frame. agreed

5. If the time coordinate of the strike at the back is t2 in the train-observer's frame, then assuming the light moves at c in this frame and the distance from the back to the train-observer is D, the light must reach the train-observer at time coordinate t = t2 + D/c in this frame. agreed

6. If the light from both strikes reaches the train-observer at different times, that must mean t1 + D/c is not equal to t2 + D/c. agreed

7. The only way for them not to be equal is if t1 is not equal to t2. agreed
Therefore, the strikes must have happened at different time-coordinates in the train-observer's rest frame. Disagreed, the truth is this is only apparent... Why restrict the conclusion to this one possibility, especially when it’s wrong? Couldn’t the passenger, being aware of SR, knowing that she is in a moving train, wonder if the strikes could have been simultaneous?, t1 and t2 are not equal because the strike impact locations are in motion relative to the train’s rest frame.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe it would help to put some numbers on this problem? Suppose that in the ground frame, at t=0 seconds both the ground-observer and the train-observer are right next to each other at position x=0 light-seconds on the x-axis. The strike at the back of the train happens at x=-8, t=0. The strike at the front of the train happens at x=+8, t=0The train observer is moving in the +x direction at 0.6c, so for example at x=10 seconds in the ground frame he will be at position x=6 light-seconds (in general his position as a function of time will be given by x(t) = 0.6c*t). The light from each strike must move at c = 1 light-second/second in the ground frame, so if the strike at the back happened at x=-8, t=0, that means at t=1 the light from that strike has reached x=-7, at t=2 the light from that strike has reached x=-6, and so forth (in general for this light ray we have x(t) = -8 + 1c*t). And if the strike at the front happened at x=8, t=0 that means at t=1 the light from that strike has reached x=7, at t=2 the light from that strike has reached x=6, etc. (for this light ray we have x(t) = 8 - 1c*t)

Given these numbers, would you agree that at t=8, the light from both strikes will be at position x=0, the same as the position of the ground-observer (who isn't moving in this frame)? And would you agree that at t=5, the train-observer will be at position x=3, and the light from the strike at the front is also at x=3? Finally, would you agree that at t=20, the train-observer will be at position x=12, and the light from the strike at the back is also at x=12?

Agreed to all of the above, but, for me, in no way does this prove or demonstrate that the flashes didn’t happen simultaneously. All we can be certain about is that the passenger is moving at 0.6c relative to the ground observer and the original strike locations. Also, in this explanation, since both strikes happen at t=0 doesn’t that make them simultaneous for all observers?




Regards,

VE

 

[JesseM]

My mistake, so let me make sure I'm going about this the right way.

I'm going to give numbers to all these variables.

t for front strike and back strike = 0
v=.8c
length of train=L=100

X coordinate for front strike = .5L = 50
X coordinate for back strike = -.5L = -50

For front strike:
t' = 0 - ((.8c)(50)/c^2) * gamma
gamma ends up being 5/3
t' = -2.22E-7

Does this mean the front strike for the observer on the train happens before the front strike for the observer on the platform?

I don't know if it's really physically meaningful to talk about whether an event in one frame happened before or after the same event in a different frame--after all, the placement of the temporal origin is pretty arbitrary, it's just to make the math a little easier that we assume that the origin of one frame lines up with the origin of the other. Normally people just talk about whether one event happened before, after, or simultaneously with another event in a single frame.

For the back strike:
t' = 0 - ((.8c)(-.5L)/c^2) * gamma
where gamma again equals 5/3
t' = 2.22E-7

So the back strike for the train observer happens after the back strike for the platform observer?

And the delay between the front strike and back strike for the observer is 4.44E-7s ?

I'm not sure what units you're using so I can't check the actual numbers, but your equations are correct so that's probably the right answer (and it's definitely correct that the front strike happens before the back strike in the train observer's frame)

Did I just correctly confirm why the flashes are not simultaneous in the train frame of reference?

Yes, this looks like a correct confirmation using the Lorentz transformation.

 

[ValenceE]

(and it's definitely correct that the front strike happens before the back strike in the train observer's frame)


Again, I must disagree... It’s definitely correct that the front strike appears to happen before the back strike in the train observer’s frame.

Both strikes hit at the same time. Relativity is not about time, it’s about motion and the constant speed of light.


