I Please explain how length contraction and time dilation result in a constant c

Amin2014
Messages
114
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
moving car, light speed
if light pulse is to the right, but moving car's velocity is to the left, we would expect c-v, but we get c instead which is greater.
but if light pulse is to the right, and moving car's velocity is also to the right, we would expect c+v, but we get c instead which is smaller.
how could the same length contraction and time dilation explain both larger and smaller than expected results?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have forgotten the relativity of simultaneity, which is less popularised than length contraction and time dilation, but probably more important. And, critically, the sign of the synchronization difference depends on direction, which is how you get different answers for things travelling in the ##\pm x## directions.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaime Rudas, FactChecker and Dale
Restricting to relative-motion in 1 spatial dimension…
light pulses involve the Doppler effect, which are direction-dependent (since the Doppler factor k depends on the sign of relative-velocity),
whereas length-contraction and time-dilation do not depend on direction since \gamma is an even-function of relative-velocity.

Using light-pulses to explain length-contraction and time-dilation isn’t as simple as you how describe. You need radar (light pulses, there and back).
 
As a general point, when starting out with relativity I'd advise you to forget about length contraction and time dilation. They are special cases of the more general Lorentz transforms, and it's very easy to try to understand things in terms of them when it is inappropriate to do so. The general recipe for relativity problems is to write down the coordinates of one or more events in one frame, then transform to the other frame. Then try to understand the other frame's description.

So, for the sake of argument, suppose we emit two light pulses in opposite directions from ##x=0## at time ##t=0## and they hit targets, stationary in the lab frame, one light second away one second later. We have three events of interest - ##(x,t)=(0,0)##, ##(1,1)## and ##(-1,1)##. What does this look like in a frame moving at speed ##v## in the ##+x## direction? Plug the coordinates into the Lorentz transforms$$\begin{eqnarray*}
x'&=&\gamma(x-vt)\\
t'&=&\gamma\left(t-\frac{v}{c^2}x\right)\\
\gamma&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}
\end{eqnarray*}$$and you will find that the coordinates in this frame are ##(x',t')=(0,0)##, ##(\gamma(1-\beta),\gamma(1-\beta))##, and ##(\gamma(1+\beta),-\gamma(1+\beta))## where ##\beta=v/c##, and ##c=1## in these units.

Notice that both light pulses must have travelled at ##c## for the distance travelled (##\gamma(1\pm\beta)##) to equal the time taken in these ##c=1## units. But note that the two light pulses didn't move the same distance as each other (because the targets are moving in the ##-x## direction in this frame) and didn't take the same time as each other - this is the relativity of simultaneity at work.
 
Last edited:
You might want to look at the relativistic velocity addition formula, which combines the effects of relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and dilation for this sort of problem. This formula tells us the speed ##w## of something relative to you if it is moving at speed ##u## relative to me and I am moving at speed ##v## relative to you: ##w=\frac{u+v}{1+uv/c^2}## and replaces the classical ##w=u+v##.

Using a frame in which I am rest, we have a flash of light moving to the left with speed ##-c## and another one moving to the right at speed ##+c##. You are moving at speed ##v## to the right relative to me. The velocity addition formula tells us that the speed of the right-moving flash relative to you is ##\frac{c+v}{1+vc/c^2}=c## and similarly the speed of the left-moving flash relative to you is ##-c##.

However, the best way of understanding this stuff is to go back to the Lorentz transformations which underlie all of the other formulas. Here what you will do is…. Read @Ibix’s post above which landed while I was still writing this.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
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...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
5K
Replies
54
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
331
Back
Top