B General Questions about Special Relativity

[NoahsArk]

There are a few fundamental questions I wanted to ask about related to special relativity:

1) Firstly, is there an intuitive explanation for length contraction and why lengths are relative? For example, the fact motion is relative is intuitive. E.g. someone sitting inside a train moving 60 miles per hour bouncing a ping pong ball up and down on a table will see the ball moving zero distance in the X direction, whereas someone on the ground will have seen it move in the X direction at 60mph. With length contraction, however, the person on the train measures objects themselves which are outside the train as smaller lengthwise than a person on the ground would measure the same objects. Is there any kind of physical or visual explanation of this like in the case of the ping pong ball? The only explanation that I read which makes sense is a mathematical one: that is, for the observer on the ground velocity = distance/time (v=d/t), and for the one in the train v = d1/t1. Since we know t and t1 are different, we can conclude that d and d1 are different.

Another question is, since time dilation and length contraction are two sides of the same coin, is it possible to say which one is "causing" the other?

2) Regarding the Lorentz transformations the formula for converting distance in one frame to distance in another frame makes much more sense to me (even without doing the lengthy derivation) than the formula for converting time. The formula for distance is X = γX1 + γVT1. That makes sense because to get the distance of an event in a stationary frame from a distance in a moving frame, like a rocket frame, we'd need to know how far the rocket traveled plus how far the event is from the rocket (and multiply both sides of the "+" sign by γ. The formula for converting time, T = γV/C²X1 + γT1, is confusing for me. If an event happened inside the rocket, the X distance would be zero and the formula for converting time would just be T = γT1. Is there an intuitive explanation behind the γV/C²X1 part? If the person in the rocket measures the time of some event happening outside of the rocket, say on a second rocket moving faster than him and even faster than the person on earth, wouldn't the Lorentz transformation for time need to take into consideration how fast the second rocket is moving with respect to the first?

Thanks

 

[Simon Bridge]

1. Depends what you find intuitive. Its basically just perspective... you are used to distant lengths being contracted, now you know that fast lengths are contracted too. Re. Time vs length: it makes no sense to consider one to cause the other just as it makes no sense to say that two sides of a triangle cause the third one.
2. Its time dilation... see answer to 1.

 

[Nugatory]

Back away from trying to intuitively understand length contraction and time dilation, work on nailing down your understanding of relativity of simultaneity instead. Once you have relativity of simultaneity down, you'll find that time dilation and length contraction follow naturally.

The length of an object is pretty obviously the distance between where its two ends are at the same time, so observers with different notions of simultaneity will naturally find different lengths.

We often say that time dilation means that a moving clock runs slow, but if you dig a bit you'll see that simultaneity is involved here as well. If your clock reads noon at the same time that my clock reads noon, then I wait a while, look at both clocks at the same time and see that your clock is reading only 12:30 while mine is reading 13:00... I will conclude that your clock is slow. (This is also how we resolve the old problem of how you can say that I'm moving so my clock is slow while I say that you're moving so your clock is the slow one - we're both right, and we're talking about different things. Using your simultaneity, the event "your clock reads 1300" happens at the same time as "my clock reads 12:30" so my clock is slow. Using my simultaneity, these two events do not happen at the same time; instead "my clock reads 1230" and "your clock reads 1215" happen at the same time so your clock is the slow one).

Thus, although time dilation and length contraction are two sides of the same coin, you could reasonably say that the coin itself is relativity of simultaneity.

 

[NoahsArk]

Thank you for the responses.

"it makes no sense to consider one to cause the other just as it makes no sense to say that two sides of a triangle cause the third one"

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

"Thus, although time dilation and length contraction are two sides of the same coin, you could reasonably say that the coin itself is relativity of simultaneity."

Nuqatory, I will follow your suggestion and begin studying relativity of simultaneity to try and get more of a foundation. The examples that I've seen so far to explain the concept involve someone in a rocket shooting two beams of light in opposite directions, one to the tail end of the ship and one to the front of the ship. The person in the rocket sees the beams hit both ends simultaneously while someone on Earth sees the beam hit the back end first. How does that apply to length contraction though? You said that length has to do with the distance between two places in space at the same time. However, when someone is moving, say in a train, they see the road outside contracting in length. Two ends of a piece of road aren't similar to two beams of light shooting in opposite directions. The end point of a given stretch of road, unlike the light beams, are stationary with respect to one another.

 

[Nugatory]

However, when someone is moving, say in a train, they see the road outside contracting in length. Two ends of a piece of road aren't similar to two beams of light shooting in opposite directions. The end point of a given stretch of road, unlike the light beams, are stationary with respect to one another.

Let's put a splash of paint on each end of the piece of road, just so that we can all agree about which piece of road we're talking about.

Now, it's easy for a person at rest relative to the road to measure the distance between the two paint marks because the marks aren't moving around - just grab a meter stick, set one end of it on one mark, put a finger at the other end, pick up the meter stick and lay it down again with the end lined up against the finger, pick up the finger and put it at the other end, pcik up the meter stick and place it against the finger, repeat until we reach the other paint mark. You'll notice that we aren't measuring the distance between the positions of the two paint marks at the same time, but that's OK because they aren't moving so the position of the far paint mark when we get to it is the same as when we started the process at the near paint mark. We haven't measured the distance between the two paint marks at the same time, but we've used a procedure that gives us the right answer anyway, so we're happy.

Clearly there's no way of applying the same procedure if we're in the moving train. However, there is a procedure that will work: We ask two lab assistants to stand on the road, one at each of our paint splashes. They're both carrying loaded paintbrushes, and we have directed them to reach out and put a splash of paint on the train as it passes. If they both make their marks on the train at the same time, then we will have two marks on the train that tell us where the endpoints of our piece of road were at the same time - and we on the train have no problem using our meter stick to measure the distance between those two marks because they're not moving relative to us.

But now you'll see where relativity of simultaneity comes in. They have to make their marks at the same time. If we use the train observer's definition of simultaneity, the marks on the train will be closer than if we use the road observer's definition of simultaneity. This fact can be interpreted equally reasonably as "the stretch of road is length-contracted when viewed from the train" or as "the train is length-contracted when viewed from the road".

 

[NoahsArk]

Ok I'll have to think about that one. I don't quite see why road observer and the train observer will see the two men with paint brushes making their splashes at different times. If the train stopped and the person on the ground walked up to the train and measured the distance between splashes, shouldn't someone on the train get the same measurement?

