I Question about length contraction

Nathan123
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I have seen in SR that regular time and regular distance is equal to slower time and less distance because of length contraction.
Say a person on Earth sees a ship moving towards it. This reference frame has regular time and regular length and it views the ship's reference frame as having slower time and less distance because the ship sees everything moving so the distance is contacted.

My issue with this is that for the ship's reference frame, it is the opposite. The ship's reference frame has regular time and less distance because it sees everything moving so distance is contracted and it views the Earth's reference frame as having slower time and regular distance.

So what is the point of converging time and distance for the Earth reference frame when for the ship it is the exact opposite?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nathan123 said:
My issue with this is that for the ship's reference frame, it is the opposite. The ship's reference frame has regular time and less distance because it sees everything moving so distance is contracted and it views the Earth's reference frame as having slower time and regular distance.
This is not correct. The point of the principle of relativity is that you may always regard yourself at rest - so the spaceship also measures the Earth's clocks and rulers as ticking slowly and contracted because it regards the Earth as moving. The situation is symmetric. If that seems paradoxical look up the relativity of simultaneity.
Nathan123 said:
So what is the point of converging time and distance for the Earth reference frame when for the ship it is the exact opposite?
"Converging" is not a term I recognise in this context. But generally there isn't a point to this kind of thing. It's just the way things are.
 
Ibix said:
This is not correct. The point of the principle of relativity is that you may always regard yourself at rest - so the spaceship also measures the Earth's clocks and rulers as ticking slowly and contracted because it regards the Earth as moving.
That is not true for length contraction. Length contraction is for moving things. The space ship's reference frame always has distance between ship and Earth contracted because it sees everything moving towards it. The Earth only sees the ship moving so it never has distance contraction between ship and earth
 
Nathan123 said:
That is not true for length contraction. Length contraction is for moving things. The space ship's reference frame always has distance between ship and Earth contracted because it sees everything moving towards it. The Earth only sees the ship moving so it never has distance contraction between ship and earth
All rulers are length contracted when viewed from a frame in which they are moving. The distance from Earth to some point fixed with respect to the Earth is defined by rulers at rest with respect to the Earth, so it is length contracted when viewed from the ship. The same can be said (in reverse) of a distance measured from the ship to a point fixed with respect to the ship.

I think you are adopting the Earth's frame when measuring the distance from the Earth to the ship, and not realising that you can adopt the ship's frame to do it. The difference of opinion boils down to the relativity of simultaneity, as I said. I suggest writing down the coordinates of the Earth and ship at some chosen time in the Earth frame and transforming them into the ship frame. What do you notice about the time coordinates?
 
Nathan123 said:
That is not true for length contraction. Length contraction is for moving things.

There is no such thing as a "moving thing". All motion is relative. The ship is moving in the Earth's reference frame; and, the Earth is moving in the ship's reference frame.
 
Nathan123 said:
That is not true for length contraction. Length contraction is for moving things. The space ship's reference frame always has distance between ship and Earth contracted because it sees everything moving towards it. The Earth only sees the ship moving so it never has distance contraction between ship and earth
You are misunderstanding how length contraction works, almost certainly because you are overlooking the relativity of simultaneity.

To get rid of the confusion, we have to be more precise about exactly which distances we're talking about. Suppose that we could attach a kilometer long ruler to the ship and another one to the earth, pointing towards one another. As the ship flies towards the Earth the ship is lined up with the end of the Earth ruler; using the frame in which the Earth and its ruler are at rest we will say that the distance between the ship and the Earth is one kilometer Because of length contraction, the ship's ruler will be less than one kilometer long so its tip will not yet have reached the earth; if the relative speed between ship and Earth is .6c the tip of the ship ruler will line up with the 200 meter mark on the Earth ruler and we will say that at the same time that the ship is one kilometer from Earth the tip of the ship ruler is 200 meters from the earth. Clearly this result is consistent with the ship ruler being length-contracted by a factor of .8 while the Earth ruler is not length-contracted.

Now let's consider the situation using the frame in which the ship is at rest and the Earth is moving towards the ship. At the same time that the ship is lined up with the tip of the Earth ruler the end of the ship ruler is not lined with the 200 meter mark on the Earth ruler. That is, the two events "ship lines up with tip of Earth ruler" and "tip of ship ruler lines up with 200 meter mark on Earth ruler" are happen at the same time using the frame in which the Earth is at rest, but do not happen at the same time using the frame in which the ship is at rest. This is the relativity of simultaneity - "at the same time" is different in different frames - which is essential for making sense of relativity. In fact, using the frame in which the ship is at rest, at the same time that the ship lines up with the tip of the Earth ruler the tip of the ship ruler is sticking out 200 meters past the far end of the Earth ruler, and the end of the Earth ruler lines up with the 800 meter mark on the ship ruler. This result is consistent with the Earth ruler being length-contracted by a factor of .8 while the ship ruler is not length-contracted.

The situation is completely symmetrical and both descriptions are equally correct. Which one you prefer depends on whether you prefer to think of the ship at rest while the Earth moves towards it, or the Earth at rest while the ship moves toward it.
 
PeroK said:
There is no such thing as a "moving thing". All motion is relative. The ship is moving in the Earth's reference frame; and, the Earth is moving in the ship's reference frame.
That is not true. Each reference frame is at rest for itself. It then looks out and sees things moving around. Sometimes it sees not just things moving around but it sees everything moving. Try looking out your car window, you will see everything moving toward you. In any case, whatever you view moving will be contracted.
 
