Bell's Spaceship Paradox & Length Contraction

In summary: If the rockets are rigid, then the distance between the ships does not change as they accelerate.However, if the rockets are not rigid, then the distance between the ships does change as they accelerate.In summary, if the rockets are rigid, the distance between the ships does not change as they accelerate. If the rockets are not rigid, the distance between the ships changes as they accelerate.
  • #36
stevendaryl said:
That implies that the coordinate acceleration of the rear is always a little greater than the coordinate acceleration of the front.

The rear would get ahead of the front after some finite time, if the coordinate acceleration of the rear was always a little greater than the coordinate acceleration of the front.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
jartsa said:
The rear would get ahead of the front after some finite time, if the coordinate acceleration of the rear was always a little greater than the coordinate acceleration of the front.

No. The distance between front and back is ##L \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}##. That gets smaller and smaller, but it never goes to zero (and certainly never becomes negative).
 
  • #38
jartsa said:
The rear would get ahead of the front after some finite time, if the coordinate acceleration of the rear was always a little greater than the coordinate acceleration of the front.
Draw a spacetime diagram and add hyperbolae with their foci at the origin. The distance between any two timelike hyperbolae that curve in the same direction remains constant in their instantaneous rest frames. The coordinate distance falls and the coordinate accelerations are different, yet they never cross.
 
  • #39
stevendaryl said:
No. The distance between front and back is ##L \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}##. That gets smaller and smaller, but it never goes to zero (and certainly never becomes negative).
I know the rear of an accelerating rod does not pass the front of the rod. o_O

And from that I (correctly) conclude that at some time the coordinate acceleration of the rear must get smaller than the coordinate acceleration of the front - to avoid the rear passing the front.

If Bob moves faster than Alice and Bob also accelerates more than Alice, then Bob will go past Alice at some time.
 
  • #40
jartsa said:
The rear would get ahead of the front after some finite time, if the coordinate acceleration of the rear was always a little greater than the coordinate acceleration of the front.

This is in accordance with Rindler coordinate where lower the position, greater the proper gravity force.
 
  • #41
jartsa said:
I know the rear of an accelerating rod does not pass the front of the rod. o_O

And from that I (correctly) conclude that at some time the coordinate acceleration of the rear must get smaller than the coordinate acceleration of the front - to avoid the rear passing the front.

If Bob moves faster than Alice and Bob also accelerates more than Alice, then Bob will go past Alice at some time.
There are all sorts of space -time distortions going on during acceleration that make one's intuition very treacherous. IMO, the key to keeping things straight is to use the Minkowski diagram.
 
  • #42
jartsa said:
If Bob moves faster than Alice and Bob also accelerates more than Alice, at some time Bob will go past Alice.

Ah! You're actually right. The relationship between the coordinate acceleration and the proper acceleration is a little complicated. Assuming that Alice and Bob are traveling so that they are a constant distance from each other, according to their own instantaneous reference frame, and so that their proper acceleration is constant:
  1. Alice is always ahead of Bob.
  2. Bob's velocity is always greater than Alice's. (according to the initial launch frame)
  3. Bob's proper acceleration is greater than Alice's
  4. Bob's coordinate acceleration starts off greater than Alice's (according to the initial launch frame)
  5. But eventually, Alice's coordinate acceleration gets larger than Bob's (according to the initial launch frame)
It's not immediately obvious how to reconcile #3 with #5. The formula for constant proper acceleration is this (choosing the zero of the x-coordinate to make the formula simpler)

##x = \sqrt{c^2 t^2 + \frac{c^4}{g^2}} \equiv \sqrt{c^2 t^2 + X^2}##

where ##g## is the proper acceleration and ##X = \frac{c^2}{g}## is the initial location. It's immediate from this that Bob, whose initial location is behind Alice's has a larger proper acceleration: ##X_a > X_b## so ##g_a < g_b##. If we take some derivatives, we find:
  • ##x = \sqrt{c^2 t^2 + \frac{c^4}{g^2}}##
  • When ##t## is small, ##x \approx \frac{c^2}{g} + \frac{1}{2} g t^2##
  • When ##t## is large, ##x \approx ct##
  • ##v = \frac{c^2 t}{x}##
  • When ##t## is small, ##v \approx g t##.
  • When ##t## is large, ##v \approx c##.
  • ##\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{gx}{c^2}##
  • When ##t## is small, ##\gamma \approx 1##
  • When ##t## is large, ##\gamma \approx \frac{gt}{c}##
  • ##a = \frac{c^6}{x^3 g^2} = \frac{g}{\gamma^3}##
  • When ##t## is small, ##a \approx g##
  • When ##t## is large, ##a \approx \frac{c^3}{g^2 t^3}##
Alice has a smaller value of ##g##, but also a smaller value of ##\gamma##, so the ratio ##a = \frac{g}{\gamma^3}## is smaller than Bob's when ##\gamma \approx 1##, but gets larger than Bob's when ##\gamma## gets large.
 