I just started reading the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies where Einstein gives the first example of the relativity of simultaneity. He uses the example of a rod lying flat on the ground which then begins to move in the X direction. There are also two clocks, A and B, on both ends of the rod being measured. He says the length of the moving rod from the stationary perspective divided by C-V = the time it takes a light beam to travel from clock A to clock B. Then he says the length of the moving rod divided by C + V = the time it takes for the beam to travel back from clock B to clock A. It makes sense that the stationary observer should see it take less time to go back since when it goes back the A clock is moving toward the light. He then goes on to say that this means the clocks are synchronized from the stationary perspective but not from the moving perspective. Isn't it the opposite? As the paper earlier states, two clocks A and B are synchronized when it takes the same amount of time for light to travel from A to B as it does for light to travel from B to A.

 

[Vitro]

...I just started reading the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies where Einstein gives the first example of the relativity of simultaneity. He uses the example of a rod lying flat on the ground which then begins to move in the X direction. There are also two clocks, A and B, on both ends of the rod being measured. He says the length of the moving rod from the stationary perspective divided by C-V = the time it takes a light beam to travel from clock A to clock B. Then he says the length of the moving rod divided by C + V = the time it takes for the beam to travel back from clock B to clock A. It makes sense that the stationary observer should see it take less time to go back since when it goes back the A clock is moving toward the light. He then goes on to say that this means the clocks are synchronized from the stationary perspective but not from the moving perspective. Isn't it the opposite? As the paper earlier states, two clocks A and B are synchronized when it takes the same amount of time for light to travel from A to B as it does for light to travel from B to A.

@NoahsArk, let's try an exercise. Assume the two clocks A and B are mutually at rest and separated by an unknown distance D. Clock A sends a light pulse when t_A = 0 seconds and clock B receives it at t_B = 2 seconds. What is the distance between clocks A and B (in their rest frame)?

 

[NoahsArk]

Two light seconds?

 

[NoahsArk]

From what I understand, two clocks, A and B, are synchronized when we set the clocks taking into consideration the time it takes for light to travel from B to A. So, if it takes one hour for light to travel, we'd have to set B's clock an hour ahead. To be more precise, this would mean that the clocks are synchronized from A's perspective. If A's clock is set at 12 and B's clock is set at 1, then, when A's clock strikes 1, he will also see B's clock reading 1 O'Clock since the light will just be arriving from B's location to A. B, however, will see his clocks 2 hours ahead of A's. When his clock reads 2 O'clock, he will see A's clock at 12 since it took the light one hour to transmit A's 12 O'Clock time, and in that hour B's clock, which was initially set for 1, changed to 2.

The definition in Electrondynamics of synchronized clocks, i.e. that two clocks are synchronized when the time it takes for light to travel from A to B = the time it takes for light to travel form B to A, doesn't seem to hold. In the example above, the clocks would be synchronized from A's perspective regardless of the time it took for light to go from A to B- so long as we set the clocks at 12 and 1 (or any other pair of times one hour apart) when it takes light an hour to go from B to A.

Also, the example in Electrodynamics contradicts its own definition of synchronization. It gives two clocks A and B which are moving in uniform motion with respect to one another at some velocity V with respect to a stationary observer. In that example, from the stationary perspective, it will take light longer to go from A to B then it will take light to go the other way.

 

[Vitro]

Two light seconds?

Hmm, what implicit assumptions did you make to get that answer?

Here's the second part of the exercise I left out previously: at t_B = 2 seconds clock B reflects the light pulse back and clock A receives it at t_A = 2 seconds. How can that be? What's the revised distance now?

 

[NoahsArk]

I see. The assumption I made was that when TA = 0, TB also = 0.

Regarding your second question, it would mean that the distance is one light second I think.

 

[Vitro]

I see. The assumption I made was that when TA = 0, TB also = 0.

Regarding your second question, it would mean that the distance is one light second I think.

Yes, in order to measure a one-way distance using light and two clocks the clocks must be synchronized.

In the rest frame of the clocks the distance from A to B is the same as the distance from B to A, and the speed of light from A to B is also the same as from B to A, so if you measure the travel time of light between them as t_A-t_B (or t_B-t_A) it must be the same both ways, then the two clocks are synchronized.

In the previous exercise the travel time measured with the two clocks was 2 seconds form A to B and 0 seconds from B to A which means the clocks are out of sync, clock B is 1 second ahead. We can still determine the distance as 1 ls by using just clock A and the round-trip travel time of 2 s.

Note that "when t_A = 0, t_B also = 0" can only happen in a single frame of reference (simultaneity is relative), which doesn't necessarily have to be the rest frame of the clocks. In the moving rod scenario they happen to be synchronized in the "stationary" frame where they are moving but not because they measure the same time from A to B as from B to A which they obviously do not (that definition only applies in the rest frame of the clocks), it's because they would measure the same time interval over the same distance in both directions, or you can also say that they simultaneously show the same time.

 

[Nugatory]

If the train stopped and the person on the ground walked up to the train and measured the distance between splashes, shouldn't someone on the train get the same measurement?

Yes. In that case everyone will measure the same distance between the marks on the train (and it will be the same distance that the train guy measures while the train is moving - either way we're measuring a train that is at rest relative to us). However, that distance will not be equal to the distance between the two marks on the road after we've used either of the two procedures I describe below.

I don't quite see why road observer and the train observer will see the two men with paint brushes making their splashes at different times.

We could tell them either:

1. Both of you make your mark on the train at the same time, namely when the roadside clock reads noon; or
2. Both of you make your mark on the train at the same time, namely when the train clock reads noon. (This actually requires a bit of cleverness. We can put a whole bunch of clocks on the train, one in every window, all synchronized to read the same time according to an observer on the train. Now we can tell our brush-wielders to make their mark when the moving clock right in front of their nose reads noon, and the marks will end up being made at the same time according to the train clock).

Because of the relativity of simultaneity, these two procedures will result in the marks ending up at different places on the train. If the train clock under the nose of one of our brush-wielders reads noon at the same time that the roadside clock reads noon, then the clock under the nose of the other brush-wielder will not read noon, so the two sets of directions will cause the second guy to make his mark at two different times.
As I said in my first post in this thread, relativity of simultaneity is the key to making sense of all relativity paradoxes. So stick with that paragraph above until you are clear on how it is that the two procedures end up putting the marks in different places on the train.

#2 is the correct procedure for measuring the length of the piece of road from the train - we find where its endpoints were at the same time and then measure the distance between them. That measurement will show that the road is length-contracted from the point of view of the train - the distance between the two marks on the train, measured by a guy with a meter stick on the train, will be less than the distance between the two marks on the road. (Now you may be thinking that because the train is moving this measurement is somehow illegitimate, and that the "real" measurement is the one that we would get if we stopped the train. If you're thinking that, we can go back and redescribe the whole though experiment as if the train is at rest while the road and everything else is moving backwards - and before you reject that perspective, remember that the road is attached to the surface of the Earth which is rotating, moving around the sun at several kilometers per second, and moving along with the sun in a long slow orbit around our galaxy, which also isn't standing still).