Nugatory said:
You are misunderstanding how length contraction works, almost certainly because you are overlooking the relativity of simultaneity.

To get rid of the confusion, we have to be more precise about exactly which distances we're talking about. Suppose that we could attach a kilometer long ruler to the ship and another one to the earth, pointing towards one another. As the ship flies towards the Earth the ship is lined up with the end of the Earth ruler; using the frame in which the Earth and its ruler are at rest we will say that the distance between the ship and the Earth is one kilometer Because of length contraction, the ship's ruler will be less than one kilometer long so its tip will not yet have reached the earth; if the relative speed between ship and Earth is .6c the tip of the ship ruler will line up with the 200 meter mark on the Earth ruler and we will say that at the same time that the ship is one kilometer from Earth the tip of the ship ruler is 200 meters from the earth. Clearly this result is consistent with the ship ruler being length-contracted by a factor of .8 while the Earth ruler is not length-contracted.

This much I was able to follow. Let me try to present the situation clearly and explain what is bothering me. I will ignore the length contraction of the ship itself because it is not significant to the issue I am having.

Note that every situation has 4 calculations:
1. My perspective (regular time for me).
2. My perspective of a different reference frame (whereby its time is slower for me).
3. The other person's reference frame (regular time for him).
4.The other person's perspective of my reference frame (whereby my time is slower for him).


1. I sit on Earth and see a ship coming towards Earth really fast. It is say 1 million miles away (regular distance). Yes, the ship is contracted, but I am interested in how long it will take to get here. So the ship's contraction is fairly meaningless. The main point is the distance between me and the ship (that is very far away) and the speed. So let's say it will get to Earth in 1 year. In my reference frame, there is no time dilation and no distance contraction of the space between me and the ship.
2. Now I compare the ship's reference frame to mine. I calculate that it will reach Earth from that perspective at the same time as the previous calculation. Even though it takes 1 year to get here and that reference frame's time is slower than mine, that reference frame's distance is also less because it sees the whole space as moving. So regular time/regular distance = slower time/shorter distance.

The problem comes with the third and fourth calculation that everyone seems to ignore.

3. The person on the ship does not have slower time for himself. He only has slower time for me. For himself, he has regular time. But he still sees everything coming towards him, so there is distance contraction for him regardless. This perspective has the best of everything to get to Earth fast. It has regular time and also has distance contraction. So in this perspective, the ship will get here faster than 1 year since it not only has regular time but also distance contraction.
4. When the guy on the ship compares my perspective to his, I have slower time but no distance contraction. So this calculation has the ship taking longer than 1 year to get here.

So it's nice to align things from my perspective and say that regular time/regular length = slower time/shorter length. But this does not work for the guy on the ship. He will have regular time and shorter distance and he will view that I have slower time and regular distance.

I think the whole issue revolves around the point I am making that each situation has 4 calculations not 2. Everyone seems to ignore 3 and 4, and that is where the problem lies.
 
There is no contradiction. Your points 3 and 4 are superfluous. 1 and 2 are connected by a Lorentz transformation. I've attached two space time diagrams. The 'regular' frames of the two receeding onjects is plotted. The ticks on the worldlines are the clock ticks. Note that the ticks are spaced wider on the tilted worldline.
 

Attachments

  • srImage1.png
    srImage1.png
    1.5 KB · Views: 399
  • srImage2.png
    srImage2.png
    1.5 KB · Views: 418
  • #10
Mentz114 said:
There is no contradiction. Your points 3 and 4 are superfluous. .

My whole issue arises from calculation 3 and 4. My whole point is that it is not superfluous. So saying it's superfluous does not answer my question, when I am trying very hard to show that it is not superfluous.
 
  • #11
Nathan123 said:
My whole issue arises from calculation 3 and 4. My whole point is that it is not superfluous. So saying it's superfluous does not answer my question, when I am trying very hard to show that it is not superfluous.
If you swap 'My' with 'the other persons' they are the same - which is what the LT does - as the diagram shows.
 
  • #12
Nathan123 said:
That is not true.

You didn't make any case that I can see for @Nugatory 's post being incorrect. Its not at all clear to me which of your comments you believe contradict his post.
 
  • #13
Grinkle said:
You didn't make any case that I can see for @Nugatory 's post being incorrect. Its not at all clear to me which of your comments you believe contradict his post.
He said there is no such thing as a moving thing. There sure is. You are not moving in your own perspective, but other things are, and those other things are length contracted.
 
  • #14
Nathan123 said:
My whole issue

Is your issue:

You don't understand how clocks synch up when two frames finally come to rest with each other
If so, read this - https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/geometrical-view-time-dilation-twin-paradox/

You don't believe its possible for two observers to both see each other's clocks running more slowly than their own clock
If so, not sure where to point you - there are numerous summaries of SR to look at.
 
  • #15
Nathan123 said:
He said there is no such thing as a moving thing. There sure is.

When you say there is, you are implicitly assuming the existence of a preferred "at rest" frame against which something can be judged to be moving.

A statement as to whether an object is moving or at rest is only valid in the context of a specific reference frame, it is not valid in any absolute frame-free context.
 
