A Exploring Epsilon Simultaneity: Advantages and Applications

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the generalized simultaneity criterion, highlighting its implications for understanding the structure of special relativity. It suggests that varying the parameter epsilon can illustrate the non-intuitive nature of simultaneity surfaces. Some participants argue that this approach is not practically helpful, primarily serving to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light is a convention. The conversation also draws parallels between this concept and crystallography, where non-orthogonal coordinate systems can be beneficial. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the complexities of simultaneity in both theoretical physics and practical applications.
etotheipi
What is the advantage of considering the generalised simultaneity criterion ##t = (1-\epsilon)t_1 + \epsilon t_2## for ##\epsilon## between ##0## and ##1##? How does varying the parameter ##\epsilon## help to elucidate the structure of the special theory? I think the surfaces of simultaneity are no longer so intuitive. I wondered whether this is helpful to solve some problems or just a gimmick.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would say that it is not helpful, at least I have never seen a place where it is helpful. It's only value is that it establishes that the one-way speed of light is a convention and that you can (if you are a masochist) adopt a convention where the one-way speed of light is not c and still be consistent with the data.
 
It's analogous to adopting a coordinate system in Euclidean space where one of the axes isn't perpendicular to the others. That can be useful in crystallography, I seem to recall, because the natural directions in some crystals are non-orthogonal.

One thought - didn't we discuss recently that clocks on the surface of the Earth are usually synchronised in the Earth-centered frame, but their worldlines are not orthogonal to that? So (locally) we're all using an ##\epsilon## that isn't quite 0.5?
 
I was just revising this today! Body-centred lattices have a primitive basis ##\{ \frac{a}{2}(\hat{\mathbf{y}} + \hat{\mathbf{z}} - \hat{\mathbf{x}}), \frac{a}{2}(\hat{\mathbf{z}} + \hat{\mathbf{x}} - \hat{\mathbf{y}}), \frac{a}{2}(\hat{\mathbf{x}} + \hat{\mathbf{y}} - \hat{\mathbf{z}})\}## whilst face-centred lattices have a primitive basis ##\{\frac{a}{2}(\hat{\mathbf{y}} + \hat{\mathbf{z}}), \frac{a}{2}(\hat{\mathbf{z}} + \hat{\mathbf{x}}), \frac{a}{2}(\hat{\mathbf{x}} + \hat{\mathbf{y}}) \}##. But we hardly ever used these in favour of the canonical basis. The silver lining for the primitive basis is that the Weiß zone law ##hU + kV + lW = 0## holds in any crystallographic system, but apart from that you are just stuck with annoying calculations with the metric
 
You doubtless know more crystallography than I remember... I was just thinking of it as a physical circumstance where we might reasonably choose to use non-orthogonal coordinates. The Earth's rotation forces a vaguely analogous circumstance where the only sensible global simultaneity criterion is not orthogonal to the helical worldlines of clocks at rest on the surface. So Einstein-synchronised clocks on the east and west sides of a lab aren't quite synchronised per GMT, I think.
 
The easy way to see it is to imagine the set of helical worldlines of clocks on the equator. The congruence forms a cylindrical worldsheet. Except in the special case of zero rotation the planes orthogonal to the worldlines are all "slanted" in the same sense as you go around the cylinder. You can't have a closed loop without slanting the loop in the opposite sense in at least one place.
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 184 ·
7
Replies
184
Views
22K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K