B Einstein's Train: Light Travel Time Explained

David Lewis
Messages
846
Reaction score
258
TL;DR Summary
Einstein's Train -- M' will see B before A whether the events are simultaneous in Train frame or Embankment frame.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/269029
Lightning strikes A and B simultaneously in the Embankment frame.
M' sees the flash at B before the one at A.
But if the flashes are simultaneous in the Train frame, does M' still see B before A?
 

Attachments

  • einsteins train.png
    einsteins train.png
    10 KB · Views: 177
Physics news on Phys.org
If the events are simultaneous in the train frame, then M' sees the events simultaneously(the light from the events reach him at the same time) and M doesn't.
 
  • Like
Likes David Lewis
David Lewis said:
Summary:: Einstein's Train -- M' will see B before A whether the events are simultaneous in Train frame or Embankment frame.

But if the flashes are simultaneous in the Train frame, does M' still see B before A?
No. Why would they?
 
To answer the question in the title ("Does Einstein's train account for light travel time?"):
Yes. The entire argument is based on considering the consequences of light travel time between the strikes and the observers' eyes.
 
  • Like
Likes David Lewis, vanhees71 and Ibix
If the flashes are simultaneous in the Train frame, does M' see B before A?
Dale said:
No. Why would they?
Because when the light reaches M', he will be closer to B than to A.
I forgot, however, that when an observer sees two equidistant events happen at the same time then they are simultaneous in his frame.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72 and Dale
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Back
Top