Distinguishing spacelike and timelike events

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter amiras
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Events
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the distinction between spacelike and timelike events in the context of special relativity, particularly focusing on the implications of simultaneity in different inertial frames. Participants explore the concepts of light cones and the nature of event separation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the relationship between spacelike separated events and their simultaneity in different frames, referencing a thought experiment involving lightning strikes on a moving train.
  • Another participant clarifies that while two events may be simultaneous in one frame, they may not be in another, emphasizing that the spacetime interval remains Lorentz invariant.
  • The second participant provides a detailed example involving observers in different frames and the implications of light pulses emitted from a moving observer, illustrating how spacelike separation is maintained despite differences in perceived simultaneity.
  • There is a discussion about light cones, with one participant noting that events outside a light cone cannot influence each other, which aligns with the concept of spacelike separation.
  • A later reply acknowledges the clarification provided and corrects a misunderstanding regarding the containment of events within light cones, indicating a growing understanding of the concepts discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions and implications of spacelike separation and light cones, but some confusion remains regarding the interpretation of simultaneity across different frames. The discussion reflects a mix of clarification and ongoing uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific scenarios and mathematical formulations, but there are unresolved assumptions about the implications of simultaneity and the interpretation of light cones that could affect understanding.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals studying special relativity, particularly those interested in the nuances of spacetime intervals and the effects of different inertial frames on the perception of events.

amiras
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
I am having difficulties understanding some lines in the book.

"An event can be later than another spacelike separated event in one inertial frame and earlier in another."

So for example let's take the thought experiment where lighting strikes two sides of the train, and observers in different frames of reference do not agree which side of the train was stroked first.

So events of the lighting strikes are spacelike separated?

But it is also written: "Information can be received at P (point) only from events inside or on its past light cone, but not from events outside it."

But spacelike separated events do not lie in the light cone. I find somehow contradictory.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi amiras! Just because two events are simultaneous in one frame, doesn't mean they will be simultaneous in another as you noted. However this will not deter the potentially space-like nature of the separation of the events since the space-time interval is a Lorentz invariant.

For example let's say we have an observer ##O## standing equidistant from two ends of a train of length ##2L## and that this train is moving with some velocity ##v## in the ##+x## direction relative to an observer ##O'## standing on the sidetracks. Now imagine that at the moment ##O## passes ##O'## (which is the event that both observers label as the origin of their coordinate systems), ##O## sends out a light pulse in both directions. In ##O##'s frame, the pulses coincide with the ends of the train at events ##P_1 = (t,-L)## and ##p_2 = (t,L)## so they are simultaneous in ##O##'s frame. The space-time interval between these two events in ##O##'s frame is given by ##\Delta s^{2} = (2L)^{2} > 0## i.e. it is space-like.

Now let's boost to the frame of ##O'##. Now for the event corresponding to the light pulse hitting the back end of the train we have ##t'_1 = \gamma(t - \frac{vL}{c^{2}})## and for the front we have ##t'_2 = \gamma(t + \frac{vL}{c^{2}})##. In other words ##t'_2 = \gamma(t + \frac{vL}{c^{2}}), t'_1 = \gamma(t - \frac{vL}{c^{2}}), t'_1 - t'_2 = -\frac{2vL}{c^{2}}## meaning in the frame of ##O'## the light pulse hitting the back does so before the light pulse hitting the front. This is intuitively obvious because the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames will imply that ##O'## sees the back light pulse travel less to hit the end of the train since the end is "catching up" with this pulse whereas the front of the train is "moving away" from the forward light pulse. However as noted above, the space-time interval is a Lorentz invariant so boosting to another frame won't change the value of ##\Delta s^{2}## meaning we will still have ##\Delta s^{2} > 0## in the frame of ##O'## (you can verify this yourself if you wish). So events do not need to be simultaneous to be space-like separated is what they are saying.

All the lightcone is saying is that you cannot send a signal from the event ##p_1 = (t,-L)## that will be received at event ##p_2 = (t,L)## (this would require the signal to travel instantaneously). In other words the light cone of ##p_1## does not contain ##p_2##. Even though the events don't look simultaneous in the frame of the observer standing on the side-tracks, they are still space-like separated as mentioned above and as such the same geometric meaning of the light cone carries over.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Of course! Thank you for the answer, it is much clearer to me.

EDIT: Sorry, I somehow managed to add word "not" into a sentence. Every time I read what you wrote, it gets more and more clear to me (maybe because you edit and add something new every time :))

"light cone of p1 does not contain p2" - I somehow wrongly assumed that they are both contained, but that would not make sense. The way I understand it, is that future light cone contains the possible events including p1 and p2, but the timeline can only pass only through one of them (p1 or p2).
 
Last edited:
It is still not clearer? What else needs clarifying, please feel free to ask my friend :)!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K