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.
  • #71
PeterDonis said:
No. The shape of the molecules plays no role, since, as pointed out in post #55, we are talking about SR, not quantum mechanics.
Then I don't understand how an object can get shorter.
lorentz contraction.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
David Lewis said:
Then I don't understand how an object can get shorter. View attachment 243696

If molecules had a shape, they'd get shorter. In the world of quantum mechanics, though, it's not clear if molecules actually have shapes or not, at least not to me. I would say that molecules have wavefunctions which occupy a non-physical "configuration space", with 3 dimensions for every particle in the molecule (presumably these particles are atoms, but you could break the atoms down into more particles). That's not really a "shape" as far as I am concerned.

Most treatments of introductory QM treat single particle systems, where the wavfunction does occupy normal space. It's when one considers multi-particle systems that one gets into the issue of the wavefunctions not occupying physical space.

But it's much simpler to keep the arcane aspects of QM out of the discussion, which is what the original point was.
 
  • Like
Likes David Lewis
  • #73
David Lewis said:
Then I don't understand how an object can get shorter.

Because that's how the geometry of spacetime works. The SR treatment of the Bell spaceship paradox does not make any hypothesis about the internal structure of the object. It just explores the consequences of the stated conditions, given the geometry of Minkowski spacetime. This geometry puts constraints on any model of an object's internal structure; but it doesn't tell you anything specific about that internal structure.
 
  • #74
David Lewis said:
I don't understand how an object can get shorter.

As far as an "object" describable by classical physics is concerned, Lorentz showed in the 1890s (IIRC) that any object made of electric charges bound together by electromagnetic fields would exhibit length contraction in a frame in which it was moving.
 
  • #75
David Lewis said:
lorentz-contraction-png.png


Then I don't understand how an object can get shorter.
The string in Bell's scenario doesn't get shorter, so the contracted binding EM fields have to span the same distances. Hence the tension. To avoid the complications of QM don't go down to the atomic level, but instead consider the contracting links of a chain that is forced to keep a constant length.
 
  • Like
Likes pervect
  • #76
A.T. said:
The string in Bell's scenario doesn't get shorter, so the contracted binding EM fields have to span the same distances. Hence the tension. To avoid the complications of QM don't go down to the atomic level, but instead consider the contracting links of a chain that is forced to keep a constant length.

I agree. If one has a rod or string which one divide into classical pieces of matter, then, when the rod undergoes length contraction, so does each of the pieces of the rod.

It doesn't matter to the argument how small each of the pieces is.

It does matter to the argument that we consider the pieces to behave classically. It's unclear to me how one rigorously deals with the quantum aspects, but this argument can go in another forum such as the quantum forum. I would guess that there is some sort of classical limit one can take, but I've never seen a serious formal discussion of the issue. This doesn't mean that one may not exist, as I'm not too familiar with the appropriate literature, unfortunately.
 
  • #77
pervect said:
It's unclear to me how one rigorously deals with the quantum aspects, but this argument can go in another forum such as the quantum forum.

Exactly.
 
<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
753
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
219
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top