Length contraction or Lorentz Contraction

thecow99
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
As I understand it, Lorentz Contraction states an object "contracts" relative to it's velocity to an observer.

So at a high velocity of speed, the meter stick (carried by the object moving relative to the observer) appears to contract (to the observer) and the observer measures less distance traveled than the object.

This seems to counter time dilation.

If the object is measuring a larger distance traveled from A to B it would seem the object would would measure an increase in observed time, not a decrease.

If object is moving at .99C and it contracts the measured distance from A to B would increase for it, which would logically say would take more time.

How am I misinterpreting this? I know the object experiences less time but a greater distance? Huh?

Cheers!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Object is measuring a smaller distance traveled from A to B. You see the object contract, the object sees you contract. It's symmetric. Always contraction of length, never dilation of length. Likewise, always dilation of time, never contraction of time.
 
Eh, my stupid brain...

The meter stick doesn't contract in it's own frame of reference. Should have guessed that!

I kind of get it now. So when time dilation occurs, the moving object experiences less space traveled because in it's frame it "time" was constant.

Wait.. is that why you can't get a frame at C? Because at C everything would exist in the same place at the same time?
 
thecow99 said:
.. is that why you can't get a frame at C? Because at C everything would exist in the same place at the same time?


Yes, I believe so. It requires an outside observer with a lower relative velocity to see light as traversing a distance.
 
To work through these questions properly, you need to consider the relativity of simultaneity as well as time dilation and length contraction. When someone says "This rod is one meter long" they're being a bit sloppy in their wording - it would be more precise to say "I found where the two ends of the rod were at the same moment, and then I measures the distance between those two points, and found them to be one meter apart".

Note that this definition does not assume that the rod is at rest relative to the person making the measurement. It also makes it clear that, because observers moving relative to each other have different definitions of "at the same moment", they will measure different lengths.
 
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...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Back
Top