Bell's spaceship paradox - reversed

  • Thread starter Thread starter birulami
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox Spaceship
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a twist on Bell's spaceship paradox, where two rockets connected by a thread start with slack and accelerate until the thread becomes taut. The observer in the rockets' frame, S', perceives the thread as taut and the rockets as stationary, but when they are ordered to accelerate in reverse, the expectation is that the thread will break due to deceleration. However, the key point is that from the inertial frame S, the rockets cannot accelerate synchronously, leading to different proper accelerations and ultimately causing the thread to break. The use of Rindler coordinates is emphasized, highlighting that only observers undergoing Born rigid acceleration maintain constant distances, which is not the case here. The paradox illustrates the complexities of simultaneity and acceleration in different frames of reference.
birulami
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Bell's spaceship paradox --- reversed

The "[URL was discussed already https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=236681", but I would like to add a twist. I take for granted, that the thread breaks, as described by Bell himself.

Suppose the experiment starts out with a bit of slack on the thread connecting the two spaceships. Call the surrounding frame, the one that shall not move, S. Then, as described, rockets accelerate gently until the thread is taut, just before it breaks. Call the frame of the rockets S'. Now we play dumb and forget how the situation evolved. Rather, within S', we see just a taut thread between the rockets, which, from this frame's perspective don't move. Within S', an observer A', equidistant to both rockets starts the (seemingly original) Bell experiment, except, by coincidence, he orders the rockets to accelerate in reverse gear, as seen from S. Of course A' can expect the string to break.

But: invoking our prior knowledge, we know that reverse gear actually means deceleration with S and the string should rather get some slack again. What's wrong here?

My guess is as follows: Judged as seen from S, A' does not and can not order the rockets to accelerate synchronously. Rather they get orders in such a way that A' sees them synchronous, while within S they are not synchronous. Snap.

Harald.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


birulami said:
Suppose the experiment starts out with a bit of slack on the thread connecting the two spaceships. Call the surrounding frame, the one that shall not move, S. Then, as described, rockets accelerate gently until the thread is taut, just before it breaks. Call the frame of the rockets S'. Now we play dumb and forget how the situation evolved. Rather, within S', we see just a taut thread between the rockets, which, from this frame's perspective don't move.
But what kind of accelerating frame do you want to use for the rockets? The normal type of coordinate system used for objects undergoing constant coordinate acceleration is Rindler coordinates, which have the nice property that at any given point on the accelerating observer's worldline, Rindler coordinates will define simultaneity and distances to other objects at that moment in the same way as they'd be defined in the observer's instantaneous inertial rest frame at that moment. And in Rindler coordinates, only a family of observers undergoing Born rigid acceleration would remain at rest--Born rigid just meaning that the distance between them stays constant in each observer's instantaneous inertial rest frame from one moment to the next (in this case a taut string between the ships would not break). But in order for this to be true, it works out that different ships must undergo different constant proper accelerations, so from the perspective of the inertial frame S they'd be accelerating at different rates. This page on the Rindler horizon has a diagram of what the paths of ships at rest in Rindler coordinates look like from the perspective of an inertial frame, along with a little explanation:

Coords.gif

We can imagine a flotilla of spaceships, each remaining at a fixed value of s by accelerating at 1/s. In principle, these ships could be physically connected together by ladders, allowing passengers to move between them. Although each ship would have a different proper acceleration, the spacing between them would remain constant as far as each of them was concerned ... When an object is accelerated in such a way as to preserve the proper distances between its different parts, this is referred to as Born rigid motion (after the physicist Max Born).

So, if the ships are instead both undergoing the same coordinate acceleration as seen in the inertial frame S, that means that in either ship's Rindler frame S', the other ship is not maintaining a constant coordinate distance but is instead moving away, which is why the string breaks. If you want to use a different type of accelerating coordinate system than Rindler coordinates you're free to do so, but in a non-Rindler coordinate system it would no longer be true that a constant coordinate distance would mean a constant distance in the ship's instantaneous inertial rest frame from one moment to the next.
 


arXiv:0906.1919
 


My guess is as follows: Judged as seen from S, A' does not and can not order the rockets to accelerate synchronously. Rather they get orders in such a way that A' sees them synchronous, while within S they are not synchronous. Snap.
Exactly.
 
MOVING CLOCKS In this section, we show that clocks moving at high speeds run slowly. We construct a clock, called a light clock, using a stick of proper lenght ##L_0##, and two mirrors. The two mirrors face each other, and a pulse of light bounces back and forth betweem them. Each time the light pulse strikes one of the mirrors, say the lower mirror, the clock is said to tick. Between successive ticks the light pulse travels a distance ##2L_0## in the proper reference of frame of the clock...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 141 ·
5
Replies
141
Views
12K
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
20K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K