Lorentz Contraction Physical Reality

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Bell's spaceship paradox, where two accelerating spaceships, A and B, are connected by a thread. Observer C, who remains stationary, perceives that both ships undergo equal acceleration, leading to the conclusion that the thread will break due to Lorentz contraction. The key points include that there is no length contraction in the accelerating frame and that the distance between the ships contracts at the same rate as the string, resulting in no change in tension from C's perspective. This paradox highlights common misconceptions about special relativity and the effects of acceleration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity principles
  • Familiarity with Lorentz contraction
  • Knowledge of accelerating reference frames
  • Awareness of John Bell's contributions to relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the equivalence principle in accelerating frames
  • Explore detailed explanations of Bell's spaceship paradox
  • Learn about the effects of acceleration on perceived length and distance
  • Investigate the relationship between acceleration and relativistic effects
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of special relativity and its paradoxes.

curiousphoton
Messages
117
Reaction score
2
Simple thought experiment I read and would like to hear what others think will the result will be:

Let two spaceships A and B accelerate along a straight line. Observer C does not accelerate. The accelerations, as judged by C, are constant for both ships. Each ship is equipped with a yard-arm, and a thread is tied between the two arms. Does the thread break, due to Lorentz contraction? (Assume that the acceleration is gentle enough that the thread does not break simply because of its own inertia).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nope. For one, there is no length contraction in the accelerating frame, and two, according to observer C, everything in the system is contracting, including the distance between the two spaceships, so the perceived "tension", if you will, on the string according to observer C doesn't even change, since the length of the string and the distance the string spans changes at the same rate.
 
curiousphoton said:
Let two spaceships A and B accelerate along a straight line. Observer C does not accelerate. The accelerations, as judged by C, are constant for both ships. Each ship is equipped with a yard-arm, and a thread is tied between the two arms. Does the thread break, due to Lorentz contraction?

Your paraphrase of Bell's spaceship scenario is a bit imprecise. You need to assert not that the accelerations of A and B (per the rest frame coordinates of C) are constant, but rather that they are equal. Given this clarification, the answer is obviously yes, the thread will break. John Bell famously used this scenario to argue that many people who think they understand special relativity actually don't, because of how many people confidently give the wrong answer.
 
soothsayer said:
Nope. For one, there is no length contraction in the accelerating frame, and two, according to observer C, everything in the system is contracting, including the distance between the two spaceships, so the perceived "tension", if you will, on the string according to observer C doesn't even change, since the length of the string and the distance the string spans changes at the same rate.

See below

Samshorn said:
Your paraphrase of Bell's spaceship scenario is a bit imprecise. You need to assert not that the accelerations of A and B (per the rest frame coordinates of C) are constant, but rather that they are equal. Given this clarification, the answer is obviously yes, the thread will break. John Bell famously used this scenario to argue that many people who think they understand special relativity actually don't, because of how many people confidently give the wrong answer.

You spoiled the fun:cry:

And I should have said equal AND constant, correct. Thanks.
 
Ah, so it was a setup from the beginning, was it? xD

Well here's a chance for me to understand SR a little bit better - could you explain why the thread breaks?

For the thread to break, the ships must contract, but the space between them doesn't...or, from the ship's frame of reference: they do not perceive themselves to be contracting, but the space between them expands as they accelerate.

Is this the case specifically because we're dealing with an accelerating frame of reference?
 
cephron said:
Ah, so it was a setup from the beginning, was it? xD

Well here's a chance for me to understand SR a little bit better - could you explain why the thread breaks?

For the thread to break, the ships must contract, but the space between them doesn't...or, from the ship's frame of reference: they do not perceive themselves to be contracting, but the space between them expands as they accelerate.

Is this the case specifically because we're dealing with an accelerating frame of reference?

Is it really true that accelerating observers would not report a length contraction? They see other effects of acceleration (like the bandanna hanging from the rear view mirror swinging backwards). As I understand it the equivalence principle says they cannot whether the effect if from increasing velocity one direction or being subject to a stronger gravitational field in the opposite direction...
 
Does it have to do with perceived length contraction according to the ships since they are moving relativistically? If the length between the ships contracts, what is the implication of this for the string spanning this distance? And I guess from an outside perspective, the rockets are contracting, expanding the space between the connecting points of the string?
 
Last edited:
Curiousphoton, when you quote someone (in this case me), always make sure to use quotation marks and credit the source properly: http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch02/ch02.html#Section2.3

This is a famous relativity paradox called Bell's spaceship paradox. Anyone who wants to see my own explanation of how the paradox is resolved can read it in the link above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Samshorn said:
Your paraphrase of Bell's spaceship scenario is a bit imprecise. You need to assert not that the accelerations of A and B (per the rest frame coordinates of C) are constant, but rather that they are equal.

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't state that clearly.
 
  • #10
curiousphoton said:
And I should have said equal AND constant, correct. Thanks.

Er, you mean *I* should have said that...?
 
  • #11
curiousphoton said:
You spoiled the fun:cry:

I believe it's called trolling.

curiousphoton said:
And I should have said equal AND constant, correct. Thanks.

No, just equal. Constancy has nothing to do with it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
20K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
6K