VE

 

[TcheQ]

Again, I must disagree... It’s definitely correct that the front strike appears to happen before the back strike in the train observer’s frame.

There are no illusions. It actually happens. If you are still confused, use the example I quoted for stevemg in this thread.

 

[Mentz114]

Agreed to all of the above, but, for me, in no way does this prove or demonstrate that the flashes didn’t happen simultaneously.

You are still talking as if simultaneity is an absolute. In whose frame ?

... since both strikes happen at t=0 doesn’t that make them simultaneous for all observers?

Definately not. The fact that the strikes happen at t=0 only applies to some observers.

You must try to understand that if two events are separated spatially, there is no way to define whether they are 'simultaneous' except by adopting a convention.

If I'm in the middle of the carriage and I send beams to the ends at the same time by my clock, the beams appear to me to reach the ends at the same reading on my clock. This will also be true for anyone on the plane perpendicular to the length of the carriage and passing through my position in the middle.

Other observers will say that the beams did not reach the ends at the same time on their clocks.

Simultaneity is relative.

 

[stevmg]

OMG!

I can't even remember what examples anyone gave me!

The only absolutes are the fact that the flashes occurred and the fact that the train is of a given length. Good old M' (the train observer) sits at the midpoint of the train.

The key elemnt here is that x' and t' (in the moving coordinates) when placed in the Lorentz equation x^2 - ct^2 = (x')^2 - c(t')^2 (again, I droped the y, y' and z, z' coordinates) for given x and given t (the ground reference coordinates) then x' and t' change (parabolic equation) annd for given x' (the train coordinates) the t's are different and not linearly related to the original x and t. Hence half the length forward (a function of x) and half the length back do not add up to the same t's as they would originally. If you use Galilean coordinate with no Lorentz correction, you will get one-to-one equivalence as you do with a straight line. Not so with a parabola.

Now this is right - I know it! Damn it. I've tutored math since I was in high school and college, my own kids, and even my troops when I was active duty and these kids were going to college.

Remember, the laws of physics ARE the same in all reference frames and Lorentz-Einstein states that if this is so, then these equations hold.

 

[JesseM]

In any case, I think what you're not understanding here is that in relativity there is no objective truth about whether events "were" or "were not" simultaneous, “

Indeed, here is precisely where I have difficulty. It is only because of SR’s use of the constant speed of light that events as seen from observers in different frames cannot be said to be simultaneous. Every measurement made that involves light (or any EM wave) is based on ‘c’ , so of course if measurements from inertial/rest VS moving frames are compared, the results will differ. However, imo, that does not invalidate simultaneity, it just proves that c is constant.

But I think you're forgetting the first postulate of relativity, which says that the laws of physics work exactly the same in every inertial frame, so there can be no physical basis for saying one frame's judgments about things like velocity or simultaneously are more correct than any others. Now, as a purely philosophical matter, this doesn't stop you from believing in such a thing as objective truths about simultaneity, in which case there would presumably be only a single "metaphysically preferred" frame in which objectively simultaneous events were actually assigned the same time-coordinate--the problem is, as long as relativity is correct there is absolutely no physical experiment whatsoever that could tell you which frame this is!

Do you at least agree with that much, that unless relativity is correct there can be no experimental method of determining the truth about simultaneity, since different frames differ in their opinions about whether two events happened at the same time-coordinate, and the first postulate says that the laws of physics work exactly the same way in every frame so there can be no experimental basis for picking out one frame as a "preferred" one?

all we can say is whether they happen at the same time coordinate in a given coordinate system. I'll lay out the steps of the argument in order so you can tell me where you disagree with a step:

1. Both strikes happen at the same time coordinate in the ground frame, and both the ground-observer and the train-observer are equidistant from the strikes at the time they occur in the ground frame. agreed

2. In the ground frame, the train-observer is moving towards the position of one strike and away from the position of the other. If we assume the light from each strike heads towards the train-observer at a speed of c in this frame (as is required by the 2nd postulate of relativity), the light from one strike must reach the train-observer before the light from the other. agreed

3. Since all frames must agree about local events, all frames must agree the light from the strikes reaches the train-observer at different times. agreed

