Einstein's Train and Lightning Bolt Simultaneity Situation

highschoolkid
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have seemed to confuse myself after watching this video:
Everything makes sense except for the bit where the video says the passenger sees the bolts at different times. How can this be justified and how do we know the passenger doesn't see them at the same time from his frame of reference?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Simultaneous events are the ones that have exactly the same time coordinate. However, for moving and stationary observers, the time axis points in different "directions", so two events which have the same time coordinate for one observer actually have different coordinates for the other.

Simultaneity is a relative concept. "At the same time" has meaning only in a specific coordinate system. Once you accept that, the video does good job of explaining where it all comes from.
 
So you can use that idea to justify that lightning strikes simultaneously for the ground observer and that it doesn't strike simultaneously for the train observer. can't you use that to justify that for two given observers within their own inertial frame of reference traveling at different speeds, every event which happens occurs simultaneously for one and not simultaneous for the other?
 
high schoolkid said:
So you can use that idea to justify that lightning strikes simultaneously for the ground observer and that it doesn't strike simultaneously for the train observer. can't you use that to justify that for two given observers within their own inertial frame of reference traveling at different speeds, every event which happens occurs simultaneously for one and not simultaneous for the other?

Yes, except in the trivial case where the two events occur at the same space coordinate.
 
high schoolkid said:
So you can use that idea to justify that lightning strikes simultaneously for the ground observer and that it doesn't strike simultaneously for the train observer. can't you use that to justify that for two given observers within their own inertial frame of reference traveling at different speeds, every event which happens occurs simultaneously for one and not simultaneous for the other?
In Special Relativity, an event is defined as a single point in space at a particular time as defined by a Frame of Reference, in other words, a point in space-time. So it doesn't make sense to say "every event which happens occurs simultanteously". You need two or more events in the same FoR (whether or not something is "happening" there or not). If they have the same value for their time coordinate, (and they are at different locations in space) then thay are simultanteous in that FoR.

So, in general, events that are simultaneous in one FoR will not be simultaneous in another FoR moving with respect to the first one.
 
Last edited:
high schoolkid said:
I have seemed to confuse myself after watching this video:
Everything makes sense except for the bit where the video says the passenger sees the bolts at different times. How can this be justified and how do we know the passenger doesn't see them at the same time from his frame of reference?


The simple answer is that otherwise you would have a physical contradiction. Both observers must agree to events that happen at a single point, like the fact that the lightning strikes a particular point of the track and an end of train while they are adjacent or that the flash of the strike reaches the train observer when he is adjacent to a particular point of the track.
Since, according to the embankment, the train observer is at two different points of the track when the flashes reach him, the train observer is forced to agree, and he cannot be adjacent to two different points at the same time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
Abstract The gravitational-wave signal GW250114 was observed by the two LIGO detectors with a network matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 80. The signal was emitted by the coalescence of two black holes with near-equal masses ## m_1=33.6_{-0.8}^{+1.2} M_{⊙} ## and ## m_2=32.2_{-1. 3}^{+0.8} M_{⊙}##, and small spins ##\chi_{1,2}\leq 0.26 ## (90% credibility) and negligible eccentricity ##e⁢\leq 0.03.## Postmerger data excluding the peak region are consistent with the dominant quadrupolar...
Back
Top