  • #43
stevendaryl said:
The distance between front and back is L (1−v2/c2)1/2.
stevendaryl said:
Let L be the initial distance between the rockets.
L is the distance between the rockets, if I understand correctly.
L stays the same in frame F.
 

Attachments

  • bells spaceship 2.gif
    bells spaceship 2.gif
    26.7 KB · Views: 485
  • #44
David Lewis said:
L is the distance between the rockets, if I understand correctly.
L stays the same in frame F.

I apologize for talking about two different scenarios without making clear which one I'm talking about. Yes, in Bell's scenario, the distance between the two rockets remains constant in frame ##F##. I'm talking about a different scenario in which the distance remains constant, as measured in frame ##F'##, the frame in which the rockets are momentarily at rest.
 
  • #45
I've asked this before and had it answered, but I'm not satisfied yet ... I expect I have to work thru the math:

The tensile strength of the thread is neglected in this thought experiments. If there is tension in the thread, it will not just pull itself apart, but it will pull on the two spaceship masses. My intuition is that connecting the ships into that single traveling system, with the thread, they just move together. If the thread was an unbreakable steel bar, with the two rockets part of a single ship, it would be expected to stay together. The fragility of the thread is always stressed as important in the conditions, but even a small force seems sufficient to move the ships together.

I can theoretically tow an aircraft carrier with a thread, as long as my force is lower than the tensile strength of the thread. The length contraction seems so gradual that I (intuitively) expect it to always be below that tensile strength.

If it was a single ship, with a rocket at the front and a rocket at the rear, would it snap in half? Does it matter that the tensile strength force changes either is accelerating the trailing ship, or braking the leading ship? That sort of changes the definition of the acceleration force experienced ... but not by much. It seems that the thought experiment relies on an extraordinarily precise acceleration definition. How many zeroes are needed in the in 1.0000...000 g? It seems like the ships will just be very gently pulled together.

And if the force transferred by the string must be omitted from the trailing rocket, then it is also obvious that an external viewer would see a rocket in front with more power pulling a slower rocket by a thread, and then the thread breaking is obvious ... it was not a strong enough tow rope. The viewer is puzzled by the string breaking until told that the rockets will be adjusted to prevent the string forces from changing the acceleration. Put a thread between two cars and accelerate the same and you expect the string to remain unbroken. Take your foot off the (trailing car) gas a small amount and you expect the string to pull the trailing car a small amount by tensile strength. Take your foot of a lot, and you expect the string to break, as an inadequate tow rope.

The thought experiment seems set up to require that the rockets can overly precisely control acceleration. If I am holding a small helium balloon on a thread and descend stairs, I don't feel that "lift". But it is there. If the balloon remains at a fixed height, the thread breaks. But that never happens ... the balloon is towed.
 
  • #46
votingmachine said:
The tensile strength of the thread is neglected in this thought experiments.
The tensile strength is assumed low enough to have negligible effect on the motion of the spacecraft . It is a thought experiment. Imaginary string with low tensile strength and imaginary motors that are both powerful and identical are as cheap as a piece of paper and a number two pencil.

If the tensile strength is large enough to be significant compared to the rocket motor thrust then it is a different thought experiment.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #47
While the picture shows the rocket engines being located in the back, the thought experiment question makes no such designation. Considering this is a thought experiment, shouldn't we consider an engine that applies the thrust uniformly across the entire ship??

Also, is it from the perspective from the initial state that the distance between the ships is constant? Wouldn't this mean that from the perspective from someone on one of the ships, the distance between the ships is increasing? A stationary observer would see the spaceships being length contracted and the space between the ships being length contracted as well in order for the people in the ships to see no difference. Isn't this paradox just an impossibility?
 
  • #48
votingmachine said:
If it was a single ship, with a rocket at the front and a rocket at the rear, would it snap in half?

If the proper acceleration at both ends was the same, yes.

