Measuring Lorentz Contraction: Is it Real or Just an Illusion?

[aachenmann]

What's the reason that objects shrink when they move?
Is Lorentz-contraction an illusion or is it real?
Is there any experiment that verify moving objects really shrink?

 

[1effect]

How to measure the length of moving object?
Is Lorentz-contraction an illusion or is it real?
Is there any experiment to verify moving objects really contract?

There are all kinds of experiments verifying the relativistic predictions. To date, there is no experiment for length contraction. Probably this is due to the extreme difficulties of staging such an experiment :-(

 

[pervect]

What's the reason that objects shrink when they move?
Is Lorentz-contraction an illusion or is it real?
Is there any experiment that verify moving objects really shrink?

There is no definite scientific answer to philosophical questions like "what is real, unfortunately.

If you focus on the measurements, however, there is no question that when you measure the length of a moving object, it gets shorter.

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

gets shorter?

There is no definite scientific answer to philosophical questions like "what is real, unfortunately.

If you focus on the measurements, however, there is no question that when you measure the length of a moving object, it gets shorter.

I think that depending on the measurement procedure (radar detection, photographic detection) the moving object gets longer or even does not change its measured length.

 

[Dale]

To date, there is no experiment for length contraction.

I disagree. Researchers designing experiments in particle accelerators always have to factor in length contraction when determining the behavior of a bunch of interacting particles. What better experimental evidence is there than successfully using a theory to design and operate a real device?

 

[Lojzek]

What's the reason that objects shrink when they move?
Is Lorentz-contraction an illusion or is it real?
Is there any experiment that verify moving objects really shrink?

Shinking is not an optical illusion, it really happens: if equal sized objects move fast, then you could fit more object into a certain space than in case of stationary objects. However this contraction does not cause any tension in the object, since the object did not shrank in it's own coordinate system (in the system where it moves the equilibrium distances between atoms and molecules have changed because the electromagnetic field of a charge depends on the speed).

Note: i would still not recommend solving the housing problems with Lorentz contraction, since the time dilation would cancel the benefit of Lorentz contraction.

 

[DaveC426913]

I disagree. Researchers designing experiments in particle accelerators always have to factor in length contraction when determining the behavior of a bunch of interacting particles. What better experimental evidence is there than successfully using a theory to design and operate a real device?

That's not length contraction though, that's time contraction. The lives of the particles before they decay is what's getting shorter. That translates to shorter trajectories, true, but that's not the same thing as contraction of a non-zero-length object's dimension.

 

[1effect]

I disagree. Researchers designing experiments in particle accelerators always have to factor in length contraction when determining the behavior of a bunch of interacting particles. What better experimental evidence is there than successfully using a theory to design and operate a real device?

See DaveC426913' s answer. There is no test for length contraction (to date)

 

[lbrits]

There are enormous consistency requirements, though. You could argue that a lot of experiments test Lorentz contraction indirectly.

As for a test of Lorentz contraction... If particle accelerators verify "time dilation", and the Michelson-Morely experiment verifies the constancy of c, then we had better have Lorentz contraction or else we'd be in pickle.

 

[the shadow]

Hi , everyone
I think that the length contraction is due to the Relativity of simultaneity .
To measure the length of an object we must know the space-time coordinates of the point of it's beginning and the point of it's end at the same moment and form this information we can measure the length .
In the case of a moving object the idea of at the same moment is not valid due to the Relativity of simultaneity .
So , the observed length is depending on the obsever himself .
For an observer who is in the frame of the moving object the idea of at the same moment is valid so , he measures the length of the object as the same length he'd measured before moving . But for an observer who is in a stationary frame outside the moving object the idea of at the same moment is not valid so , he measures the length of the object as shorter than the length he'd measured before moving .

