Distances contract as a result of motion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Desrib49
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of length contraction and time dilation in the context of relativity, particularly as it pertains to observers in different frames of reference. A new enthusiast seeks clarification on how a moving observer on a train perceives time and length differently compared to a stationary observer on the platform. The key point is that due to the relativity of simultaneity, events that are simultaneous in one frame may not be simultaneous in another, leading to different measurements of time and length. The conversation emphasizes that time and space are interconnected, and one must consider both when evaluating measurements from different frames. Understanding these principles requires a grasp of Lorentz transformations, which explain how measurements change depending on relative motion.
Desrib49
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello all,
I'll start out by saying that I am a fairly new space/cosmology enthusiast with no real background in the subject (high school physics is about it), so this question will likely seem quite elementary to most, if not all, of you.

Moving on. I recently bought Pedro Ferreira's https://www.amazon.com/dp/0753822563/?tag=pfamazon01-20 as a way to build a base level of knowledge. I was humming along just fine until I got to this concept that a stationary person will perceive that objects contract while they are in motion, and was wondering if somebody could shed some light on the subject.

To illuminate where I am struggling, here's the example Ferreira gives. If a train with a metal bar on board runs through a station, somebody on the platform can measure its length by clicking a stopwatch exactly when the front and back ends of the bar pass him (assume he knows the speed of the train and said speed is constant. No point making this more difficult than it needs to be). Likewise, somebody on the train can do the same: click a stopwatch on and off when the front and back of the bar pass the guy. No problems yet.

Then spacetime principles come into play. Ferreira states that the person on the train will perceive time as running more slowly on the platform than the person actually on the platform. Again, I understand this. Ferreira did a good job explaining how space and time are connected and how motion affects their relationship. However, Ferreira then states that the person on the train will perceive that more time has passed on the platform observer's stopwatch than the platform observer himself does. This is what I don't understand. These two assertions seem to be complete contradictions.

To me, it makes sense that since time "slows down" for people the faster they travel, the train observer should get a shorter time measurement than the platform observer, as stuff outside his reference frame is happening more rapidly than within it; for him, one second has passed when for somebody outside, two seconds have passed (and I am using hyperbole here to make it easy). Multiply that by the speed of the train and it seems that the platform observer should see the rod as expanding, not contracting.

Anyways, can anybody explain to me how I went wrong? Thanks in advance for your help
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Space news on Phys.org
Likewise, somebody on the train can do the same: click a stopwatch on and off when the front and back of the bar pass the guy. No problems yet.
BIG problem there. This somebody may be at the front end or the rear end, but not at both ends at the same time. Information from the other end can't reach him faster than the speed of light, there's a time lag. Exactly in this lag lives "relativity of simultaneity". Depending on their state of motion, different events are being judged as simultaneous.
To me, it makes sense that since time "slows down" for people the faster they travel...
Makes sense, that's why you read it in the popular literature. But that's too easy. Think about the principle of relativity: you can't (and don't have to) say who's in motion and who not. So how could one clock run slower than the other? Which one?
The resolution is that time and space are a union. It's not enough to say when, you also have to say where.
Example: From the embankment, a clock fixed on the train shows increasingly less time than the embankment clock that is at the same position each time. One train clock, many embankment clocks needed.
This works backwards, too, with one stationary embankment clock and many train clocks running by. Embakment clock shows less time than the respective train clock.
This works because time in a different frame is different for each position. There's not one single "other time" that runs slow. Look up the Lorentz transformations.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top