Another spaceship and two points question....

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TomTelford
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Points Spaceship
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the synchronization and time readings of two clocks, A and B, in the context of special relativity. Participants explore the implications of a spaceship's motion relative to these clocks, examining how time appears to the pilot during acceleration and the effects of relativistic phenomena such as the Lorentz transform and the Doppler effect.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Tom describes a scenario where a pilot observes two clocks, A and B, with A reading noon and B reading 11am, and questions whether the pilot will perceive clock A as being one hour behind clock B after traveling to clock B.
  • Some participants clarify that the initial readings of the clocks do not imply that one clock is behind the other; they are synchronized in their rest frame.
  • There is a discussion about how the pilot perceives the time on the clocks during the flight, with some arguing that both clocks run slow relative to the pilot's clock, while others emphasize the effects of light travel time and the Doppler effect on the perceived readings.
  • Tom raises a scenario where the spaceship is moving towards clock A and questions how this affects the time reading on clock B when collocated with clock A.
  • Participants debate the nature of the Lorentz transform and its implications, with some asserting that it is a real effect while others argue that it depends on the chosen reference frame.
  • Tom seeks clarification on what the pilot would see regarding clock B's time when passing clock A, leading to further discussions about the interpretation of time readings and the effects of motion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of time readings and the effects of relativistic phenomena. There is no consensus on the implications of the Lorentz transform or the nature of the perceived time differences during the pilot's journey.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of distinguishing between when events occur and when they are observed, highlighting the complexities of relativistic effects and the role of reference frames in interpreting time readings.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying special relativity, particularly in understanding the nuances of time synchronization, the effects of motion on time perception, and the implications of relativistic transformations.

  • #31
Flattening... right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
TomTelford said:
When the lecturer uses phrases like "the person on the train sees...", they are implying 'after removing the effects of doppler shift' or 'only considering the effects of SR' but they don't say it.

It is true that the word "see" is often used, not to mean what is actually directly seen with the eyes or a telescope or something similar, but what is calculated from direct observations by correcting for light travel time, Doppler shift, etc. This usage is indeed confusing, but unfortunately it's what we're stuck with; you just have to learn to deal with it.

TomTelford said:
what I'm trying to do now is to take it from what would REALLY be observed, all in, all effects and to be able to say "ok, this part is doppler so take that out and this part is SR or GR".

You can't separate "Doppler" from "SR". The correct Doppler shift formula includes SR effects.

TomTelford said:
Training tells me how to do the math but I still have to build a sense of those relationships in my head in order to make it work while I am flying. An intuitive sense of this much change in power produces this much change in groundspeed.

That's what I'm trying to do with these questions.

Unfortunately, this analogy with flying might do more harm than good, because in relativistic spaceflight there is no invariant quantity that is directly analogous to either indicated airspeed--the thing you actually see in the cockpit--or true groundspeed--your "real" speed in terms of getting from starting point to destination. Nor is there anything analogous to wind speed/direction, calibrated vs. indicated airspeed, etc., to apply as corrections to get from one to the other. Nor is "engine power" the best thing to think about as far as what you adjust to get there faster or slower. Relativistic spaceflight is too different, IMO, from flying airplanes in an atmosphere to make this analogy useful.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #33
TomTelford said:
The ship is moving at .5c as it passes clock A which reads noon and it "sees" clock B reading 11am. However the pilot thinks the distance to B is only .866 light hours not 1 lh away and that based on how quickly it observes time passing on clock B that it should read something like 12:07 if it were there right "now" in the ships frame as opposed to noon in clock A's frame?

You can't figure this out using time dilation/Doppler shift alone. You also have to take into account relativity of simultaneity--or, to put it another way, the fact that in the ship's rest frame, clocks A and B are not synchronized (they don't show the same readings at the same time in the ship's rest frame).
 
  • #34
TomTelford said:
Now I'm just trying to figure out which formula is used to solve which value being transformed.
The Lorentz transforms. It's always the Lorentz transforms. Sometimes they simplify to the time dilation and length contraction formulae, but until you get intuition for when, use the Lorentz transforms.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: m4r35n357
  • #35
TomTelford said:
So moving on to the Lorentz part of this situation in case 2 is the following true:

The ship is moving at .5c as it passes clock A which reads noon and it "sees" clock B reading 11am. However the pilot thinks the distance to B is only .866 light hours not 1 lh away and that based on how quickly it observes time passing on clock B that it should read something like 12:07 if it were there right "now" in the ships frame as opposed to noon in clock A's frame?
While B, according to the ship, is 0.866 lh away "now" as the ship passes A, this doesn't mean that B was 0.866 lh away when the light the ship is seeing "now" left B.
Put another way, the light that arrives from B that arrives when the ship passes A had to have left B sometime before the ship passes A, and when the ship and B were much further apart than 0.866c. And, according to the ship, that light traveled at c relative to the ship, and thus took longer than 0.866 hrs to reach him, during which time clock B was running 0.866 as fast as his own.
In this example, the ship and B would be ~1.732 lh apart when the light leaves B, and when the ship is 0.866 lh short of passing A as measured by the ship. It will take the ship 1.732 hr to reach A and the same time for the Light from B to reach both A and the ship. During which time, clock B will advance by 1.732 x 0.866 = 1.5 hrs. ( from 11 am to 12:30 am) . So according to the ship, when it passes A and sees a time of 11:00 am on clock B, it would determine that it was actually 12:30 am at clock B.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
874
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
638
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K