  • #16
Mentz114 said:
If you swap 'My' with 'the other persons' they are the same - which is what the LT does - as the diagram shows.
They are not the same.
I pointed out that length contraction is always for the ship's perspective, since it sees everything moving.
Time dilation is only for the other perspective compared to mine, but not for his for himself.
So:
1. Earth guy for himself. No time dilation. No length contraction.
2. Earth guy's view of ship. Yes time dilation. Yes length contraction.
3. Ship guy for himself. No time dilation. Yes length contraction.
4. Ship guy's view of earth. Yes time dilation. No length contraction.

You can see that 1 and 2 are not equivalent to 3 and 4.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Grinkle said:
When you say there is, you are implicitly assuming the existence of a preferred "at rest" frame against which something can be judged to be moving.

A statement as to whether an object is moving or at rest is only valid in the context of a specific reference frame, it is not valid in any absolute frame-free context.
No I am not assuming anything. I just said that whoever sees something moving will see it contracted. Nothing to argue about on this.
 
  • #18
Nathan123 said:
I am not assuming anything

If you don't comprehend that a claim "there is such a thing as a moving object" implicitly assumes a preferred frame, it is not possible to progress further in understanding SR.
 
  • #19
Grinkle said:
Is your issue:

You don't understand how clocks synch up when two frames finally come to rest with each other
If so, read this - https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/geometrical-view-time-dilation-twin-paradox/

You don't believe its possible for two observers to both see each other's clocks running more slowly than their own clock
If so, not sure where to point you - there are numerous summaries of SR to look at.
I don't think what you are saying is my issue at all.
I am showing 4 calculations.
1. Mine
2, His compared to mine.
3. His for himself.
4. Mine compared to his (for him).
I show how 1 and 2 are opposite of 3 and 4.
Since I saw an explanation of length contraction to explain how 1 and 2 coincide, I am bothered by that 3 and 4 do not coincide.
 
  • #20
Nathan123 said:
I don't think what you are saying is my issue at all.

Fair enough - maybe I just don't understand what you are saying. Seems like a twin paradox question to me, but I could be wrong.

In any case, reading the twin paradox article wouldn't be a waste of time!
 
  • #21
Grinkle said:
If you don't comprehend that a claim "there is such a thing as a moving object" implicitly assumes a preferred frame, it is not possible to progress further in understanding SR.
In my original post, I specifically said that the ship sees everything moving so the distance is contacted. I was clearly speaking from it's reference frame seeing everything move.
 
  • #22
Grinkle said:
Fair enough - maybe I just don't understand what you are saying. Seems like a twin paradox question to me, but I could be wrong.

In any case, reading the twin paradox article wouldn't be a waste of time!

This isn't the twin paradox. Since I saw that distance contraction counteracts time dilation to coincide nicely, I am bothered that it does not coincide from the perspective of the guy on the ship.
 
  • #23
Nathan123 said:
the ship sees everything moving

I agree with the above (except for unimportant exceptions of things that are co-moving with the ship), and I contend it is different and much less strong a claim than saying "there is such a thing as a moving object".

I think you would agree that for any object that is moving in the frame of the ship, I can pick a frame for which the object is at rest, and there is no absolute frame to resolve the discrepancy - both are valid claims in the context of the right reference frame.
 
  • #24
Grinkle said:
I agree with the above (except for unimportant exceptions of things that are co-moving with the ship), and I contend it is different and much less strong a claim than saying "there is such a thing as a moving object".

I think you would agree that for any object that is moving in the frame of the ship, I can pick a frame for which the object is at rest, and there is no absolute frame to resolve the discrepancy - both are valid claims in the context of the right reference frame.

I don't think we disagree about relative movement. I was trying to point out that the ship will always see "everything" moving, so it will always have distance contraction in that perspective.

Time dilation works differently. It only applies to my comparison of your reference to mine (2 and 4). It does not apply to mine for myself or yours for yourself (1 and 3). Length contraction applies to your reference whether it's you for yourself or mine to yours (2 and 3). That is why 1 and 2 coincide, while 3 and 4 diverge. And that is what I am bothered about.
 
  • #25
Nathan123 said:
They are not the same.
I pointed out that length contraction is always for the ship's perspective, since it sees everything moving.
Time dilation is only for the other perspective compared to mine, but not for his for himself.
So:
1. Earth guy for himself. No time dilation. No length contraction.
2. Earth guy's view of ship. Yes time dilation. Yes length contraction.
3. Ship guy for himself. No time dilation. Yes length contraction.
4. Ship guy's view of earth. Yes time dilation. No length contraction.

You can see that 1 and 2 are not equivalent to 3 and 4.
Length contraction and time dilation are frame dependent illusions caused by loss of simultaneity.
Every clock runs at 1 sec per sec and everyone is at rest in their own coordinates. Lengths do not change.

The LT and proper time are the only useful things.
 
  • #26
Mentz114 said:
Length contraction and time dilation are frame dependent illusions caused by loss of simultaneity.
Every clock runs at 1 sec per sec and everyone is at rest in their own coordinates. Lengths do not change.
.
Time dilation and length contraction are frame dependent in different ways, which is the basis of my issue.
 
  • #27
Nathan123 said:
Time dilation and length contraction are frame dependent in different ways, which is the basis of my issue.
Why should they be the same ?

