Interpretation of Negative Time in Minkowski Diagram

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of negative time in a Minkowski diagram, specifically regarding the worldlines of a space station and a spacecraft. The confusion arises from how event B can be considered to have occurred in the past for the spacecraft while both clocks were synchronized at zero when their origins coincided. It is clarified that the ordering of spacelike-separated events does not have consequences, meaning different frames can perceive the timing of events differently without affecting causality. This highlights a key distinction from pre-relativistic theories, where the order of events within light cones is universally agreed upon. Ultimately, the relativity of simultaneity allows for varying perceptions of event timing across different frames.
techsingularity2042
Messages
20
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
A spacecraft is moving at a speed v = 0.8 c with respect to a space station whose proper length is 500 m. Two light bulbs A and B are placed at each end of the station.

The frames are such that when clocks in both frames show zero, the origins of the two frames coincide.

In the frame of reference of the station, the two light bulbs are turned on simultaneously.
According to an observer in the spacecraft, which light bulb is turned on first and what is the time interval between the two lights turning on?
Relevant Equations
Lorentz transformation
I want to explain my thoughts longer, but since my English is terrible, I will try to keep it as short as possible.

JPEG image-4326-97AE-AF-0.jpeg


This is the Minkowski diagram for the question above. ct-axis is the worldline of the space station, and ct'-axis is the worldline of the spacecraft.
What I am confused about is how ct' of B is negative.

How could it have happened in the past in the frame of the spacecraft if it occurred when t=0 if both their clocks have been set to zero when their origins coincide? Doesn't that mean before their origins even coincided, the event B already happened in the frame of the spacecraft, whereas in the station's frame, it occurs when their origins coincide?

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
techsingularity2042 said:
Doesn't that mean before their origins even coincided, the event B already happened in the frame of the spacecraft, whereas in the station's frame, it occurs when their origins coincide?
Yes. But there is no consequence to the ordering of spacelike-separated events. If you pick a person and a time on their wristwatch, all frames will agree whether he can see any lamp lit, although if he can't see both they may disagree about whether either is lit.

This is a major difference from pre-relativistic theories. If one event is in the future lightcone of the other, their order is agreed by all frames. If neither event is in the future lightcone of the other, some frames will say they happened in one order, some in the other order, and some at the same time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes techsingularity2042
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top