 

[Ken G]

I think the problem with length contraction is that there really is no way to measure length, we only measure time. That's because a true length would connect two acausal events, so such a measurement would also have to be causally impossible. But we can measure proper times between events along the same world line, so we do that, and reconstruct an indirect concept of length. I feel that the concept of length in relativity (not classically) is entirely an arbitrary construct, but one with great unifying and explanatory power. If we make that construct, it has to Lorentz contract, but like pervect said, we can't tell if it's real. Even if we adopt the operational definition of "real" that says anything we measure directly is real, that still only applies to time intervals along our world line, not length intervals connecting world lines.

This may be a good place to introduce the "two rockets" puzzle. I apologize if that's been explored already, but the puzzle is, if you have two identical rockets one in front of the other (never mind the exhaust!), connected by a taut but weak flimsy rope, and if both rockets take off in the exact same way at the same time for a stationary observer left behind, does relativity say the rope will break? This speaks to the issue of under what conditions the concept of length contraction does or does not have physical consequences.

 

[aachenmann]

(in the system where it moves the equilibrium distances between atoms and molecules have changed because the electromagnetic field of a charge depends on the speed). .

Lorentz got the right equations, but his interpretations are very different from Einstein's. He believed atoms and molecules have changed because the electromagnetic field of a charge depends on the speed, but he could not explain time dilation using this scheme while Einstein could explain both effects without this nonsense

 

[DarKonion]

...
This may be a good place to introduce the "two rockets" puzzle. I apologize if that's been explored already, but the puzzle is, if you have two identical rockets one in front of the other (never mind the exhaust!), connected by a taut but weak flimsy rope, and if both rockets take off in the exact same way at the same time for a stationary observer left behind, does relativity say the rope will break? This speaks to the issue of under what conditions the concept of length contraction does or does not have physical consequences.

I believe the total mass (or length of mass along the axis of movement, of which I honestly forget the technical term) of both rockets AND the rope will shrink keeping the rope intact if you remove the rigors of spaceflight from the problem ^^

Just my opinion :P

 

[pmb_phy]

What's the reason that objects shrink when they move?

Basically it has to do with the non-synchronization of clocks between two different inertial frames and thus the non-simultaneous measurements of the position of the end points of an object.

Is Lorentz-contraction an illusion or is it real?

If by "real" you mean "can be measured" then yes, it is real.

Is there any experiment that verify moving objects really shrink?

Yes. Observe the electric field on a current carrying wire as measured from an inertial frame S' which is moving parallel to the wire relative to S, the frame in which the charge density is zero. In S' the charge density is non-zero. The charge density in that frame is thus non-zero and this is an indication of the relagive contractions of positive and negative charge densities.

Pete

 

[Dale]

That's not length contraction though, that's time contraction. The lives of the particles before they decay is what's getting shorter. That translates to shorter trajectories, true, but that's not the same thing as contraction of a non-zero-length object's dimension.

I am not talking about the lifetimes of unstable particles (which get longer, not shorter). I am talking about the distance between the front and back of a bunch of particles. This is called the "bunch length". If you know how many electrons are in a bunch and you know how close together they are in their rest frame then you know how much force they are exerting on each other due to electrostatic repulsion. You then know how strong your external field needs to be to keep them together. If you don't use length contraction you get the wrong answer and your bunch falls apart.

PS I am not a particle physicist, so I may be wrong about the bunch falling apart. It may be some other problem, but the basic point remains.

 

[DarKonion]

Perhaps this is simpler than we think... could it just be gravity? As the particles accellerate they compress due to the gravitational force being exerted upon the object? This would explain for any "shinking" and would also fit in with inertia in that the larger it is the harder it is for it to move... and shrink...

Just a thought.

 

[Jip]

Still...

Hi,
I have already read many stuff here, about the question of Lorentz contraction. My concern is not if it's real or not, but I'm still confused about contraction versus forces.

To be precise, imagine two parallel plates of (perfect) conductors. Then there's an attractive Casimir force between them scaling as (1/distance between plates)^4. Imagine now there are springs or anything that prevent the plates to schrink. And consider now these plates in a boosted frame (with velocity orthogonal to the plates). In that moving frame the plates are closer to each other by a factor gamma. So the force between them should be increased by a factor gamma^4, which can be enormous. Then, the spring should break, seen in this frame?

