I Einstein clock syncing with one way light emission absorber

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the synchronization of clocks between two spaceships using radio signals in a vacuum, emphasizing the importance of measuring time delays to establish simultaneity. The participants debate the assumptions of isotropy in space and the implications of light speed measurements, arguing whether these assumptions are conventional or have physical reality. They explore the effects of acceleration on clock synchronization and the potential for discrepancies due to relativistic effects. The conversation also touches on philosophical considerations regarding the nature of simultaneity and the implications for physical laws. Ultimately, the debate highlights the complexities of time measurement and synchronization in relativistic contexts.
  • #31
Alfredo Tifi said:
Okay. The mirror can be considered as a second source, then the radio signal repetitor devise is only to synchronize clocks at very great distances. But Ockham razor's rule plus symmetry of space prevent me to consider different speeds for the +x and -x directions.
So we're agreed it's an assumption, since you cannot prove either Ockham's razor or spatial isotropy.
Alfredo Tifi said:
Consider that which is the +x and which is -x direction in a straight line, respect to a central observer is really conventional. Light should take note of my decision to define a new direction +x' = -x to change speed properly before and after reflection.
If this were the case I could turn a train around just by turning my head because its speed is initially +v so it must be +v after I turn around. No.

Physics doesn't care about coordinates. Your failure to grasp this is at the core of this whole thread. You changing your mind about which way is +x simply means that what you previously called ##c_+## you now call ##c_-## and vice versa. There is no trick to get around the fact that you can only measure the two-way speed of light without making some assumption about simultaneity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Alfredo Tifi said:
Reading the sentence "the rest length between the two has increased in the frames in which they are momentarily at rest (S′)" I have to deduce that B and C are flying in two different frames,
No, emphasis corrected. It's about multiple moments, not B and C.
 
  • #33
A.T. said:
No, emphasis corrected. It's about multiple moments, not B and C.
So in different times during acceleration B and C remain in the same frame S' at any moment. So, why aren't their clocks anymore synchronised, given they were synchronised before, in the inertial system S? Why they get farther? Why they don't accelerate in the "same instant"? How is treated simultaneity in an accelerated frame?
 
  • #34
Alfredo Tifi said:
So in different times during acceleration B and C remain in the same frame S' at any moment.
No, it's not the same S' for any moment during acceleration. If the acceleration confuses you, consider just one S', where they both end up at rest, after both engines shutdown, and they don't accelerate anymore:
- In S the engines start and stop simultaneously, so no change in distance.
- In S' the engines don't start and stop simultaneously, so the distance changes.
 
  • #35
A.T. said:
No, it's not the same S' for any moment during acceleration.
Obviously! I grasped the necessity that there are as many instantaneous S's as many velocities acquired respect to S due to acceleration (these velocities are the same from the POV of S in every S time).

A.T. said:
... after both engines shutdown, and they don't accelerate anymore:
...- In S' the engines don't start and stop simultaneously, so the distance changes.
To imagine how this tenet works I think to how B and C evaluate (from S') their velocity respect to A, which remained in the original inertial frame S: they started accelerating with a small Δv in a small time Δt when their clocks were telling the same time tignition of A. So, tignition is the same for A, B, C. Then imagine that at tignition+Δt' (measured in B and C clocks) B and C soon shutted down their engines. Now we have only two inertial frames. One in which C and B are at rest in S' and view A (the other frame) moving at -Δv in the -x direction. They see a relented time pace in A (Δt < Δt') in the frame S (therefore they know their time is not synced with S time anymore), but they started viewing A moving left and relenting its time exactly in the same instant from their point of view.
So, firstly I can't grasp how could they start accelerating in different times in S' and see a change in their reciprocal distance and time. The entire scientific world agree on that, so I'm wrong, but... where is my flaw?
Secondly, given you and any relativistic scientist are right and relative motion at -Δv of A does not occur at same time if viewed by C and B, that is the same, B and C don't start changing velocity (accelerating) simultaneously, then I can't stand they are in the same instantaneous frame S'! How could two observers with different instantaneous velocities stand in the same frame in that moment? This is true only from the POV of A (where B and C do have the same velocity in any moment). For this reason I have considered, in the previous replies, that there are not only many frames S' for many moments, but a double series of S'B and S'C instantaneous frames. There is a reason which I am overlooking for which two frames B & C, which have the same velocity respect to A, are not the same inertial frame. The reason you maintain is that B and C acquired shifted times once they started accelerating at the same internal time. Direction of accelerated motion breaks the symmetry between B and C, provided B and C are not in the same place in the x direction. If their velocity were a constant Δv respect to S, they would stand at rest in the same frame S'.
Thirdly, if the relativistic stress experimented by an accelerated frame is, from the point of view of B and C (S') determined by asynchronicity in time of initial acceleration, then the story of linear increasing in velocity in time for S'B would be the same of S'C, but just shifted in time. This would give two parallel speed lines with a constant difference in velocity Δv' created at the beginning of acceleration because B and C didn't start simultaneously with acceleration a' (as judged from their pov). I suppose the constant Δv' could be calculated as a function of a' and of distance d° between B and C. I have no idea about how to calculate acceleration of S' a as viewed from A, given a' (acceleration in S'). Also the retardation of B's clock respect to C's clock remains constant during acceleration and can be calculated. The relativistic effect could be reverted shutting down the engine of the front spaceship (let's say B) before the back spaceship (C), in such way they will end at equal velocities, that is in the same inertial frame from their pov and from the pov of A. In this case the relativistic stress during acceleration could have no serious consequences provided there is no thread connecting B and C.