#1 will show that the train is length-contracted from the point of view of the road. The distance between the marks as measured by train guy or after we have stopped the train will be greater than the distance between the two road marks.

 

[PeroK]

From what I understand, two clocks, A and B, are synchronized when we set the clocks taking into consideration the time it takes for light to travel from B to A. So, if it takes one hour for light to travel, we'd have to set B's clock an hour ahead. To be more precise, this would mean that the clocks are synchronized from A's perspective. If A's clock is set at 12 and B's clock is set at 1, then, when A's clock strikes 1, he will also see B's clock reading 1 O'Clock since the light will just be arriving from B's location to A. B, however, will see his clocks 2 hours ahead of A's. When his clock reads 2 O'clock, he will see A's clock at 12 since it took the light one hour to transmit A's 12 O'Clock time, and in that hour B's clock, which was initially set for 1, changed to 2.

The definition in Electrondynamics of synchronized clocks, i.e. that two clocks are synchronized when the time it takes for light to travel from A to B = the time it takes for light to travel form B to A, doesn't seem to hold. In the example above, the clocks would be synchronized from A's perspective regardless of the time it took for light to go from A to B- so long as we set the clocks at 12 and 1 (or any other pair of times one hour apart) when it takes light an hour to go from B to A.

Also, the example in Electrodynamics contradicts its own definition of synchronization. It gives two clocks A and B which are moving in uniform motion with respect to one another at some velocity V with respect to a stationary observer. In that example, from the stationary perspective, it will take light longer to go from A to B then it will take light to go the other way.

This is not correct. Clock syncronisation does not depend on the delay introduced by the finite speed of light. Indeed, this is the case with all observations. The time you record an observation must take into account how long the light took to reach you. If you see a clock a mile away and here the chime 5 seconds later, then the chime and the clock reading the hour are simultaneous. As an observer, you would need to take into account the finite time both the light and sound take to reach you. You would not conclude that the clock hands reached the hour and the clock chimed at different times.

More fundamentally, relativity deals with the differences between moving reference frames, rather than moving observers. One way to think of a reference frame (which is very useful when studing SR) is a whole series of observers, all at rest with respect to each other and all with synchronised watches. Anywhere an event takes place, there will be an observer on the spot to record the time of the event. After an experiment, all the observers can get together and compare notes and put together a full picture of what happened, where and when in their reference frame. One thing you shouldn't do is include the delay for light to travel from an event to an observer and say that the event happened later than it did: that has nothing to do with SR.

The 1905 paper does not contradict itself. Thinking that will only hinder your attempt to understand it.

 

[Dale]

The definition in Electrondynamics of synchronized clocks

I would recommend learning relativity from a more modern source. Einstein's original paper is a must-read, but probably not the best place to start. The language, notation, pedagogy, and concepts evolved over time.

 

[Nugatory]

I would recommend learning relativity from a more modern source. Einstein's original paper is a must-read, but probably not the best place to start. The language, notation, pedagogy, and concepts evolved over time.

What he said.
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler is one of several possible good choices.

 

[NoahsArk]

"I would recommend learning relativity from a more modern source."
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler is one of several possible good choices."

Thanks- I was planning to get that book. There was also a good online coursera class on the special theory of relativity which I was taking, but unfortunately it got taken off coursera and is not available anymore.

"One thing you shouldn't do is include the delay for light to travel from an event to an observer and say that the event happened later than it did: that has nothing to do with SR."

Right. If I understand it correctly, someone perceiving two events at different times doesn't mean that those two events did not happen simultaneously in that same observer's frame of reference. E.g. if he is standing in the back of a train and a beam of light from the middle of the train shoots out in both directions, the person in the back will see the light hit the back of the train before the other beam hits the front, but those two events still happened simultaneously for him. Am I understanding it right?

Regarding Electrodynamics, does Einstein use "synchronous" to mean that both clocks tick at the same rate, or that the two clocks are adjusted to the same time? Also, what's the distinction between synchronous and simultaneous?

I must be misreading the paper. He is saying that if two clocks, A and B, are on opposite ends of a moving body, and a beam of light is shot from A to B, and then back from B to A, someone moving with the clocks will see the clocks out of sync, but someone who is stationary in relationship to the clocks will see the clocks in sync. How is it not the other way around? The person who is moving with the clocks will see the beam of light take the same time to go from A to B as it does to go back from B to A. The person who is stationary will see the beam's return from B to A as being faster than it took to get from A to B.

Also, he doesn't explain why the clocks' synchronization should depend on the time it takes light to go from A to B compared with the time it takes to go from B to A. The only explanation I know of is related to the fact that time dilates from the point of view of a stationary observer of clocks on a moving body. If it took longer for the light to go from B to A we could conclude that B was moving relative to A. However, Electrodynamics defines synchronization without even getting into time dilation. Is there a more fundamental reason, then, about why the synchronization of two clocks depends on the time it takes for light to go from one to the other?

 

[Nugatory]

f I understand it correctly, someone perceiving two events at different times doesn't mean that those two events did not happen simultaneously in that same observer's frame of reference.

Right. If light hits my eyes at noon, and it was emitted from somewhere two light-minutes away then I know it that the emission happened at 11:58 and therefore happened at the same time ("simultaneously") with everything else that happened at 11:58. That would include something that happened three light minutes away that I don't see until one minute past noon, something that happened right under my nose at 11:58,

The basic issue with relativity of simultaneity is that if two observers are moving relative to one another, events that are simultaneous according to one will not be simultaneous according to the other.

Is there a more fundamental reason, then, about why the synchronization of two clocks depends on the time it takes for light to go from one to the other?

Two clocks are synchronized if they read the same thing at the same time. You're holding one clock in your hand and it reads 11:58; there's another clock two light minutes distant. How would you determine that the two clocks are synchronized? You need to know that the distant clock reads 11:58 as well, and because it's two light-minutes away that means that you'll see it reading 11:58 when your clock reads noon - same as the example above. But this procedure obviously depends on the the light travel time - it won't work if the light doesn't take exactly two minutes to cover the distance.

 

[Orodruin]

E.g. if he is standing in the back of a train and a beam of light from the middle of the train shoots out in both directions, the person in the back will see the light hit the back of the train before the other beam hits the front, but those two events still happened simultaneously for him. Am I understanding it right?