All of the considerations you are raising are reasons why, in an actual scenario, the proper acceleration at both ends would not be the same. But that means, as @jbriggs444 has pointed out, that you're now talking about a different thought experiment. The point of Bell's spaceship paradox is not to describe a practical scenario; it's a highly idealized thought experiment intended to illustrate particular theoretical and pedagogical issues that Bell was interested in.

votingmachine said:
The thought experiment seems set up to require that the rockets can overly precisely control acceleration.

Yes, of course; the specification of the experiment is that both ships (or both ends of a very long ship, if we're talking about that alternative scenario) have the same proper acceleration. That defines what the term "Bell's spaceship paradox thought experiment" means. If you break that condition, again, you're talking about a different thought experiment.
 
  • #49
votingmachine said:
I've asked this before and had it answered, but I'm not satisfied yet ... I expect I have to work thru the math:

The tensile strength of the thread is neglected in this thought experiments. If there is tension in the thread, it will not just pull itself apart, but it will pull on the two spaceship masses. My intuition is that connecting the ships into that single traveling system, with the thread, they just move together. If the thread was an unbreakable steel bar, with the two rockets part of a single ship, it would be expected to stay together. The fragility of the thread is always stressed as important in the conditions, but even a small force seems sufficient to move the ships together.

I can theoretically tow an aircraft carrier with a thread, as long as my force is lower than the tensile strength of the thread. The length contraction seems so gradual that I (intuitively) expect it to always be below that tensile strength.

Bell's argument is that if the string is flimsy enough that it has no effect on the rocket motion, then it will stretch and break. If you assume, to the contrary, that the string is very strong, then the same reasoning would imply that the string would pull the front rocket backwards and pull the back rocket forwards. So the distance between the rockets would decrease (as measured in the initial launch frame).
 
  • Like
Likes Grinkle
  • #50
Justin Hunt said:
shouldn't we consider an engine that applies the thrust uniformly across the entire ship??

If the ship is idealized as being short enough that it can move in a Born rigid manner (i.e., with the instantaneous distances between all of its parts remaining the same as it moves) with negligible variation in proper acceleration over its length, then this is what the engine is doing in the idealized thought experiment. As far as I know, Bell's original formulation meets this requirement (he was basically idealizing each ship as being a point).

If the ship is long enough that moving in a Born rigid manner requires the proper acceleration to vary measurably along its length, then you cannot consider the engine thrust to be applied uniformly, because that would produce the same proper acceleration all along the ship and the ship would not move in a Born rigid manner; it would stretch.

Justin Hunt said:
is it from the perspective from the initial state that the distance between the ships is constant?

Yes. More precisely, the distance between the ships is constant as seen in the inertial frame in which both ships are initially at rest (before they turn their engines on).

Justin Hunt said:
Wouldn't this mean that from the perspective from someone on one of the ships, the distance between the ships is increasing?

Yes. Have you read the FAQ entry I linked to earlier in this thread? It discusses this.

Justin Hunt said:
A stationary observer would see the spaceships being length contracted

Yes.

Justin Hunt said:
and the space between the ships being length contracted as well

No.

Justin Hunt said:
in order for the people in the ships to see no difference

The people on the ships do see a difference; they see the distance between the ships increasing. See above.

Justin Hunt said:
Isn't this paradox just an impossibility?

No. You apparently have not read the FAQ or any of a number of articles on the paradox, all of which discuss and resolve the issues you raise.
 
  • #51
votingmachine said:
Put a thread between two cars and accelerate the same and you expect the string to remain unbroken. Take your foot off the (trailing car) gas a small amount and you expect the string to pull the trailing car a small amount by tensile strength. Take your foot of a lot, and you expect the string to break, as an inadequate tow rope.

But the difference with the Bell Rocket thought experiment is that even if the two cars/rockets are accelerating identically, the string will break. The only way for the string not to break is if the car/rocket in the rear is accelerating a tiny bit more than the car/rocket in the front.
 
  • #52
I see the clarifications which correct my understanding. The thought experiment is defined with a perfect acceleration control. Any other consideration is a separate thought experiment.

It is just that 1xG is just so slow. Say that G is 10 m/s2. After 3 million seconds the velocity is 30 million m/s. The speed of light roughly 300 million m/s. So after about 5 weeks of acceleration, the velocity is approaching one tenth light speed.

At 1/10th light speed, the "length contraction" is 0.5% (200 meter thread now at 199 meter length). If across the 5 weeks the trailing spaceship was moved 1 meter closer, the thread is under no additional tension.