4. In the train-observer observer's rest frame, the train-observer is at rest at a fixed position, as are the front and back of the train which are both at an equal distance D from the train-observer. agreed

4. If the time coordinate of the strike at the front is t1 in the train-observer's frame, then assuming the light moves at c in this frame and the distance from the front to the train-observer is D, the light must reach the train-observer at time coordinate t = t1 + D/c in this frame. agreed

5. If the time coordinate of the strike at the back is t2 in the train-observer's frame, then assuming the light moves at c in this frame and the distance from the back to the train-observer is D, the light must reach the train-observer at time coordinate t = t2 + D/c in this frame. agreed

6. If the light from both strikes reaches the train-observer at different times, that must mean t1 + D/c is not equal to t2 + D/c. agreed

7. The only way for them not to be equal is if t1 is not equal to t2. agreed
Therefore, the strikes must have happened at different time-coordinates in the train-observer's rest frame. Disagreed, the truth is this is only apparent...[/color]

In the last comment you seem to be answering a different question than the one I asked. I didn't ask whether the events "really" happened simultaneously in any objective metaphysical sense, I only asked if you agreed the strikes happened at different time coordinates in a particular coordinate system. Since you already agreed that the time-coordinate t1 assigned to one strike is not equal to the time-coordinate t2 assigned to the other, hopefully you would not dispute that they "happened at different time-coordinates in the train-observer's rest frame"?

And if you want to discuss the notion of objective simultaneity, your claim that it's "only apparent" still doesn't make sense, since you have no basis for believing that it's the platform observer's frame, and not the train-observer's frame, whose judgments about simultaneity line up with the metaphysical truth about "real" simultaneity. Isn't it perfectly conceivable that the train-observer's frame is the objectively correct one? Consider this: one could easily design a similar thought-experiment which was almost the same as the one we've been talking about, except instead of assuming from the start that the strikes happened simultaneously according to the platform-observer's time coordinates, we instead assume they happened simultaneously according to the train-observer's time coordinates. Then we could use exactly the same reasoning to show the train-observer would receive light from both strikes simultaneously, but the platform-observer would receive light from the two strikes at different times, indicating that the strikes happened at different times in the platform-observer's coordinate system. Would you still say it is the train-observer's judgment that is only "apparent" in this case, or would you say it's the platform-observer's, or would you concede that even if one judgment is correct and one is apparent, we have no way of knowing which is which short of divine revelation?

Why restrict the conclusion to this one possibility, especially when it’s wrong? Couldn’t the passenger, being aware of SR, knowing that she is in a moving train

Again, in relativity there is no notion that some frames are "moving frames", or that there is one preferred frame that is "really" at rest. Each observer defines themselves to be at rest in their own frame. Since the laws of physics don't distinguish any frame as preferred, then even if there was an objective truth about which objects were at rest and which were in motion (the Newtonian idea of absolute space), there would be absolutely no experimental procedure that could determine which was which.

Both strikes hit at the same time. Relativity is not about time, it’s about motion and the constant speed of light.

Of course relativity is about time! The phrase relativity of simultaneity is a standard one that you will find in any relativity textbook, and Einstein used the phrase himself in chapter 9 of this book. And didn't you already agree that events which happen at the same time-coordinate in one frame happen at different time-coordinates in another? Do you disagree that the first postulate of relativity means that no frame is physically preferred over any other, so there is no basis for judging one frame to be in a state of absolute rest while others are in a state of absolute motion?

 

[stevmg]

I lied -

Post #47 - that's a hyperbola, not a parabola - still the same non-linear relationship.

C'mon - that's analytic geometry and I took that course in September 1959 - January 1960. That's before all of you, I bet, were even born.

 

[yuiop]

The train example discussing non-simultaneity that I'm sure most of you have heard of:



However, wouldn't the passenger see the strikes of lightning at the same time? As she is in an inertial reference frame and is equi-distance from the front and back?

I think the problem with the youtube video mentioned in the OP is that the video segment from 0.27 to 0.29 shows the train as stationary during the time the light spheres expand to reach the trackside observer simultaneously and as a consequence it appears as if the light also reaches the passenger simultaneously. This is unphysical and to someone that is trying to understand the example for the first time, this image is confusing at the subliminal level. I think this video concentrates more on presentation than on the accuracy of the content.