On the ST diagram each observer sees the other clock apparently running slower in a symmetric way but the number of ticks remains the same.
Length contraction is a comparison between measuring both ends simultaneously and non-simultaneously. It has no physical significance.
 
  • #28
Nathan123 said:
This much I was able to follow. Let me try to present the situation clearly and explain what is bothering me. I will ignore the length contraction of the ship itself because it is not significant to the issue I am having.

Note that every situation has 4 calculations:
1. My perspective (regular time for me).
2. My perspective of a different reference frame (whereby its time is slower for me).
3. The other person's reference frame (regular time for him).
4.The other person's perspective of my reference frame (whereby my time is slower for him).


1. I sit on Earth and see a ship coming towards Earth really fast. It is say 1 million miles away (regular distance). Yes, the ship is contracted, but I am interested in how long it will take to get here. So the ship's contraction is fairly meaningless. The main point is the distance between me and the ship (that is very far away) and the speed. So let's say it will get to Earth in 1 year.
1,000,000 miles in one year only works out to be ~114 mph, fast for a car maybe, but hardly a relativistic speed
In my reference frame, there is no time dilation and no distance contraction of the space between me and the ship.
In other words, you are using your own clock and the 1,000,000 miles is as measured by your measuring stick.
2. Now I compare the ship's reference frame to mine. I calculate that it will reach Earth from that perspective at the same time as the previous calculation. Even though it takes 1 year to get here and that reference frame's time is slower than mine, that reference frame's distance is also less because it sees the whole space as moving. So regular time/regular distance = slower time/shorter distance.
[I'm not even sure why you are even bringing distance into this. The ship took 1 yer to reach you by your clock, and the ship clock, having run slow, during that time ticked off less than a year. The slower time/shorter distance bit is invalid because you are trying to divide something measured in one frame by something measured in another. This is called "frame mixing" and is a no-no.
The problem comes with the third and fourth calculation that everyone seems to ignore.

3. The person on the ship does not have slower time for himself. He only has slower time for me. For himself, he has regular time. But he still sees everything coming towards him, so there is distance contraction for him regardless. This perspective has the best of everything to get to Earth fast. It has regular time and also has distance contraction. So in this perspective, the ship will get here faster than 1 year since it not only has regular time but also distance contraction.
the ship frame measures the distance and time by his own measuring stick/clock. He measures the distance as shorter than 1,000,000 miles, so he naturally measures the trip as taking less than 1 year by his own clock.
4. When the guy on the ship compares my perspective to his, I have slower time but no distance contraction. So this calculation has the ship taking longer than 1 year to get here.
Your clock will run slow compared to the ship clock as measured from the ship, thus the ship will measure your clock as having advanced even less than his during the trip. I don't no where you got the longer than a year from.[/quote]

So it's nice to align things from my perspective and say that regular time/regular length = slower time/shorter length. But this does not work for the guy on the ship. He will have regular time and shorter distance and he will view that I have slower time and regular distance.

I think the whole issue revolves around the point I am making that each situation has 4 calculations not 2. Everyone seems to ignore 3 and 4, and that is where the problem lies.[/QUOTE]

No one is ignoring anything.
What you are missing is the relativity of simultaneity. If we assume that your clock starts at 0 when the ship is exactly 1,000,000 miles away. And the ship clock reads zero as it passes that point (assume we have a buoy sitting out 1,000,000 miles from Earth as measured from the Earth and the ship clock reads 0 when it passes it), then:
According to you, the ship clock starts reading zero when your clock reads zero, and as the ship travels between the buoy and yourself, your clock advances by 1 year and the ship clock advances by less than 1 year. Thus your clock will read 1 year and the ship clock will read less than 1 year when you meet.
According to the ship, its clock reads 0 when it passes the buoy, which is less than 1,000,000 miles from you. However, your clock will not read 0 at that moment, but some time after 0, due to the relativity of simultaneity. The ship clock advances less than one year and reads less than 1 year when it meets up with you. Your clock advance even less than that, but because it started out some time past 0 when you passed the buoy, that time plus the time is advanced will equal 1 year and your clock will read 1 yr while the ship clock reads less than 1 year when the ship and you meet up. The same conclusion you came to.
 
  • #29
Janus said:
[I'm not even sure why you are even bringing distance into this. The ship took 1 yer to reach you by your clock, and the ship clock, having run slow, during that time ticked off less than a year. The slower time/shorter distance bit is invalid because you are trying to divide something measured in one frame by something measured in another. This is called "frame mixing" and is a no-no. the ship frame measures the distance and time by his own measuring stick/clock. He measures the distance as shorter than 1,000,000 miles, so he naturally measures the trip as taking less than 1 year by his own clock. Your clock will run slow compared to the ship clock as measured from the ship, thus the ship will measure your clock as having advanced even less than his during the trip. I don't no where you got the longer than a year from.

What you are missing is the relativity of simultaneity. If we assume that your clock starts at 0 when the ship is exactly 1,000,000 miles away. And the ship clock reads zero as it passes that point (assume we have a buoy sitting out 1,000,000 miles from Earth as measured from the Earth and the ship clock reads 0 when it passes it), then:
According to you, the ship clock starts reading zero when your clock reads zero, and as the ship travels between the buoy and yourself, your clock advances by 1 year and the ship clock advances by less than 1 year. Thus your clock will read 1 year and the ship clock will read less than 1 year when you meet.
According to the ship, its clock reads 0 when it passes the buoy, which is less than 1,000,000 miles from you. However, your clock will not read 0 at that moment, but some time after 0, due to the relativity of simultaneity. The ship clock advances less than one year and reads less than 1 year when it meets up with you. Your clock advance even less than that, but because it started out some time past 0 when you passed the buoy, that time plus the time is advanced will equal 1 year and your clock will read 1 yr while the ship clock reads less than 1 year when the ship and you meet up. The same conclusion you came to.