No, he will also see them at the same time because the events happened at the same distance from him. Also, you should be very careful when you use the word "see" in SR as it is very confusing to many. What an observer actually sees depends on when the light from an event arrives to it. In order to find this out, you need to account for the travel time of the light, precisely what we are generally not wanting to do when we talk about SR examples. A better nomenclature is to say that the events occur at the same time in his frame.

 

[NoahsArk]

"Two clocks are synchronized if they read the same thing at the same time. You're holding one clock in your hand and it reads 11:58; there's another clock two light minutes distant. How would you determine that the two clocks are synchronized? You need to know that the distant clock reads 11:58 as well, and because it's two light-minutes away that means that you'll see it reading 11:58 when your clock reads noon"

This makes sense and clarifies things more for me. So, one way it seems to me to make sense to define clocks being "synchronized" is: two clocks A and B are synchronized when, after adjusting for the time it took light to travel, the clocks were in the same position at the same time." The examples you used fit that definition. There is still a problem for me, though. Couldn't you have a situation where two unsynchronized clocks, A and B, were two light minutes apart, and they both read 11:58 simultaneously since an observer at clock A, when it was noon time for him, saw clock B's time reading 11:58? If clock B were moving away from clock A, and both happened to read 11:58 at the same time, wouldn't they still be unsynchronized since B is moving away from A?

"But this procedure obviously depends on the the light travel time."

To me it makes sense that to figure out whether or not two events happened simultaneously, you'd need to take into account the light travel time. However, why do we need to take into account the comparative travel time of the light? I.e. the travel time of the light from A to B is vs. the travel time of the light from B to A? In other words, why do we need to know that these two travel times are = to say that the clocks are synchronized?

Also, please let me know if this is correct: if two clocks A and B, which are positioned at the back and front of a rocket, are set into motion when the rocket begins traveling, and both clocks were initially set at noon, a person in the rocket will observe both clocks to be synchronized, but someone on earth, stationary with respect to the rocket, will see the clocks unsynchronized.

 

[NoahsArk]

"Two clocks are synchronized if they read the same thing at the same time. You're holding one clock in your hand and it reads 11:58; there's another clock two light minutes distant. How would you determine that the two clocks are synchronized? You need to know that the distant clock reads 11:58 as well, and because it's two light-minutes away that means that you'll see it reading 11:58 when your clock reads noon"

This makes sense and clarifies things more for me. So, one way it seems to me to make sense to define clocks being "synchronized" is: two clocks A and B are synchronized when, after adjusting for the time it took light to travel, the clocks were in the same position at the same time." The examples you used fit that definition. There is still a problem for me, though. Couldn't you have a situation where two unsynchronized clocks, A and B, were two light minutes apart, and they both read 11:58 simultaneously since an observer at clock A, when it was noon time for him, saw clock B's time reading 11:58? If clock B were moving away from clock A, and both happened to read 11:58 at the same time, wouldn't they still be unsynchronized since B is moving away from A?

"But this procedure obviously depends on the the light travel time."

To me it makes sense that to figure out whether or not two events happened simultaneously, you'd need to take into account the light travel time. However, why do we need to take into account the comparative travel time of the light? I.e. the travel time of the light from A to B is vs. the travel time of the light from B to A? In other words, why do we need to know that these two travel times are = to say that the clocks are synchronized?

Also, please let me know if this is correct: if two clocks A and B, which are positioned at the back and front of a rocket, are set into motion when the rocket begins traveling, and both clocks were initially set at noon, a person in the rocket will observe both clocks to be synchronized, but someone on earth, stationary with respect to the rocket, will see the clocks unsynchronized.

 

[PeroK]

"Two clocks are synchronized if they read the same thing at the same time. You're holding one clock in your hand and it reads 11:58; there's another clock two light minutes distant. How would you determine that the two clocks are synchronized? You need to know that the distant clock reads 11:58 as well, and because it's two light-minutes away that means that you'll see it reading 11:58 when your clock reads noon"

This makes sense and clarifies things more for me. So, one way it seems to me to make sense to define clocks being "synchronized" is: two clocks A and B are synchronized when, after adjusting for the time it took light to travel, the clocks were in the same position at the same time." The examples you used fit that definition. There is still a problem for me, though. Couldn't you have a situation where two unsynchronized clocks, A and B, were two light minutes apart, and they both read 11:58 simultaneously since an observer at clock A, when it was noon time for him, saw clock B's time reading 11:58? If clock B were moving away from clock A, and both happened to read 11:58 at the same time, wouldn't they still be unsynchronized since B is moving away from A?

"But this procedure obviously depends on the the light travel time."

To me it makes sense that to figure out whether or not two events happened simultaneously, you'd need to take into account the light travel time. However, why do we need to take into account the comparative travel time of the light? I.e. the travel time of the light from A to B is vs. the travel time of the light from B to A? In other words, why do we need to know that these two travel times are = to say that the clocks are synchronized?

I said this in a previous post: light travel time delaying observations has nothing whatsoever to do with Relativity. It applies equally to classical physics. All observations made over any significant distance need to take into account the signal time. But, this is a complexity of experimental physics that is not core to the theory.

You also need to try to forget about observers constantly looking at each others clocks. Observers use their own local clocks. They don't look at distant clocks. The last paragraph about clocks in a rocket is correct, but let me rephrase it:

If two clocks A and B, which are positioned at the back and front of a rocket, are set into motion when the rocket begins traveling, and both clocks were initially set at noon, a person in the rocket will observe both clocks to be synchronized, but someone on earth, stationary with respect to the rocket, will see the clocks unsynchronized.

If two clocks A and B are synchronised in the rest frame of a rocket, they will not be synchronised in a reference frame in which the rocket is moving.

You could, alternatively, say: someone on Earth would "measure" the clocks to be unsynchronised. But, I urge you again to move away from this concept of what observers actually "see". And start thinking in terms of the rocket's reference frame and the Earth's reference frame.

For example, for the moving rocket I would have two "stationary" observers (with syncronised clocks) positioned so that (in their reference frame) the front of the rocket passes the first observer at the same time as the back of the rocket passes the second. Each records the time this happens on their own clock and observes the clock inside the rocket where they are positioned (this clock is then, for a short time, local to them and they can observe it without any significant light delay).

Afterwards, they compare notes and find that in their reference frame the rocket's clocks were not synchronised.

Doing the experiment this way removes all considerations of light travel time, as only clocks that were local to a given observer were observed.

In any case, understanding reference frames is a critical prerequisite to understanding relativity.

 

[NoahsArk]

"If two clocks A and B are synchronized in the rest frame of a rocket, they will not be synchronized in a reference frame in which the rocket is moving."