The two ships have traveled 5x10exp12 meters. So if all the "extra" acceleration was on the trailing ship. it would have traveled 5,000,000,000,001 meters while the lead ship traveled 5,000,000,000,000 meters, over that 5 weeks.

I know it gets worse, as the next 5 weeks get a little closer to light speed. And gamma is not a linear function. I just find the specification of perfect acceleration measurement and control somewhat bothersome. I can see that if you specified a small enough spaceship, then you might even be able to apply the Heisenburg uncertainty principle to show that the thread would not break. Say the ships were atom sized ... one of the posts mentioned we should think of them as precisely located points ...
 
  • #53
So what? Just keep accelerating and eventually length contraction will be significant above the noise in your acceleration profile (which you can keep under control with an accelerometer and appropriate averaging, even if not "naturally" by precise engineering).

You can't duck the implications by deciding it's too costly to implement a test and giving up.
 
  • #54
votingmachine said:
It is just that 1xG is just so slow.

First, so what? The math doesn't care.

Second, who says the acceleration has to be 1 G? It's a highly idealized thought experiment. You can run it with whatever acceleration you like.

votingmachine said:
I just find the specification of perfect acceleration measurement and control somewhat bothersome.

You are welcome to start a separate thread if you want to discuss a different thought experiment. This thread's topic is the one Bell proposed.
 
  • #55
votingmachine said:
I can see that if you specified a small enough spaceship, then you might even be able to apply the Heisenburg uncertainty principle to show that the thread would not break.

Bell's thought experiment is formulated in classical SR. If you want to drag in quantum mechanics, that's yet another different thought experiment. Which should be discussed in a separate thread if you really want to discuss it. Please stop hijacking this thread with posts about different scenarios than the one we are discussing here.
 
  • #56
Moderator's note: Some off topic posts and responses to them have been deleted.
 
  • #57
David Lewis said:
In the crew's reference frame, both ships will not have the same acceleration. They will feel the same acceleration at different times.

This is not correct. The crews of both ships feel the same proper acceleration at all times. Since the proper acceleration does not vary with time, the fact that, once the ships start accelerating, the instantaneous rest frames of each ship have different simultaneity surfaces, is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Likes David Lewis
  • #58
David Lewis said:
In the crew's reference frame, both ships will not have the same acceleration. They will feel the same acceleration at different times.

All the time each crew feels independent constant proper gravity force that is caused by proper acceleration of ship according to where he/she is. The more rear ship or lower deck he/she is, the more proper gravity or acceleration works on him/her. I said it in condition that distances between the ships in a row remain constant for observer in IFR and the ships are made Born rigid.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
The spaceship is rest on F′,F′maybe a Rindler_coordinates.
stevendaryl said:
I apologize for talking about two different scenarios without making clear which one I'm talking about. Yes, in Bell's scenario, the distance between the two rockets remains constant in frame F. I'm talking about a different scenario in which the distance remains constant, as measured in frame F′, the frame in which the rockets are momentarily at rest.

I have done a detailed calculation of the speed and acceleration of the two spacecraft .
But I don't know how to paste a picture in the forum.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
liuxinhua said:
The spaceship is rest on F′,F′maybe a Rindler_coordinates.I have done a detailed calculation of the speed and acceleration of the two spacecraft .
But I don't know how to paste a picture in the forum.

There should be a button to the lower left called "UPLOAD".
 
  • #61
Each spaceship has its own original time τ.
For spaceship A at its every original time, such at time τi, there exists an inertial reference frame Ki spaceship A and spaceship B is rest in Ki. When the original time of spaceship A is τi , corresponding time in Ki is ti.
For spaceship A at time τj, there exists an inertial reference frame Kj spaceship A and spaceship B is rest in K. When the original time of spaceship A isτj , corresponding time in Kj is tj.
Measured in Ki at time ti and measured in Kj at time tj, the acceleration of spaceship A is a constant.
The distance of spaceship A and spaceship B is l0 measured in Kj at time tj.
212392-9c94c119f2b1ee91973848d8cede5d2d.jpg

212392-9c94c119f2b1ee91973848d8cede5d2d.jpg

Thank for stevendaryl.
 

Attachments

  • acclerate.jpg
    acclerate.jpg
    47.5 KB · Views: 523
  • velocity.jpg
    velocity.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 522
  • #62
David Lewis said:
You and two identical spaceships are all at rest with respect to each other. You note that the two engines start up at the same time, and the thrust curve and acceleration profile of both spaceships are identical. As the ships pick up speed, would you measure the ships to be shorter than their rest length?