When I wrote slower time/shorter distance I wasn't dividing. let me rephrase.
[No time dilation and regular distance] is equivalent to [yes time dilation and distance contraction]. The point here is that from my perspective, whether I calculate for myself or whether I calculate for the ship's frame of reference in relation to mine, the end result is the same. The ship will reach Earth simultaneously for both calculations because the slower time (not a whole year passed) is offset by the shorter distance.

Note, I am not trying to be smug and argue. I am trying to understand. I will be more than happy when I see what I am missing. So far, I have not found it. But perhaps with your last paragraph, I will.

I have been making the point that calculation 3 and 4 do not coincide as do 1 and 2, but they actually diverge.

Let's try to clarify this.

When the ship reaches Earth from its own perspective, less than 1 year have passed, because of distance contraction.
When the ship calculates my perspective, I am saying that less time has passed (so it didn't go as far) and it has more distance to go because it doesn't have length contraction.
So whereas 1 and 2 (mine for me, his for me) reach Earth simultaneously, 3 & 4 (his for him, mine for him) do not.

This is not the same as relatively of simultaneity which states that my frame for me and your frame for me don't always align.
 
  • #30
Nathan123 said:
I don't think we disagree about relative movement. I was trying to point out that the ship will always see "everything" moving, so it will always have distance contraction in that perspective.

Time dilation works differently. It only applies to my comparison of your reference to mine (2 and 4). It does not apply to mine for myself or yours for yourself (1 and 3). Length contraction applies to your reference whether it's you for yourself or mine to yours (2 and 3). That is why 1 and 2 coincide, while 3 and 4 diverge. And that is what I am bothered about.

Nathan123, I think the question you are posing is identical to the famous one about the dilemma of the relativistic muons. The link goes to an examination of this question comparing the different frames of reference.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html
 
  • #31
Nathan123 said:
I am not trying to be smug and argue. I am trying to understand.

Then do the math. You are confusing yourself because you are trying to reason using vague ordinary language instead of precise math. You need to stop doing that.

Nathan123 said:
This is not the same as relatively of simultaneity which states that my frame for me and your frame for me don't always align.

That's not what relativity of simultaneity says. Do the math. Explicitly write down coordinates in one frame for all events of interest. Then use the Lorentz transformation to obtain coordinates for the same events in the other frame. Then look at the coordinates in the two frames to see how time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity actually work.
 
  • #32
PeterDonis said:
Then do the math. You are confusing yourself because you are trying to reason using vague ordinary language instead of precise math. You need to stop doing that.
That's not what relativity of simultaneity says. Do the math. Explicitly write down coordinates in one frame for all events of interest. Then use the Lorentz transformation to obtain coordinates for the same events in the other frame. Then look at the coordinates in the two frames to see how time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity actually work.
I don't have the background to do the math. I am a novice trying to understand to the best of my ability. I am using common terms to try and keep it simple.
 
  • #33
Nathan123 said:
I don't have the background to do the math.

Then you don't have the background to analyze the scenario you're posing correctly. The math is really not that difficult; taking the time to learn it will be a more productive use of your time than trying to reason about this using vague ordinary language.

The short answer to the questions you are posing is that you cannot just look at length contraction or time dilation in isolation. A correct analysis requires taking into account length contraction, time dilation, and relativity of simultaneity. Leaving out anyone of those three will mislead you. And trying to take all three of those things into account correctly without using math is going to be a lot harder than just learning the math so you can use it.
 
  • Like
Likes SiennaTheGr8
  • #34
Nathan123 said:
So it's nice to align things from my perspective and say that regular time/regular length = slower time/shorter length. But this does not work for the guy on the ship. He will have regular time and shorter distance and he will view that I have slower time and regular distance.
You are still failing to consider relativity of simultaneity in your steps 3 and 4. When you correct this mistake you will find that both frames work properly and symmetrically.

Using the Earth frame: When the ship is lined up with the end of the Earth ruler, it is one kilometer away from the Earth and the ship moves through that distance to reach the Earth in time ##(1 km)/.6c## seconds according to "regular time" on earth.

Using the ship frame: When the ship is lined up with the end of the Earth ruler, the Earth is .8 kilometers away from the ship and the Earth moves through that distance to reach the ship in ##(.8 km)/.6c## seconds according to a "regular time" on the ship.
This is not the same as relatively of simultaneity which states that my frame for me and your frame for me don't always align.
It is not the same as relativity of simultaneiity, but relativity of simultaneity is essential to understanding this problem. The best way to do this is to do as @PeterDonis suggests above and do the math (when you do, you will see why I chose ##v=.6c## - that value makes the arithmetic particularly easy, which is how I was able to do the 200 meter and 800 meter calculations above in my head).

