Lorentz Transformation Equation Paradox

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Lorentz Transformation equation and its implications in special relativity, particularly focusing on a thought experiment involving two observers and the simultaneity of light emissions from a spacecraft. Participants explore the nuances of simultaneity and the application of the Lorentz Transformation in different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a thought experiment involving two light sources emitted simultaneously from a spacecraft, questioning the validity of the Lorentz Transformation based on their observations.
  • Another participant points out that simultaneity is relative, indicating that events simultaneous in one frame may not be in another, which challenges the assumptions made in the thought experiment.
  • Further clarification is sought regarding the reference frame of the observers and the implications of simultaneity for both the observer inside the spacecraft and the observer on Earth.
  • Participants discuss the need to specify which observer perceives the events as simultaneous and the importance of recognizing that time measurements may differ between observers.
  • One participant suggests applying the Lorentz transformation to determine the order of events as perceived by the observer on Earth, emphasizing the need for careful application of the transformation equations.
  • Another participant highlights a misunderstanding regarding the use of the time dilation formula versus the Lorentz transformation equations, stressing the importance of using the correct formulas for different reference frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the relativity of simultaneity and the need for clarity in defining reference frames. However, there remains some uncertainty regarding the application of the Lorentz Transformation and the implications of simultaneity in the thought experiment, indicating that the discussion is not fully resolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in assumptions regarding simultaneity and the need to specify which observer's frame is being referenced. The discussion also highlights potential confusion between time dilation and the Lorentz transformation equations, which could affect the conclusions drawn from the thought experiment.

Rahul Mohan P
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi All;
I was trying to understand Lorentz Transformation equation and special theory of relativity, but as I compared the derivation with a thought experiment which I imagined I found the whole Lorentz Transformation Equation fails. The details of the problem is given below. I know I m wrong but I wish you help me to find where I went wrong.

Thought Experiment Details

PLEASE SEE THE FIGURE ATTACHED

Let us consider a spacecraft moving with a velocity v m/s, two observers are there, one inside the spacecraft (observer-1) and other watching spacecraft from Earth (observer-2). Two light sources (L1, L2) are emitted inside the spacecraft from point ‘P’ and point ‘A’ simultaneously as shown in figure. After one second (time with respect to observer-2) the spacecraft moves ‘x’ m. Observer-1 measures light source L1 moved a distance ‘a’ and light source L2 a distance ‘b’, but observer-2 measures L1 moved a distance ‘a1’ and L2 a distance ‘b1’.

From ΔABC Lorentz Transformation Equation can be derived;

Ø x = v*t1................(1)

Ø a = c*t................(2)

Ø a1 = c*t1................(3)

where;

x is the distance traveled by spacecraft in time t1 (t1 is taken as 1 sec for simplicity)

t1 is time w.r.t observer-2

v is velocity of spacecraft

a is distance traveled by L1 in time t as per observer-1

c is speed of light

a1 is the distance traveled by L1 in time t1 as per observer-2

Applying Pythagoras Theorem to ΔABC;

a12 = a2+ x2

(v*t1)2 = (c*t)2 + (c*t1)2

─► (c*t)2 = (c*t1)2 - (v*t1)2

─►t2 = t12 (1- v2/c2)

t = t1√(1- v2/c2).......Lorentz Transformation EquationConsider ΔPQR;

Since L1 and L2 are emitted at same time the distance traveled by both light will be same after a time interval ‘t’ as measured by observer-1, hence;

a = b

From figure the sides PR = AC

Hence from the ΔABC & ΔPQR it is clear that the distance traveled by L1 & L2 measured by observer-2 in time t1 is not equal.

But the distance traveled by L1 & L2 at time ‘t1’ from observer-2 should be equal since speed of light is constant from any frame of reference;

ie;

a1 = c*t1

b1 = c*t1

Since a1≠b1, the only thing which should vary is the speed of light measured from observer-2’s frame of reference.
 

Attachments

  • lorentz trans copy.png
    lorentz trans copy.png
    5.4 KB · Views: 473
Physics news on Phys.org
I'll try again.

I suppose the problem starts here: "Two light sources (L1, L2) are emitted inside the spacecraft from point ‘P’ and point ‘A’ simultaneously as shown in figure." Simultaneous events in one frame of reference are not necessarily simultaneous in another frame of reference.
 
Last edited:
Thank You for replying
But how ?
 