Thank you for explaining. I have been doing some research on the relativity of simultaneity. I've found useful info, but most of it is very general, and most of the sites give the same one example. The example the sites give is with two beams of light shooting out from the middle of a train towards each end, and showing that someone on the ground will observe the beam hitting the back first, while someone on the train will see the hit at the same time.

This example makes sense, but I think it would be helpful to have many more examples of other kinds of events that don't involve light beams, and to explain why the simultaneity of those events are relative. Even with the light beams, there are so many other variations of that which could happen. For example, what if two beams each shot out horizontally towards the sides of the train. In that case I don't see why the person on the ground and the person in the train wouldn't agree that both beams hit the walls of the train simultaneously. If instead of a beam of light shooting towards the front and the back, would the gap between the occurrence of the ball hitting the back of the train and it hitting the front be the same gap observed by the person on the ground as the gap he observed between the two beams hitting? I assume that if so, it has something to do with the way velocities add using the Lorentz formula. If there is a book or something on the net that explains in more detail with more examples the relativity of simultaneity, please let me know.

Another question which is interesting for me is: does the relativity of simultaneity mean that if a group of people on a rocket go on a voyage, an observer on Earth will judge them to be aging at different rates? Would this also mean that he'd see them all different ages when they came back?

I watched a video using space time diagrams to illustrate relativity of simultaneity:
How can I draw space time diagrams in here to illustrate? I want to learn how to better visualize them. In this video he uses an example of two people, B and B1, moving in uniform motion as person A, who is stationary, observes them. If a beam of light shoots out from the origin of A's system of coordinates, it will go out at a 45 degree angle. B and B1's motion are represented by two lines with the same slope at angles of more than 45 degrees in A's coordinates. Since the beam of light is at a 45 degree angle in A's coordinate system, wouldn't we need to draw a different beam of light for it to be 45 degrees from B's lines of motion? I hope that makes sense since this was not easy for me to describe.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

The example the sites give is with two beams of light shooting out from the middle of a train towards each end, and showing that someone on the ground will observe the beam hitting the back first, while someone on the train will see the hit at the same time.

This example makes sense, but I think it would be helpful to have many more examples of other kinds of events that don't involve light beams, and two explain why the simultaneity of those events are relative.

You can create lots of other examples quite easily. Let's say that when the light beam reaches the back of the train Bob is there and he takes a bite out of his sandwich. Alice is at the front of the train and she coughs when the light beam reaches her. So, here's what the example will look like without the light beams:

Alice is at the front of a train when she coughs, Bob is at the back of the train when he takes a bite out of his sandwich. These two events happen at the same time according to observers at rest on the train, but according to observers at rest on the ground Alice coughs after Bob bites.

Of course, without the light beams to explain why there's relative simultaneity, the example is pretty much meaningless!

Even with the light beams, there are so many other variations of that which could happen. For example, what if two beams each shot out horizontally towards the sides of the train. In that case I don't see why the person on the ground and the person in the train wouldn't agree that both beams hit the walls of the train simultaneously.

You are quite right. The spatial separation of the events must have a nonzero component along the line of motion for there to be relative simultaneity.

 

[David Lewis]

...two clocks A and B are synchronized when, after adjusting for the time it took light to travel, the clocks [hands] were in the same position at the same time."

No. All that's necessary is for the clocks' hands to be in the same position at the same time. Adjusting for the time it takes light to reach the observer is not necessary.

 

[PeroK]

@NoahsArk you've reached the stage where you probably have to start learning from a proper textbook. Learning piecemeal off the Internet may not be effective. There is a free online text at
www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

I would also recommend Special Relativity by T M Helliwell.

 

[Stephanus]

Also, please let me know if this is correct: if two clocks A and B, which are positioned at the back and front of a rocket, are set into motion when the rocket begins traveling, and both clocks were initially set at noon, a person in the rocket will observe both clocks to be synchronized, but someone on earth, stationary with respect to the rocket, will see the clocks unsynchronized.

Yes!
There is a relative simultaneity of events and length contraction there. Not just time dilation. But before you ask about clock synchronization perhaps you'd like to understand about time dilation, and with it length contraction and the consequences: Relative Simultaneity of events.
I didn't understand them before. But now I do, thanks to PF Forum.

 

[NoahsArk]

Thank you for the responses.

The spatial separation of the events must have a nonzero component along the line of motion for there to be relative simultaneity.

That's a helpful rule to know. This means, I think, if two people on opposite ends of a train were giving each other a thumbs up, the simultaneity of their doing so would be relative, but if they had just placed their hands on their sides and raised them up like wings, relativity of simultaneity wouldn't come into effect?

you've reached the stage where you probably have to start learning from a proper textbook.

I looked at the book on amazon which looks good. The other, online book, might be advanced for me because it has some prerequisites- like having taken a survey course, but I will look into it.

 

[PeroK]

Thank you for the responses.
That's a helpful rule to know. This means, I think, if two people on opposite ends of a train were giving each other a thumbs up, the simultaneity of their doing so would be relative, but if they had just placed their hands on their sides and raised them up like wings, relativity of simultaneity wouldn't come into effect?

.

Simultaneity or not depends on the time an event takes place. It's got nothing to do without specific hand signals!

If clocks are synchronised in their rest frame but moving in your reference frame, then they will not be synchronised in your reference frame. This is sometimes called 'leading clocks lag', as clocks to the front in the direction of motion show an earlier time, depending on the relative speed between reference frames and the distance between the clocks in the direction of motion.

Note that clocks in the moving reference frame that are separated only by lateral distance will be synchronised in your frame also.

If, for example, there was a large (long and broad) spaceship moving past, then all the clocks at the front would be synchronised in your rest frame, and all the clocks at the back. But the clocks throughout the spaceship would not be synchronised in your frame, with those nearer the front showing an earlier time than those behind.

Note that the relativity of simultaneity is a fundamental statement about the nature of time when considered and measured in two reference frames moving with respect to each other. That's essentially what SR is all about.

Finally, don't confuse relativity of simultaneity with the rate at which clocks tick. All clocks in the large spaceship will be ticking at the same rate, which will be slower than your clocks, but they will also be out of synch by a fixed amount depending on their position on the ship.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

This means, I think, if two people on opposite ends of a train were giving each other a thumbs up, the simultaneity of their doing so would be relative, but if they had just placed their hands on their sides and raised them up like wings, relativity of simultaneity wouldn't come into effect?

No. The type of signal is not relevant. It's their location. If they are at opposite sides rather than opposite ends.

 

[Ibix]

Simultaneity or not depends on the time an event takes place. It's got nothing to do without specific hand signals!

<Snip>

Note that clocks in the moving reference frame that are separated only by lateral distance will be synchronised in your frame also.