(I agree, obsviously, that in the proper frame the system is still at equilibrium, so nothing special should be seen also in the moving frame). But how, precisely, does it come, that's the question? How to solve the paradox?

Ok maybe you can say, redo the computation of Casimir force in a moving frame, which maybe is not an obvious task. But the argument (or more properly the paradox) also apply force any kind of forces. (for instance the gravitational force betwenn the plates, scaling as 1/L^2, "Newtonianly" speaking).

Any ideas? Thanks a lot.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Common question. AFAIK there is now way to divorce length contraction from time dilation in an experiment. Yes we can see that certain particles at high velocity should decay before they reach the Earth's surface, but they don't, thus time dilation is somewhat proven. But how do you say that it's also due to length contraction or matter contraction or however you want to spin it, and how do you measure that independently of time dilation?

And the above question is only answerable in field theory I think, and I'm afraid I'm not qualified to say why. But I can say that Newtonian mechanics are not really useful in that particular experiment, you would want if anything general relativity to be precise, and then you get into all sorts of problems with the equations, because of the infinities involved I think, if I'm not too far off the beaten track. Just chiming into see if any experts have an opinion.

 

[Mentz114]

Hi Jip,

your question about the Casimir force is interesting, but I believe your conclusion is incorrect. It is true that from a moving frame the gap between the plates will appear different, but this will be compensated by a change in the spectrum of the canceled vacuum modes. So all observers will measure the same force.

I could be wrong about this - perhaps someone will check.

M

 

[MeJennifer]

What's the reason that objects shrink when they move?
Is Lorentz-contraction an illusion or is it real?
Is there any experiment that verify moving objects really shrink?

It is not just objects.

Suppose A and B are 1 light year away and at rest with respect to each other. Then a traveler from A to B will always travel less than one light year. If he travels very slowly it will be only very slightly less than one light year but if he travels very fast the distance will be much shorter. The more the traveler accelerates towards B the more the distance will shrink.

 

[JinChang]

First time post under the new screen name (forgot the old one).

Isn't length contraction simply a function of time dilation when viewing the result from the Space-Time perspective? Also, for the object in motion, it would appear normal, wouldn't it? It's just from the perspective of another inertial reference frame that the "moving" object will appear to have contracted in length. Am I missing something?

 

[DarKonion]

First time post under the new screen name (forgot the old one).

Isn't length contraction simply a function of time dilation when viewing the result from the Space-Time perspective? Also, for the object in motion, it would appear normal, wouldn't it? It's just from the perspective of another inertial reference frame that the "moving" object will appear to have contracted in length. Am I missing something?

Nothing at all... they are going back and forth over a simple issue... there is no contraction... its fundamentally unreal... its as you said: the opinionated view of the looker in that if they stand still, it looks normal... if you are moving with the object it looks to contract... its a mirage... ^^ the only true contraction that is going on is that of the matter in front of the object (such as air) as it moves and pushes it aside :P

 

[1effect]

First time post under the new screen name (forgot the old one).

Isn't length contraction simply a function of time dilation when viewing the result from the Space-Time perspective?

Not exactly. The "contraction" is a function of the clock synchronization scheme and of the method of marking both ends of the object. If one marks both ends of the object simultaneously as viewed in the reference frame of the observer and if one uses Einstein clock synchronization (Lorentz transforms) then one obtains the known length contraction by \frac{1}{\gamma}
If the observer still uses the Lorentz transforms bit marks the object's ends simultaneously as viewed in the object frame then one gets a length dilation by the factor \gamma.

Also, for the object in motion, it would appear normal, wouldn't it?

There is no length change in the proper frame, correct.

It's just from the perspective of another inertial reference frame that the "moving" object will appear to have contracted in length. Am I missing something?

Correct. This (and the smallness of the effects) is what makes any experimental confirmation so difficult.