Rahul Mohan P said:
Let us consider a spacecraft moving with a velocity v m/s

Relative to what? I assume relative to Earth, but you should take care to explicitly specify these things, both for clarity and to make sure you yourself are clear on the problem you are posing.

Rahul Mohan P said:
Two light sources (L1, L2) are emitted inside the spacecraft from point ‘P’ and point ‘A’ simultaneously as shown in figure.

Simultaneously according to whom? The observer on Earth, or the observer in the spacecraft ?

As Samy_A has pointed out, in SR simultaneity is relative: if the emission of light from the two sources is simultaneous for one observer, it won't be for the other. But even if you don't yet understand how that can be, from a logical point of view, you can't simply assume that the emissions are simultaneous according to both observers, because doing so prevents you from even considering the possibility that they're not--and therefore prevents you from seeing how SR might explain why they're not. So for purposes of posing the problem, you need to pick: are the emissions simultaneous according to the observer on Earth, or according to the observer in the spacecraft ? In other words, you can only assume one, not both.

Rahul Mohan P said:
Observer-1 measures light source L1 moved a distance ‘a’ and light source L2 a distance ‘b’

In what length of time? You can't assume that observer-1's time is the same as observer-2's time, for the same reason you can't assume that the emissions are simultaneous for both observers. I assume you would pick observer-1's time here, but then you need to make sure you only draw deductions from it that are valid if observer-1's time and observer-2's time are not the same, since you can't assume they are the same.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rahul Mohan P
Ok then if observer-1 see the lights emit at the same time, then how will the observer-2 see the lights ? I mean for observer-2 which light is emitted first ?
 
Rahul Mohan P said:
Thank You for replying
But how ?
Google for "Einstein train simultaneity" and also look for some of the many threads here about relativity of simultaneity. Most of the "paradoxes" of special relativity are the result of overlooking relativity of simultaneity, incorrectly assuming that because two things happened at the same time according to one observer they necessarily happened at the same time for another observer.

I also notice that in your post you said
##t = t'\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}##.......Lorentz Transformation Equation
That is NOT the Lorentz transform equation, it is the time dilation formula derived from the Lorentz transforms and you have to be very careful not to misapply it.

If observer one says that something happened at position ##x## and time ##t## and you want to know the position and time (##x'## and ##t'##) at which it happened according to observer 2, you don't use the time dilation formula, you use:
##t'=\gamma(t-vx)##
##x'=\gamma(x-vt## where
##\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-v^2}##
These are the Lorentz transforms, and I'm measuring distances in light-seconds and time in seconds so that ##c## comes out equal to one and I don't have to worry about constantly dividing and multiplying it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rahul Mohan P
Rahul Mohan P said:
Ok then if observer-1 see the lights emit at the same time, then how will the observer-2 see the lights ? I mean for observer-2 which light is emitted first ?
I'll answer as a mathematician: apply the Lorentz transformation.
Let's take the two events: E1=lamp L1 emits light, E2=lamp L2 emits light.
Let's say that these event are simultaneous for the spacecraft , and occur at t=0.
The coordinates of these events in the frame of the spacecraft are: E1=##(0,x_1,y_1,z_1)##, E2=##(0,x_2,y_2,z_2)##.

In the frame of the earth, E1 will occur at ##t_1'=\gamma (0-\frac{v_xx_1+v_yy_1+v_zz_1)}{c²}##) and E2 at ##t_2'=\gamma (0-\frac{v_xx_2+v_yy_2+v_zz_2)}{c²}##) . You can see that there is no particular reason for the events to be simultaneous in the frame of the earth.
(##\gamma## being the Lorentz factor: ##\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v²}{c²}}}##, c the speed of light.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rahul Mohan P
Rahul Mohan P said:
Ok then if observer-1 see the lights emit at the same time, then how will the observer-2 see the lights ? I mean for observer-2 which light is emitted first ?

Let's say that the you are observer one inside the spaceship, and the according to you the two flashes are emitted at the same time.
One flash is emitted from point A: ##x=0##, ##t=0##.
One flash is emitted from point P: ##x=-L##, ##t=0## where ##L## is the distance between points P and A according to you.

Then plug these values into the Lorentz transformation (don't forget that according to you, the Earth and observer two are moving from right to left so ##v## is negative) to calculate the time and position at which these events happened according to observer two. Whichever ##t'## value comes out smaller... That's the one that happened first.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rahul Mohan P
Ok now understand what went wrong. I should be more careful taking assumptions.Thanks for the replies.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K