These diagrams show that from any instantaneously comoving frame (ICF) on any ship the trailing and leading ships are receeding and the strings must break .
The first diagram is at time zero with all clocks synchronised at ##\tau=0##.
The next diagram shows the frame that is comoving with the leftmost clock at its time ≈ 8. This is the top white line. This frame is also comoving with each ship at ##\tau##≈8. For each white line the ships to the left of the blue square have negative velocity and those to the right have positive velocity

.
BC-t0.png
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/229366
 

Attachments

  • BC-t0.png
    BC-t0.png
    1.3 KB · Views: 535
  • BC-t7.png
    BC-t7.png
    4.6 KB · Views: 552
  • #63
Justin Hunt said:
…shouldn't we consider an engine that applies the thrust uniformly across the entire ship??
I don't think so in this case. The engine (as I've drawn it) applies force just to the rear of the ship. The ship will compress slightly due to classical mechanical deformation but I am ignoring this and for simplicity just focusing on relativistic effects.

stevendaryl said:
The only way for the string not to break is if the car/rocket in the rear is accelerating a tiny bit more than the car/rocket in the front.
You're probably right. Consider, however, that the acceleration of both ships is the same. For the observer (who was initially at rest with respect to the ships) both ships started moving at the same time. For the men in the ship, the front ship got a head start.
 
  • #64
David Lewis said:
You're probably right. Consider, however, that the acceleration of both ships is the same. For the observer (who was initially at rest with respect to the ships) both ships started moving at the same time. For the men in the ship, the front ship got a head start.
Same, you say, should be investigated more in detail.
The two engines are the same product and in the same condition. The two pilots are well trained to keep the same starting manual.
The two pilots and a commander on the Earth share the same IFR when the pilots fire engines of the rockets on the Earth or staying still in space with the Earth. The rockets start at the same time for all the three. No head start.

For the commander all the things of the rockets keep same during the flight, constant distance, the same speeds and the same rocket lengths at his Earth time, etc. However, though the same start,
In the front rocket FR, the rear rocket's engine is in sooner phase in accerelatin flight manual than his own. "The rear pilot is reading chapter I of manual though I am reading chapter II"
In the rear rocket FR, the front rocket's engine is in later phase in acceleration flight manual than his own. "The front pilot is reading chapter II of manual though I am reading chapter I"
The two pilots share the same judgement in synchronisity, "the more front, the more future". They observe that the distance between the two strats increasing. So the thead is torn. The distance would be shortened in latter phase for reducing power for inertial flight in space. After all the starting procedures are completed by the with engines cut, the distance of rockets is the same initial value for the three.

In order that the thread is not torn apart the front pilot should reduce power, the rear pilot should increase power or the both is required. The different manual should be given to the pilots for the mission of "no cut of thread during the flight".
 
Last edited:
  • #65
David Lewis said:
You're probably right. Consider, however, that the acceleration of both ships is the same. For the observer (who was initially at rest with respect to the ships) both ships started moving at the same time. For the men in the ship, the front ship got a head start.

Not just a head start. From the point of view of the passengers on the ships, the distance between the ships keeps growing. So unless the string can stretch infinitely far, it will break.

Let ##L## be the distance between the two ships as measured in the "launch" frame (where they are initially at rest). Now, wait a while until the ships are traveling at speed ##v##. Now, transform to a frame in which the rear ship is momentarily at rest. In this frame:
  • The rear ship is (momentarily) at rest.
  • The distance between the ships is greater than ##\gamma L##
  • The front ship is getting farther away from the rear ship.
So whatever is the maximum the string can stretch, eventually ##\gamma L## will get bigger than that, and the string will break.
 
  • #66
Another way to look at the string breaking is in terms of the Rindler horizon. Consider a rocket ship that is traveling according to the trajectory:

##x_{rocket} = (x_0 - \frac{c^2}{g}) + \sqrt{\frac{c^4}{g^2} + c^2 t^2}##

(that's constant proper acceleration ##g## starting at rest at ##x=x_0## at time ##t=0##)

Then there is a second trajectory behind the first:

##x_{horizon} = x_0 + ct##

For all ##t##, ##x_{horizon}(t) < x_{rocket}(t)##.

If you have an observer whose trajectory is such that ##x_{observer}(t) < x_{horizon}(t)##, then there is no way for that observer to send a signal to the rocket. That's sort of obvious, because ##x_{horizon}## moves at speed ##c##, so something that gets behind the horizon will never be able to catch up with it again.

