Einstein's train thought experiment

Nikitin
Messages
734
Reaction score
27
https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/601539_10201811069735094_388925769_n.jpg

Why did they define the lightning event to be simultaneous for Stanley? Why can't it be simultaneous for Mavis, so that the lighting hits A first?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In that case Stanley would conclude the two lightning strikes were not simultanous in his frame of reference.

As for
so that the lighting hits A first?
, that statement has to have a qualifier of which frame of reference you are referring to - that of either Stanley's or Mavis's or perhaps of another viewer in another inertial frame of reference who might not agree with Mavis or Stanley.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Oh I see now. The book simply said two lightings hit A and B at the same time, but now I understand they obviously were talking from Stanley frame of reference.

I'm still stuck in the Newtonian way of viewing things.

thanks
 
Last edited:
Nikitin said:
The book simply said two lightings hit A and B at the same time...
Where did the book say that? I thought the whole point of the explanation in the book was that at the same time, in other words, simultaneity, "depends on the frame of reference".

[There is an error in the second drawing, (b), where they show the points A' and B' having moved to the right, but they don't show the train and Mavis also moving, like they show in the two drawings below it.]

By the way, this thought problem is similar to the one presented by Einstein in 1920 but there you will see that Einstein specifically states that the lightning strokes "are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment". He also specifically states that the observer on the train is at the midpoint between the lightning strikes (not necessarily the midpoint of the train).

Does your book go into these details in a part earlier than where you photographed?
 
They mentioned "suppose the wave-fronts reach Stanley simultaneously" which implies simultaneousness from Stanley's POV, so yes they did say it but I missed it in the wall of text, and got confused.
 
Good, did they also say anything about the observers being at the midpoint of the lightning strikes?
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
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...
Back
Top