I took that to be what @NoahsArk was saying. If the train is moving in the x direction and I stand facing the x direction then raising my arms would be a motion in the y-z plane (at least in my rest frame). So if I say I raised my arms simultaneously then so does everybody else (sticking to everybody moving in the $\pm$x direction).

@NoahsArk - if I'm right, you didn't phrase this well. It's not clear that you're talking about simultaneity between the two people in the "thumbs up" case, and between the two hands of one person in the "arms like wings" case. It's very important to speak and write with care when discussing relativity. It's a complex and subtle topic, and natural language is not well suited to it.

If I'm not right, the criticisms by PeroK and @Mister T stand.

 

[NoahsArk]

It's not clear that you're talking about simultaneity between the two people in the "thumbs up" case, and between the two hands of one person in the "arms like wings" case.

I was talking about simultaneity between the two people in the thumbs up case. The reason why I used that example is because there is motion in the X direction (when one person puts his hand out in front of him to give a thumbs up as opposed to above his head) which is the direction that the rocket is moving. I thought the same principle would apply to their hands going in the X direction as two beams of light shooting down the middle of the rocket. If one person in the back of the train, facing someone who is in the front, gives a thumbs up, and the person in the front simultaneously gives a thumbs up back, I would think the stationary observer would see the person in the back completing the thumbs up action first.

If the two people at the front and the back did some action that did not involve any motion in the direction of the rocket (or opposite the direction of the rocket), say jumping up and down, then I don't see how the relativity of simultaneity comes into play. In the beams of light example, the logic behind the stationary observer observing one beam hitting one end of the rocket before the other is because one beam is moving in the direction of the rocket and has to catch up to the front, while the other beam is moving against the direction of the rocket so the stationary observer will see that beam and the tail end of the rocket racing towards each other.

For the same reason, if a bunch of clocks in a rocket are sitting horizontally next to one another with no movement in the direction of the rocket or against the direction of the rocket, why should those clocks be out of sync with a row of clocks some where further down the rocket?

 

[Ibix]

I think you are confused.

The direction of the gesture doesn't really matter. The question is what are the x and t coordinates of the gestures? The guys in the train assign the same x coordinate to both arms of one passenger. If he moves his arms at the same time, they assign the same x and t coordinates to the ends of both left and right arms (but different y coordinates). However if both passengers raise their thumbs in any direction, the two thumbs are at opposite ends of the train so have different x coordinates (unless they have ridiculously long arms and their thumbs meet in the middle of the train, I suppose).

The Lorentz transforms say that an observer moving in the x direction (relative to the train) will assign a time coordinate $t'=\gamma ( t-vx/c^2)$ to an event that train passengers say happened at (x,t). So if a passenger raises both arms sideways (same x, same t) then all observers moving in the x direction assign the same t'. But passengers at opposite ends of the train raising their arms simultaneously according to them (same t, different x) will be assigned different t'.

That's the relativity of simultaneity. Things that happen at different x positions cannot be simultaneous in more than one frame. If they happen at the same x position then they are simultaneous in all frames if they were simultaneous in one.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

For the same reason, if a bunch of clocks in a rocket are sitting horizontally next to one another with no movement in the direction of the rocket or against the direction of the rocket, why should those clocks be out of sync with a row of clocks some where further down the rocket?

The clocks in the front row will be synchronized in all frames. Likewise for the clocks in the back row. But clocks in the front row will be out of sync with clocks in the back row, according to observers stationary on the ground.

 

[Orodruin]

the front row will be synchronized in all frames

(My emphasis)

Only in frames moving in the same direction as the rocket. In frames moving in a different direction the clocks will not be synchronised.

 

[NoahsArk]

Because of the very good responses here, I have a better understanding of how relativity of simultaneity works. If clocks are lined up inside a rocket side by side in a row, like a row of seats, and there are several rows of clocks going from the back to the front of the rocket, then the clocks in any particular row will be synchronized in the stationary frame as well as in the rocket's frame. However, clocks belonging to different rows will not be synchronized according to the stationary frame. Also, all clocks in the rocket, no matter what row they are in, will be ticking at the same rate, its just that the different rows won't be synchronized in the stationary frame.

The why part of this I still don't understand. In the example with the rows of clocks, none of the clocks have any motion relative to the rocket. In all the examples that I've seen about relativity of simultaneity ("R.O.S"), there is motion of the clock relative to the rocket- either in the same direction that the rocket is moving or in the opposite direction. Here are two contrasting examples, both of which should involve R.O.S, but only the first example makes sense to me as to why it's occurring. The first example is a little repetitive, but I need to use it to contrast with the second:

1) From the middle of the rocket, two beams of light shoot out towards opposite ends of the rocket. Someone inside the rocket will observe the two beams hitting the opposite ends simultaneously. Someone in the rest frame will observe the beam hitting the back end first. This makes sense because the person in the middle of the rocket sees both beams traveling an equal distance at speed C. The person in the rest frame sees the beam traveling a longer distance to get to the front of the rocket. Given that C is constant, it's logical that the stationary observer will see the beam hitting the back end (which involves shorter travel), sooner than the front end.

2) A rocket is moving while two events happen at the back and front of the rocket simultaneously from the rocket frame. Say the event is just a flash of light where, unlike in example one above, there is no movement toward either end of the rocket (for example, if two people, one in the back and one in the front, both had a flash light pointing upwards, and they each turned the flash light on and off). In this example, we could also use, instead of a flash light, a ball being dropped on both ends, or two people clapping their hands on both ends, etc. From the stationary observer's point of view, the event that happened in the back of the rocket did not involve any extra distance of travel compared to the event in the front. This is in contrast to the beams of light in the first example where the only reason R.O.S. occurred was due to the different distances that had to be traveled before the first event (the beam hitting the back) and the second event (the beam hitting the front) could occur.

Am I missing something fundamental?

 

[Ibix]

Take your first example and add two clocks at the front and rear of the rocket. In the rocket frame the clocks strike 12 at the instant the light pulses arrive.

If the clocks are not out of sync in the other frame (for which the pulses arrive non-simultaneously) then they will show different times when illuminated by the pulses, but the same time in the rocket frame. That would be inconsistent. You can easily set up a clock-stopping device to go off when the light pulses arrive, and they can't stop at different times in diffetent frames...

 

[Herman Trivilino]

(My emphasis)

Only in frames moving in the same direction as the rocket. In frames moving in a different direction the clocks will not be synchronised.

Right. I should have said "both frames". I was trying for simplicity but went too far!