But before you do that, I can point you to the reason why the relativity of simultaneity matters: You are starting from the correct statement that the point that is one kilometer from Earth in the Earth frame is 800 meters from Earth in the ship frame and assuming (whether you realize it or not), that at the moment in the Earth frame that the ship and the Earth are one kilometer apart they will be 800 meters apart in the ship frame. They aren't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis
  • #35
Nugatory said:
You are still failing to consider relativity of simultaneity in your steps 3 and 4. When you correct this mistake you will find that both frames work properly and symmetrically.

Using the Earth frame: When the ship is lined up with the end of the Earth ruler, it is one kilometer away from the Earth and the ship moves through that distance to reach the Earth in time ##(1 km)/.6c## seconds according to "regular time" on earth.

Using the ship frame: When the ship is lined up with the end of the Earth ruler, the Earth is .8 kilometers away from the ship and the Earth moves through that distance to reach the ship in ##(.8 km)/.6c## seconds according to a "regular time" on the ship.

Something seems wrong here. If it is 1 km at .6c, then .8 km takes less time, not the same amount of time. It will be equivalent to .6c of the Earth's regular time, but it will take less of its own time, which happens to be slower.

In any case, we keep coming back to 1 and 2 when I am trying to understand 3 and 4. I am hearing that relativity of simultaneity is the answer (and I'm afraid it might get overused because it seems to answer everything). But I am not sure exactly where it comes into play here.

So let's try to stick to 3 and 4 and show me where relativity of simultaneity kicks in.

3. Man on ship sees regular time for himself, no time dilation. He also sees a shorter distance to earth.
4. He compares that to the other frame that has slower time and no distance contraction.


So if he gets there before his year is up because of distance contraction, the other person in his estimation will first take at least a year, because there is no distance contraction, and it will take even longer than that in comparison to him because the other person's clock runs slower.

please tell me where relativity of simultaneity kicks in here.

If the answer is just that it's ok that the simultaneity diverges for 3 and 4 even though it does not for 1 and 2, then just say so.

The reason why saying so bothers me is because it not the standard relativity of simultaneity that applies to 1 and 2 as well. Secondly, I often see 1 and 2 so neatly explained, ignoring that 3 and 4 diverge.
 
  • #36
bahamagreen said:
Nathan123, I think the question you are posing is identical to the famous one about the dilemma of the relativistic muons. The link goes to an examination of this question comparing the different frames of reference.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html
I just read that and it gives a completely different option than the 4 I have been mentioning.
It uses the Earth's frame of reference to have no length contraction, but still uses time dilation. Or it uses the muon's frame to have length contraction, but no time dilation. The second one I understand (that would be 3), but the first one does not jive with other things I have read. Because if you completely use the Earth's frame of reference, then you would not have time dilation either (that's number 1). And if you want to have time dilation, then you have to go by the muon's time. So it's kind of contradictory to go by the muon's time and not by the muon's distance. I get the feeling that very few people really understand how this works.
 
  • #37
Nathan123 said:
I get the feeling that very few people really understand how this works.

No, you don't understand how this works. Relativity physicists understand it just fine. As I've already said, you are confusing yourself by trying to reason about this using ordinary language instead of math.

Nathan123 said:
I am hearing that relativity of simultaneity is the answer (and I'm afraid it might get overused because it seems to answer everything). But I am not sure exactly where it comes into play here.

That's because you aren't doing the math, and, as I've already said, trying to understand how it all fits together without the math is going to be harder than just learning the math.

Here is a quick summary of the math for the Earth and ship scenario.

First, let's look at things in the Earth frame. Let's consider the following events:

A: The ship is 0.6 light-hours from Earth, and is traveling towards Earth at speed ##0.6 \text{c}##. We'll call the time of this event time ##t = -1## in the Earth frame (for reasons which will become apparent below), so the coordinates of this event are ##(x, t) = (0.6, -1)## (we're using light-hours and hours as our units of length and time).

E: This is the Earth (more precisely, a chosen point on the Earth, the one the ship will end up arriving at) at the same time, in the Earth frame, as event A. We are treating this point on the Earth as the spatial origin of the frame, so the coordinates of this event are ##(0, -1)##.

B: The ship arrives at Earth (at our chosen point). This event has coordinates ##(0, 0)## in the Earth frame (as you can see from the coordinates of event A and the speed of the ship).

The distance of the ship from Earth at event A is the spatial distance between event A and event E, which, since they both have the same time coordinate in this frame, is just ##0.6##.

Now, let's look at things in the ship frame. We apply the Lorentz transformation equations, ##x' = \gamma \left( x - v t \right)##, ##t' = \gamma \left( t - v x \right)##. The relative velocity between the frames is ##v = - 0.6## (because the ship is moving in the ##- x## direction in the Earth frame), so we have ##\gamma = 1 / \sqrt{1 - v^2} = 1 / 0.8 = 1.25##. So the coordinates in the ship frame of our three events turn out to be:

A: ##(0, - 0.8)##.

E: ##(- 0.75, -1.25)##.

B: ##(0, 0)##. (Note that, for the Lorentz transformation equations I gave above to work properly, the event that has coordinates ##(0, 0)## in one frame--i.e., the spacetime origin--must also have those coordinates in the other frame.)

Now, observe:

First, in this frame, events A and E do not happen at the same time (whereas they do in the Earth frame). This is relativity of simultaneity.