Thank you in advance for your help.
 
  • #36
Since @Ibix insists on conventionality of synchronization, we can also allow ourselves some free – thinking. At least, the astronauts can ascribe themselves state of proper motion instead of proper rest.

Everything becomes … a bit simpler as soon as the astronauts in the spaceships admit their own motion in the frame S and don't jump from frame to frame like fleas. In this case they can explain scattering of the spaceships by means of contraction of their own measurement ruler.

All spaceships – A, B, C are initially at rest. When the spaceships B and C start moving, their rulers contract, and since they measure distance between spaceships with Lorentz - contracted ruler, they make conclusion that the spaceships scatter from each other. Obviously, they cannot detect contraction of the ruler, since they contract themselves. They simply see, that the more they accelerate, the more rulers they can fit between spaceships. Thread also contracts and breaks.

It is interesting to consider second stage of acceleration, when the spaceships turn their engines at 180 degrees with the aim to get back into the previous position in S.

According to SR, their clocks will be out of sync (in S’) after first cycle of acceleration. What time their clocks will show? Their clocks will show a bit less time (due time dilation), that in S frame, but they will keep S – simultaneity anyway. For example, S - time is 12PM and the both clocks show 11AM.

But, since they move in S, velocity of light towards B and C from the middle point in will be different and if spaceships will simultaneously ( by S time) will launch flashes, the beams will come to middle point at different moments. So, an "Einsteinian" observer in the middle point (between B and C) will conclude, that flashes were launched at different moments and clocks are out of sync.

If they wish to repeat the experiment with the same initial (Bell’s) conditions, they have to re-synchronize their clocks (to start engines simultaneously in S’) by Einstein technique. But, in this case they will scatter even further instead of coming into initial position. They will scatter further and further at every turn, if they start their engines simultaneously by Einstein.

To avoid scattering when they go back, they have to use “conventionally uniform time of reference frame S ” and start engines simultaneously by S – time, or simply leave clocks alone and not to re-synchronize.

For the sake of convenience, we can stay in S frame. In this frame their clocks will actually show the same time after acceleration. If they want to return back to their original position, they simple reverse engines and start them simultaneously according to their clock readings, or at the same moment by S time.

But, they can “forget” their previous history. They may think, that since they cannot detect their own motion (detect anisotropy of light) so, they can re-synchronize clocks by Einstein, what they finally do.

The spaceship A (like in Bell’s arrangement) in the middle between them sends beams and they start engines “simultaneously” in their frame. However, since they now in motion in S frame, the beam will reach each of them at different moments of S - time. The “back” ship earlier and the “front” ship later. So, their “S’ simultaneity” is no longer “simultaneity” in S frame. They will start engines at different moments and scatter again. Thread breaks.

After the turn the spaceships will actually scatter due to Einsteinian simultaneity in S’, which is not simultaneity in S at all (engines start at different moments of S-time), though their length comes back to L and ruler increases back accordingly.
 
  • #37
Bartolomeo said:
Everything becomes … a bit simpler as soon as the astronauts in the spaceships admit their own motion in the frame S and don't jump from frame to frame like fleas. In this case they can explain scattering of the spaceships by means of contraction of their own measurement ruler.
I'm not sure they can ignore a series of frames S'B & S'C given their velocity is increasing at constant rate.

Bartolomeo said:
All spaceships – A, B, C are initially at rest. When the spaceships B and C start moving, their rulers contract...

Everything about B and C is contracted, but just from the point of view of A in S. As long as B & C were flying at the same and constant speed v respect to A, they wouldn't see nor experiment any contractions in their frame. B and C can have that same speed v instantaneously only in different times. Then, what before was seen as having same lenght, distance and duration, if observed from B to C and vice versa, would be seen changed after they started to accelerate in such way to keep the distance constant - as viewed from the point of view of A (S).

Bartolomeo said:
... and since they measure distance between spaceships with Lorentz - contracted ruler, they make conclusion that the spaceships scatter from each other. Obviously, they cannot detect contraction of the ruler, since they contract themselves.
They simply see, that the more they accelerate, the more rulers they can fit between spaceships. Thread also contracts and breaks.

They don't have contracted rulers from their own POV. They see each other gettin farther because they started sccelerating in different times from their POV. This is how was interpreted after Bell's. The thread is broken because stretched. Yet I still don't understand how the asynchronicity in acceleration arised.
 
  • #38

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
649
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K