 

[Herman Trivilino]

The why part of this I still don't understand. In the example with the rows of clocks, none of the clocks have any motion relative to the rocket. In all the examples that I've seen about relativity of simultaneity ("R.O.S"), there is motion of the clock relative to the rocket- either in the same direction that the rocket is moving or in the opposite direction.

Imagine that there is a mock-up of the rocket at rest in the stationary frame. It's an identical copy of the rocket, so it also has rows of clocks. It points in the same direction in which the rocket moves, and lies along the line of that motion. To observers at rest in the real rocket, the clocks in the mock-up are in motion relative to them. All the clocks in the mock-up were synchronized in their rest frame. Observers at rest in the rocket (rocket observers) will agree that clocks in each row of the mock-up are synchronized, but they will observe that the clocks in each row are not synchronized with the clocks in other rows.

Also, by the way, rocket observers will conclude that mock-up clocks are ticking at slower rate than their own clocks. And, mock-up observers will conclude that rocket clocks are ticking at a slower rate than their own clocks.

In this example, we could also use, instead of a flash light, a ball being dropped on both ends, or two people clapping their hands on both ends, etc. From the stationary observer's point of view, the event that happened in the back of the rocket did not involve any extra distance of travel compared to the event in the front.

The traveling of the beams are not events. The arrival of the beams are events. (Events occur at a single location in space and a single clock-reading. They have no extension in space and they last for no duration of time.)

This is in contrast to the beams of light in the first example where the only reason R.O.S. occurred was due to the different distances that had to be traveled before the first event (the beam hitting the back) and the second event (the beam hitting the front) could occur.

The beams of light used to show ROS are not the cause of the ROS. They are used simply as a teaching tool to convince us that ROS is a valid phenomenon. In other words, they're a heuristic.

 

[NoahsArk]

Take your first example and add two clocks at the front and rear of the rocket. In the rocket frame the clocks strike 12 at the instant the light pulses arrive.

If the clocks are not out of sync in the other frame (for which the pulses arrive non-simultaneously) then they will show different times when illuminated by the pulses, but the same time in the rocket frame. That would be inconsistent.

If I am understanding you correctly, what you said means that if someone in the stationary frame took a picture of the beam illuminating the clock at the front end, and the person in the rocket frame also took a picture of the beam illuminating the front end, then, if they got together and compared pictures, the pictures would reflect different times on the clock which would be inconsistent. That makes sense, but from what I've seen so far, special relativity in general produces many inconsistent results, and is largely about different observers in different relative states of motion observing reality differently. For example, if the person in the stationary frame took a photograph that showed two clocks from the different rows, those clocks would show different times, whereas if the person in the rocket frame took the same photo, the clocks would show the same time. Isn't this also inconsistent, but at the same time what we'd expect?

Also, in the first of the two examples that I used, there is a physical explanation for why R.O.S. is occurring. Is there a physical explanation about why it should occur in the second example?

 

[NoahsArk]

Also:

The beams of light used to show ROS are not the cause of the ROS. They are used simply as a teaching tool to convince us that ROS is a valid phenomenon. In other words, they're a heuristic.

That also relates to my question on if there is a physical explanation for it.

 

[Ibix]

but from what I've seen so far, special relativity in general produces many inconsistent results

No. The results are never inconsistent - unexpected to Newtonian intuition, yes, but never inconsistent. You said that different frames describe reality differently, which is a good way to put it. Now rig one of the clocks so that the spaceship explodes if it is illuminated at exactly 12. Unless the clocks are de-synchronised, then, one frame says BOOM, one frame doesn't. Is that "different ways of describing reality"?

For example, if the person in the stationary frame took a photograph that showed two clocks from the different rows, those clocks would show different times, whereas if the person in the rocket frame took the same photo, the clocks would show the same time. Isn't this also inconsistent, but at the same time what we'd expect?

If you're using a small camera with a view of both clocks then you are not taking a photo of the clocks as they were when you took the photo - light had to travel from the clocks to the camera. The different frames will have different reasons for why the picture shows asynchronous clocks (clocks in sync, but unequal light travel times; or clocks out of sync, but with equal light travel times), but they will expect the picture to show asynchronous clocks.

Also, in the first of the two examples that I used, there is a physical explanation for why R.O.S. is occurring. Is there a physical explanation about why it should occur in the second example?

Because you can always add light pulses being exchanged and show that the results are inconsistent if simultaneity is preserved.

A better explanation is that spacetime is four dimensional. A choice of frame is a choice of how you split it into space and time, and when you make a different choice you get a different definition of "the same time". I strongly recommend looking up Minkowski diagrams. You might also want to have a play with my interactive diagrams tool: http://www.ibises.org.uk/Minkowksi.html

 

[Orodruin]

special relativity in general produces many inconsistent results

No it does not. Special relativity does not predict inconsistent results.

Isn't this also inconsistent,

No.
Inconsistency would mean disagreement on the same measuring process such as the classical formulation of the twin paradox, which is not an inconsistency of the theory though - just a faulty application of it.

 

[David Lewis]

...if someone in the stationary frame took a picture of the beam illuminating the clock at the front end, and the person in the rocket frame also took a picture of the beam illuminating the front end...

The camera shows you what you see, not what is happening.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

That also relates to my question on if there is a physical explanation for it.

The only thing prompting that question in your mind is a prejudice. If simultaneity were absolute would you be asking for a physical explanation of that? No, because your intuition, based on your experiences, tells you that simultaneity is absolute. So you seek no explanation of it. But in fact those experiences are limited to scenarios where the effects of the relativity of simultaneity are so small they don't make themselves apparent.

If you were an engineer working with the synchronization of the atomic clocks that are part of the GPS the effects of relative simultaneity would be so apparent that ignoring them would lead to positioning errors in the system large enough to render it useless. GPS could tell you what country you're in, but not what street intersection you're passing through.

 

[Nugatory]

For example, if the person in the stationary frame took a photograph that showed two clocks from the different rows, those clocks would show different times, whereas if the person in the rocket frame took the same photo, the clocks would show the same time.

Careful - a photograph does not capture a picture of the objects in it at the same time, it captures the light hitting the film at the moment that the shutter is open. This has two implications:

1) If the objects are at different distances from the camera when the light left them, the photograph may show them at different times. Consider an ordinary boring room maybe 3 meters across (so light takes about ten nanoseconds to cross it). You and I are standing at opposite ends of the room, wearing synchronized wristwatches and each holding a delicate glass object at the same height above the floor. At exactly noon we both drop our objects and of course they hit the floor at the same time. However, the light carrying the image from your object breaking will reach me about ten nanoseconds later than the light from my object breaking, so there is a moment in there in which I can snap a photo showing my glass broken and yours still falling, just a few microns above the floor.
Someone elsewhere in the room and closer to you than to me could take a photo that shows the exact opposite: your glass is broken and mine is about to hit the floor and break. We'd have to consider the positions of both cameras and the distances involved, and do a bit of calculating to find that in fact the two glasses hit the floor and broke at the same time (which will be about .4 seconds after noon for a one-meter drop).
2) If two cameras are at the same place at the same time, they will take the same picture because the same light is coming in through their open shutters. If they're moving relative to one another, the colors may be a bit different because of the doppler effect, but other than that they have to agree - if there's a clock face in the photo, the hands have to be pointing the same way in both photos.

