Will Distance Between Footsteps Change When Walking Near Light Speed?

  • Thread starter Jaams
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of a man walking at near the speed of light and whether he would need fewer steps to reach his destination without changing the length of his steps. There is a discussion about the limitations of using the concept of "Born rigidity" in this scenario, and the suggestion is made to measure the distance between marks made by a tire on a bicycle instead. The conversation also delves into the concept of length contraction and how it affects the perception of stride length from different reference frames. Finally, the idea of using the pole-barn paradox is proposed as a way to avoid the issue of rotation in this scenario.

Will his footprints be abnormally far apart from each other?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • No

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Total voters
    7
  • #36
The conveyers we use in the airports to reach the terminal in short time gives us an example. One step distance for the walker and that of waiting passengers in the cue for boarding are different though they count the same step numbers. Is it a good example though not relativistic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
ktx49 said:
well in the context of the quote I provided, I assumed it would in fact simplify things, particularly in regards to the number of footprints in the different frames.

many of the replies to the OPs scenario seem(at least to me) to be centered around how contraction would change the distance of the stride...and while its certainly interesting, I found Simon's particular "version" of the paradox to be a little easier to digest and even more intriguing. ie. how could there be 2 different versions of an event in regards to a quantity such as the number of footprints?
I hope you realize that when Simon articulated the paradox in post #11, he wasn't resolving it.

I think the issue can be clearly understood if you look at his definition of "stride" in post #33: It's the distance between the two feet when both are on the ground (at the same time). There're two things we can take from this. First, a one-legged man cannot have a stride and second, the stride only exists (at least for my examples) in the man's rest frame, in the ground frame both feet are never on the ground at the same time.

I unfortunately didn't follow this advice in my post #15 where I said the stride increased from 4 feet to 6.67 feet. I should have said the spacing of the footprints increased from 4 feet to 6.67 feet. I hope my error didn't contribute to any confusion.
 

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
523
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
Replies
130
Views
8K
  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
146
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
840
Back
Top