Concerned on the relativity of lengths

  • Thread starter Thread starter myoho.renge.kyo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
myoho.renge.kyo
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
A. Einstein writes the following on The Principle of Relativity, p. 41:

"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod;and let its length be L as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertain by the following two operations:-"

my concern is the following operation (b):

"(b) by means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with chapter 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated 'the length of the rod.'"

the present period of time is from 2:00 am thru 3:00 am, 9/5/2006, in burbank, california.

let the observer ascertain that the points of the stationary system (corresponding to the two ends of the rod to be measured) are located at 2:00 am and then at 3:00 am.

the present period of time then is the definite time at which the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located.

shouldn't the "length of the rod" be implied in (2:00 am thru 3:00 am) = ("length of the rod") / v? if not, why? thanks! (2:00 am thru 3:00 am, 9/5/2006)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
myoho.renge.kyo said:
A. Einstein writes the following on The Principle of Relativity, p. 41:

"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod;and let its length be L as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertain by the following two operations:-"

my concern is the following operation (b):

"(b) by means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with chapter 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated 'the length of the rod.'"

the present period of time is from 2:00 am thru 3:00 am, 9/5/2006, in burbank, california.

let the observer ascertain that the points of the stationary system (corresponding to the two ends of the rod to be measured) are located at 2:00 am and then at 3:00 am.
No, the two ends of the rod are located at two different positions at a single time, not at two different times.

the present period of time then is the definite time at which the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located.
Yes, and again the "location" is position not time

shouldn't the "length of the rod" be implied in (2:00 am thru 3:00 am) = ("length of the rod") / v? if not, why? thanks! (2:00 am thru 3:00 am, 9/5/2006)
There is a single time, two different positions, not two different times.
 
thank you for helping me understand. i really appreciate it.

let's say that at t1 (9:00 am) a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod, and that at t2 (10:00 am) the observer ascertains that at x1 and at x2 of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located.

does the following then imply the "lenght of the rod?":

(9:00 am thru 10:00 am) = (x2 - x1) / v

or

if t1 = 0, then

t2 = (x2 - x1) / v

thank you again. (9:00 am thru 10:00 am, 9/5/2006, in burbank, california)
 
Last edited:
The "length" is x2-x1. No need for t1.
 
thanks!

but i am confused. at some point in time (let's call it t1) a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is imparted to the rod. and at a later point in time (let's call it t2) the observer ascertains that at x1 and at x2 of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located.

why is it that there is no need for t1?

if t1 = 0, and the "length" is x2 - x1, does that mean that t2 = (t2 - t1) = (x2 - x1) / v?

thanks again! (9/10/2006, 8:00 am thru 9:00 am in Burbank, California)
 
Last edited:
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...

Similar threads

Back
Top