Length Contraction of Particles & Photons in Relativity

pieterdb
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to teach myself special relativity. I use the book 'Introduction to Special Relativity' by Wolfgang Rindler. I have a question about length contraction.

We consider 2 particles traveling along the x-axis of a reference frame S with a constant distance between them. We can always go to the rest frame of the particles. If the distance between the particles as seen from their rest frame is L_0, then the distance between the particles as seen from any other inertial frame moving with a velocity v in the direction of the x-axis of S is calculated by L = L_0 / gamma. This length contraction formula originates in the relativity of simultaneity.

If we now replace the 2 particles by 2 photons, it is no longer possible to go to the rest frame of the photons (since the speed of light is c in every inertial frames). Likewise it is impossible to calculate the distance between the photons as seen from another reference frame with the length contraction formula, since gamma always leads to a division by zero.

So apparently there is a difference between the length contraction of the distance between two particles and the length contraction of the distance between 2 moving photons. I guess the 2 moving photons are the limiting case ?

I don't understand this. Is there a length contraction for the distance between 2 moving photons or is this distance the same in all inertial frames (I guess there should be a length contraction since the relativity of simultaneity) ? If yes, how can we calculate this length contraction ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pieterdb said:
If we now replace the 2 particles by 2 photons, it is no longer possible to go to the rest frame of the photons (since the speed of light is c in every inertial frames). Likewise it is impossible to calculate the distance between the photons as seen from another reference frame with the length contraction formula, since gamma always leads to a division by zero.
When you calculate how something is seen from another (inertial) reference frame, the gamma factor is the one defined by the velocity difference between the two frames. In this case however, since the two objects that have constant velocity in the first frame aren't at rest in the other frame, you can't just use the Length contraction formula. You should start by drawing the world lines of the photons in a spacetime diagram, and then draw a simultaneity line for the frame that you going to transform to. Check where it intersects the world lines of the photons. You need to determine the coordinates of these two events in both frames. When you've done that, it shouldn't be hard to find the distance between the photons in the other frame.
 
Thx, I understand it now.The motion of a photon seen from S is given by :

x = x0 + ctUsing the standard Lorentz Transformation formulas, I can express the motion of a photon seen from S' by :

x' = \gammax0 + \gamma(c-v)(t'/\gamma(1-v/c) + vx0/c2(1-v/c))This eventually leads to the distance between the 2 photons seen from S' :

L' = L (c+v)1/2(c-v)-1/2
 

Attachments

  • spaceTime.jpeg
    spaceTime.jpeg
    8.8 KB · Views: 496
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Replies
54
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
52
Views
5K
Replies
101
Views
6K
Back
Top