 

[Normouse]

This argument, very interesting, but seems to go back to the idea discussed by a particularly astute "threader", can't remember his/her name. Very nice to think about those effects but we scientists are really setting up our ideas in a way that they must fit observations. Not to say that those considerations are not important or fascinating but isn't it true that for our world to trully work precisely there must be a real measurable Lorentz contraction otherwise things would fall apart. I think the mathematicians say "let the length of all objects contract in the direction of motion by x amount" and then they go on to show what needs to be shown.

 

[rbj]

I am not talking about the lifetimes of unstable particles (which get longer, not shorter). I am talking about the distance between the front and back of a bunch of particles. This is called the "bunch length".

you know, it wasn't just that. i thought that this mu-meson decay experiment has been cited as experimental evidence of time-dilation (from our POV) or length contraction from the POV of the mu-meson. the mineshaft looks shorter to the mu-meson than it looks to us.

 

[matheinste]

Hello all.

To quote from Rindler's much referred to book, Special Relativity,

"""Although Relativity offers no detailed explanation in terme of cohesive forces or the like, yet it predicts the contraction phenomenon as inevitable. ------ It must be stressed that the phenomenon is not to be regarded as illusory, due perhaps to some peculiarity in our method of measurement: relative to a given frame it is real in every possible sense. But for practical difficulties involved, the following experiment, for example, could demonstrate the existence of length-contraction. """"

He then goes on to describe such an experiment but as it involves a diagram albeit very simple i do not know how to draw it in this format.

Other respected authors make the same point quite strongly. They mostly stress that that whatever "real" may mean, the effect is certainly not a mere optical illusion.

Of course in a frame in which one is at rest nothing happens to the measured length of an object.

Before you disagrre with the reality of length contraction you must be clear about what you mean by real. But length contraction is not a question of optical perspective or physical forces acing on a moving (un accelerated ) object.

A point often missed is that the length of an object moving relative to another frame must be done by measuring both ends of the object at the same time and so simultaneity does have some bearing.

Matheinste.

Matheinste.

 

[1effect]

A point often missed is that the length of an object moving relative to another frame must be done by measuring both ends of the object at the same time and so simultaneity does

Yes, this point has been made.
:-)

 

[matheinste]

Hello 1effect.

Sorry i missed the previous reference to this but it does no harm to emphasize it.

Metheinste.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Hi Jip,

your question about the Casimir force is interesting, but I believe your conclusion is incorrect. It is true that from a moving frame the gap between the plates will appear different, but this will be compensated by a change in the spectrum of the canceled vacuum modes. So all observers will measure the same force.

I could be wrong about this - perhaps someone will check.

M

And why is there even an issue? Very simple perspective question, that doesn't involve QFT, Is one frame accelerating in relation to another in a way that we need to account for? Is there a difference of relative speed? The only condition I'd bother with here is GR, is the effect stronger than GR would indicate if it was just gravity? The answer AFAIK is yes. The question then becomes what is causing it, then you have field theory, which is already consistent with SR, no need to invent problems that don't exist I think. Although as you say I could be wrong too, and frequently am.

Simple answer is, the question is meaningless or at least not relevant to the experiment.

Unless of course you're doing the experiment on a jet plane or something and even then I don't get the problem here?

Maybe the questioner is being a little naive and is assuming that the contraction is not a space/time one, and therefore the object literally gets contracted more than the rest and thus it could physically snap, instead of the space/time being contracted, in that objects frame of reference?

If that is the case again the question surely becomes meaningless?

 

[aachenmann]

Shrinking is not an optical illusion, it really happens: if equal sized objects move fast, then you could fit more object into a certain space than in case of stationary objects. However this contraction does not cause any tension in the object, since the object did not shrank in it's own coordinate system (in the system where it moves the equilibrium distances between atoms and molecules have changed because the electromagnetic field of a charge depends on the speed).

Lorentz got the right equations for the so-called Lorentz-transformation in special relativity, but his interpretations are very different from Einstein's. He believed atoms and molecules have changed because the electromagnetic field of a charge depends on the speed, but he could not explain time dilation while Einstein could explain both effects using SR without that kind of nonsense