Second, the time from event A to event B is 0.8 in this frame (whereas it was 1 in the Earth frame). This is time dilation.

But, third, the time from event A to event B is not "the time it takes the ship to reach Earth" in this frame. In this frame, the ship is motionless; the Earth is moving. So ##0.8## hours is the time it takes Earth to reach the ship. And the question is: how far does the Earth travel to reach the ship in this frame?

To figure that out, we need to find the event on Earth's worldline that is simultaneous with event A in the ship frame--i.e., that has time coordinate ##t' = - 0.8##. Since the Earth is traveling at speed ##0.6## in this frame (in the positive ##x'## direction), then this event, which I'll call event C, has coordinates:

C: ##(x', t') = (- 0.48, - 0.8)##.

So the Earth takes ##0.8## hours to reach the ship in this frame, and travels a distance of ##0.48## light-hours--whereas, in the Earth frame, the ship traveled a distance of ##0.6## light-hours. And that is length contraction: ##0.48 = 0.8 * 0.6##.

So, if you do the math, you see how all three things--length contraction, time dilation, and relativity of simultaneity--work together. But leaving out anyone of them leads you astray.
 
  • Like
Likes SiennaTheGr8
  • #38
Nathan123 said:
I get the feeling that very few people really understand how this works.

Just as a warning: if you continue to take this attitude, this thread will be closed. You say you are not trying to be smug and argue, but trying to understand. But your understanding has to start with the understanding that you are the one who is making a mistake here. Not all of the relativity physicists. Your efforts need to be focused on understanding what mistake you are making, not on trying to convince anyone else that all of the relativity physicists somehow have it wrong or don't really understand what's going on.
 
  • Like
Likes Orodruin, weirdoguy and PeroK
  • #39
Nathan123 said:
I just read that and it gives a completely different option than the 4 I have been mentioning.
It uses the Earth's frame of reference to have no length contraction, but still uses time dilation. Or it uses the muon's frame to have length contraction, but no time dilation. The second one I understand (that would be 3), but the first one does not jive with other things I have read. Because if you completely use the Earth's frame of reference, then you would not have time dilation either (that's number 1). And if you want to have time dilation, then you have to go by the muon's time. So it's kind of contradictory to go by the muon's time and not by the muon's distance. I get the feeling that very few people really understand how this works.

Your study of SR has started with some fundamental misunderstandings. I suggest you back up and start again with a clear and open mind.

Simply restating your mistakes and assuming you are right and those who have mastered the subject are wrong will lead you nowhere.

1) There is no such thing as absolute motion. Motion is frame dependent. No object can be said to be moving any more than any other object. Any object can be given any desired velocity (less than ##c##) by appropriate choice of reference frame.

2) Time dilation between inertial reference frames is entirely symmetric. Clocks moving relative to you run slow in your reference frame. But, equally, your clock runs slow in any reference frame where you are not at rest.

3) Length contraction between inertial reference frames is entirely symmetric. An object moving relative to you will be length contracted in the direction of its relative motion. Equally, you are length contracted in any reference frame where you are not at rest.

Unless you accept these three statements and try to understand why they are true, you are on the road to nowhere.
 
  • #40
PeterDonis said:
A: The ship is 0.6 light-hours from Earth, and is traveling towards Earth at speed ##0.6 \text{c}##. We'll call the time of this event time ##t = -1## in the Earth frame (for reasons which will become apparent below), so the coordinates of this event are ##(x, t) = (0.6, -1)## (we're using light-hours and hours as our units of length and time).

E: This is the Earth (more precisely, a chosen point on the Earth, the one the ship will end up arriving at) at the same time, in the Earth frame, as event A. We are treating this point on the Earth as the spatial origin of the frame, so the coordinates of this event are ##(0, -1)##.

B: The ship arrives at Earth (at our chosen point). This event has coordinates ##(0, 0)## in the Earth frame (as you can see from the coordinates of event A and the speed of the ship).

The distance of the ship from Earth at event A is the spatial distance between event A and event E, which, since they both have the same time coordinate in this frame, is just ##0.6##.

Now, let's look at things in the ship frame. We apply the Lorentz transformation equations, ##x' = \gamma \left( x - v t \right)##, ##t' = \gamma \left( t - v x \right)##. The relative velocity between the frames is ##v = - 0.6## (because the ship is moving in the ##- x## direction in the Earth frame), so we have ##\gamma = 1 / \sqrt{1 - v^2} = 1 / 0.8 = 1.25##. So the coordinates in the ship frame of our three events turn out to be:

A: ##(0, - 0.8)##.

E: ##(- 0.75, -1.25)##.

B: ##(0, 0)##. (Note that, for the Lorentz transformation equations I gave above to work properly, the event that has coordinates ##(0, 0)## in one frame--i.e., the spacetime origin--must also have those coordinates in the other frame.)

Now, observe:

First, in this frame, events A and E do not happen at the same time (whereas they do in the Earth frame). This is relativity of simultaneity.

Second, the time from event A to event B is 0.8 in this frame (whereas it was 1 in the Earth frame). This is time dilation.

But, third, the time from event A to event B is not "the time it takes the ship to reach Earth" in this frame. In this frame, the ship is motionless; the Earth is moving. So ##0.8## hours is the time it takes Earth to reach the ship. And the question is: how far does the Earth travel to reach the ship in this frame?