 

[NoahsArk]

I wasn't taking into account the mechanism of the cameras in my example, and I maybe should've used a more accurate example to demonstrate. If instead of just one person in the stationary frame, there were two people taking pictures of two clocks from different rows (and the light travel time to each camera was the same for both people), and then later they met and compared photographs, the pictures would show different times and they'd know the clocks were out of sync. The same experiment could be done with two people in the rocket frame, and when they compared photographs their times would be the same. This result, to me, is an inconsistent result, but I'm taking it as a given that this result would occur.

If the same experiment were done in both frames, except this time with the two people in each frame each taking a picture of a different clock in the same row, both people from both frames would compare the pictures and agree that the clocks were in sync.

A better explanation is that spacetime is four dimensional. A choice of frame is a choice of how you split it into space and time, and when you make a different choice you get a different definition of "the same time". I strongly recommend looking up Minkowski diagrams. You might also want to have a play with my interactive diagrams tool: http://www.ibises.org.uk/Minkowksi.html

Thank you for sending that link. I could not open it though. Please let me know if there is another link to the site.

The only thing prompting that question in your mind is a prejudice. If simultaneity were absolute would you be asking for a physical explanation of that? No, because your intuition, based on your experiences, tells you that simultaneity is absolute. So you seek no explanation of it.

That brings up a more general issue in science I think, which is when is a phenomenon an axiom or postulate that can't be further proved. This relates to another question that I and many others who I've seen posting on the subject have about why the speed of light is constant. My intuition tells me that C should not be independent of the relative state of motion of the observer, and that if a beam of light is shot out from a rocket traveling at .5C, the beam should then be traveling at 1.5C for me if I am stationary relative to the rocket. I've heard answers, to the question of why C is constant, ranging from there is no reason, it's just what the experiments tell us, to it having to do with a deep symmetry in nature. Is the fact that C is constant just something we know inductively through experiment? If so, could it be that there is something in nature causing C to be constant, we just can't perceive it with our senses?

Regarding relativity of simultaneity, is that also something we just know through experiment, and we don't know a deeper reason for it?

 

[Nugatory]

This relates to another question that I and many others who I've seen posting on the subject have about why the speed of light is constant. My intuition tells me that C should not be independent of the relative state of motion of the observer, and that if a beam of light is shot out from a rocket traveling at .5C, the beam should then be traveling at 1.5C for me if I am stationary relative to the rocket. I've heard answers, to the question of why C is constant, ranging from there is no reason, it's just what the experiments tell us, to it having to do with a deep symmetry in nature. Is the fact that C is constant just something we know inductively through experiment? If so, could it be that there is something in nature causing C to be constant, we just can't perceive it with our senses?

There's a fairly straightforward intuitive argument for why the speed of light might be the same for all observers. We intuitively expect that the laws of electricity and magnetism, like all other laws of physics, don't change with the speed of the observer. There's also a fair amount of experimental support for that proposition: we get the same results for E&M experiments in June and December, and at noon and midnight, even though the rotation and orbit of the Earth means that our physics lab is moving at very different speeds. So far, there's nothing surprising here - it would be far more bizarre and counterintuitive if (for example) Coulomb's law needed a correction that changed with the seasons for the speed of the observer through space.

But then in 1861 James Maxwell showed that you can calculate the speed of light in vacuum from these laws of electricity and magnetism. Thus the only way that the speed of light could be different for different observers would be if the laws of electrodynamics changed with the speed of the observer, and they clearly don't. This was the great unsolved physics problem of the second half of the nineteenth century: Common sense says that light should behave as you describe ("if a beam of light is shot out from a rocket traveling at .5C, the beam should then be traveling at 1.5C for me if I am stationary relative to the rocket") but it can't because that would be inconsistent with the laws of E&M.

What Einstein did was to show that there was a completely consistent physics that matched all experimental results, agreed with the past few centuries of experiments with electricity and magnetism: everything can be made to work if we just listen to the laws of electricity and magnetism when they say that the speed of light must be constant. The title of his 1905 paper introducing special relativity is "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", because that was the problem that relativity solved. His extraordinary-looking results were accepted so quickly because they so clearly solved the problem that had been tormenting phsyicists for the past half-century.

 

[Nugatory]

Regarding relativity of simultaneity, is that also something we just know through experiment, and we don't know a deeper reason for it?

No. It's nice to see it demonstrated in the GPS system, particle lifetime measurements, and the like...

But once you accept the postulate that the speed of light is constant for all observers, relativity of simultaneity follows as surely as any theorem in high school geometry follows from Euclid's postulates of geometry. The experiments are telling us that the world behaves the way we've logically proven that it must if our postulate is correct.

 

[Ibix]

I wasn't taking into account the mechanism of the cameras in my example, and I maybe should've used a more accurate example to demonstrate. If instead of just one person in the stationary frame, there were two people taking pictures of two clocks from different rows (and the light travel time to each camera was the same for both people), and then later they met and compared photographs, the pictures would show different times and they'd know the clocks were out of sync. The same experiment could be done with two people in the rocket frame, and when they compared photographs their times would be the same. This result, to me, is an inconsistent result, but I'm taking it as a given that this result would occur.

If the same experiment were done in both frames, except this time with the two people in each frame each taking a picture of a different clock in the same row, both people from both frames would compare the pictures and agree that the clocks were in sync.

Those aren't inconsistent. When you say two people take pictures, you mean two people take pictures simultaneously . But then you have to ask: simultaneously for who? The people in the rocket frame or the people in the stationary frame? When you've answered that, you'll know whose clocks show the same time and whose don't.

If both frames take photos simultaneously in their own frames, both will be able to observe that the other didn't take photos simultaneously. So there's no inconsistency here.

I think @Nugatory quoted his daughter as saying that the trick with Special Relativity problems is to spot where they're trying to sneak "at the same time" past you and not let them. You keep sneaking it past yourself. The Lorentz transforms and some Minkowski diagrams will set you straight.

Thank you for sending that link. I could not open it though. Please let me know if there is another link to the site.

Ack - not sure what went wrong there. Try ibises.org.uk/Minkowksi.html.