In the two rocket case, the rear rocket will fall below the Rindler horizon of the front rocket.
 
  • #67
In the initial launch frame, would it be accurate to say the tension in the thread increases as the ships pick up speed because the molecules of which the thread is composed flatten in the direction of motion?
 
  • #68
David Lewis said:
In the initial launch frame, would it be accurate to say the tension in the thread increases as the ships pick up speed because the molecules of which the thread is composed flatten in the direction of motion?

No. The shape of the molecules plays no role, since, as pointed out in post #55, we are talking about SR, not quantum mechanics. In SR, the thread is assumed to be a continuous line extending along the direction of motion--a real thread has a thickness, but the thread's extent in the directions perpendicular to the direction of motion is irrelevant to the SR analysis.
 
  • #69
David Lewis said:
In the initial launch frame, would it be accurate to say the tension in the thread increases as the ships pick up speed because the molecules of which the thread is composed flatten in the direction of motion?
The fields that hold the string atoms together are contracted in the initial launch frame, to they produce more attractive force, than in an identical string at rest in the that frame, despite the fact that both strings remain at equal length in the frame.
 
Last edited:
<h2>What is Bell's Spaceship Paradox?</h2><p>Bell's Spaceship Paradox is a thought experiment proposed by physicist John Stewart Bell in 1976. It involves two spaceships traveling at high speeds in opposite directions and measuring the length of a stationary object in between them. This paradox highlights the concept of length contraction in special relativity.</p><h2>What is length contraction in special relativity?</h2><p>Length contraction is a phenomenon predicted by Einstein's theory of special relativity. It states that objects in motion appear shorter along the direction of motion when observed from a stationary frame of reference. This effect is only noticeable at speeds close to the speed of light and is a consequence of the constant speed of light in all inertial frames.</p><h2>How does Bell's Spaceship Paradox illustrate length contraction?</h2><p>In Bell's Spaceship Paradox, the two spaceships are moving at high speeds in opposite directions. When they measure the length of a stationary object in between them, they will both observe a shorter length due to length contraction. This is because each spaceship is moving at a high speed relative to the stationary object, causing it to appear shorter along the direction of motion.</p><h2>Does length contraction violate the laws of physics?</h2><p>No, length contraction does not violate the laws of physics. It is a well-established phenomenon predicted by Einstein's theory of special relativity. This theory has been extensively tested and confirmed through various experiments, and length contraction has been observed in many real-world scenarios.</p><h2>Can length contraction be observed in everyday life?</h2><p>Length contraction is only noticeable at speeds close to the speed of light, which is much faster than anything we encounter in our everyday lives. However, it has been observed in particle accelerators, where particles are accelerated to very high speeds. Additionally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) takes into account the effects of length contraction in order to provide accurate location data.</p>

What is Bell's Spaceship Paradox?

Bell's Spaceship Paradox is a thought experiment proposed by physicist John Stewart Bell in 1976. It involves two spaceships traveling at high speeds in opposite directions and measuring the length of a stationary object in between them. This paradox highlights the concept of length contraction in special relativity.

What is length contraction in special relativity?

Length contraction is a phenomenon predicted by Einstein's theory of special relativity. It states that objects in motion appear shorter along the direction of motion when observed from a stationary frame of reference. This effect is only noticeable at speeds close to the speed of light and is a consequence of the constant speed of light in all inertial frames.

How does Bell's Spaceship Paradox illustrate length contraction?

In Bell's Spaceship Paradox, the two spaceships are moving at high speeds in opposite directions. When they measure the length of a stationary object in between them, they will both observe a shorter length due to length contraction. This is because each spaceship is moving at a high speed relative to the stationary object, causing it to appear shorter along the direction of motion.

Does length contraction violate the laws of physics?

No, length contraction does not violate the laws of physics. It is a well-established phenomenon predicted by Einstein's theory of special relativity. This theory has been extensively tested and confirmed through various experiments, and length contraction has been observed in many real-world scenarios.

Can length contraction be observed in everyday life?

Length contraction is only noticeable at speeds close to the speed of light, which is much faster than anything we encounter in our everyday lives. However, it has been observed in particle accelerators, where particles are accelerated to very high speeds. Additionally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) takes into account the effects of length contraction in order to provide accurate location data.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
78
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
930
Replies
63
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
757
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
222
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top