To figure that out, we need to find the event on Earth's worldline that is simultaneous with event A in the ship frame--i.e., that has time coordinate ##t' = - 0.8##. Since the Earth is traveling at speed ##0.6## in this frame (in the positive ##x'## direction), then this event, which I'll call event C, has coordinates:

C: ##(x', t') = (- 0.48, - 0.8)##.

So the Earth takes ##0.8## hours to reach the ship in this frame, and travels a distance of ##0.48## light-hours--whereas, in the Earth frame, the ship traveled a distance of ##0.6## light-hours. And that is length contraction: ##0.48 = 0.8 * 0.6##.

So, if you do the math, you see how all three things--length contraction, time dilation, and relativity of simultaneity--work together. But leaving out anyone of them leads you astray.

I will need to take this one step at a time in order to understand, if you will be gracious to be patient.
I am trying to understand:

1. why is -.08 that starting time for the ship. Why can't we have the two starting at the same time (-1)? What would make it that the ship has a different starting time. I understand that it's time will be dilated from my perspective, but why can't the starting time be the same?
2. What causes the Earth to have a non simultaneous starting time only from the ship's perspective?
3. Why is the length -.75 for the ship's frame of reference? I don't know what that even means.
 
  • #41
Nathan123 said:
What would make it that the ship has a different starting time.
Because what "at the same time" means is frame-dependant. So "at the same time" in the sentence "what time do the ship's clocks show at the same time as the Earth's clocks read zero" means different things in the ship frame to the Earth frame.

This is the relativity of simultaneity, which we have been telling you about since post #2. Look up Einstein's train thought experiment if you want to see how it follows trivially from the postulates of relativity.
 
  • #42
PeroK said:
Your study of SR has started with some fundamental misunderstandings. I suggest you back up and start again with a clear and open mind.

Simply restating your mistakes and assuming you are right and those who have mastered the subject are wrong will lead you nowhere.

1) There is no such thing as absolute motion. Motion is frame dependent. No object can be said to be moving any more than any other object. Any object can be given any desired velocity (less than ##c##) by appropriate choice of reference frame.

2) Time dilation between inertial reference frames is entirely symmetric. Clocks moving relative to you run slow in your reference frame. But, equally, your clock runs slow in any reference frame where you are not at rest.

3) Length contraction between inertial reference frames is entirely symmetric. An object moving relative to you will be length contracted in the direction of its relative motion. Equally, you are length contracted in any reference frame where you are not at rest.

Unless you accept these three statements and try to understand why they are true, you are on the road to nowhere.

None of what I have written about has anything to do with disputing those three things. Everything I wrote assumes those three things. I understand relative motion. I understand relative time dilation. I understand length contraction for things you see moving.
I presented 4 calculations.
1. mine for me.
2. yours for me.
3. yours for you.
4. mine for you.

I said that time dilation is all about 2 and 4 (comparing a different frame to the main one). I also said that distance contraction is all about 2 and 3 (for the ship that sees "everything" moving. [note I specifically refer to distance contraction and not the length contraction of the ship.] This difference between time dilation and distance contraction is causing me issues. I am being told that relativity of simultaneity is the solution. I still do not understand fully how it works, and more so don't yet understand how it works here.
 
  • #43
Ibix said:
Because what "at the same time" means is frame-dependant. So "at the same time" in the sentence "what time do the ship's clocks show at the same time as the Earth's clocks read zero" means different things in the ship frame to the Earth frame.

This is the relativity of simultaneity, which we have been telling you about since post #2. Look up Einstein's train thought experiment if you want to see how it follows trivially from the postulates of relativity.
I am trying to understand the underlying factor of "not at the same time". What makes the ship's starting time from its frame of reference different from the ship's starting time from the Earth's frame of reference? Both occupy the same space.
 
  • #44
Nathan123 said:
. [note I specifically refer to distance contraction and not the length contraction of the ship.]
There is no difference between distance and length. You keep implicitly using the distance measure from the Earth's frame as if it is somehow the "real" distance. It isn't. The ship frame's distance measure is just as valid, and the Earth's measure of this distance will be length contracted.
 
  • #45
Nathan123 said:
I am trying to understand the underlying factor of "not at the same time". What makes the ship's starting time from its frame of reference different from the ship's starting time from the Earth's frame of reference?
It's a direct consequence of the postulates of relativity. I'm guessing from the speed of your response that you ignored my suggestion to look up Einstein's train?
Nathan123 said:
Both occupy the same space.
Both occupy the same spacetime. They are actually using different definitions of which slicing of that counts as space.
 
  • #46
Nathan123 said:
why is -.08 that starting time for the ship.

Because that's what you get when you Lorentz transform the coordinates of event A, in the Earth frame, into the ship frame.

Nathan123 said:
Why can't we have the two starting at the same time (-1)?

Because that's not how the math works. If you want things to start at time ##t' = -1## in the ship frame, then you are picking a different event--a different point in spacetime--than the one I called event A. You can make either choice, but you can't make both at once, because they're inconsistent: you can only pick one event--one point in spacetime--to be the "starting" point on the ship's worldline.

Nathan123 said:
What would make it that the ship has a different starting time.

Deciding to pick a different event--point--on the ship's worldline as the "starting" point. You can do that, but that will change the "starting time" in both frames. There is no way to pick one event that will have the same "starting time" in both frames. No such event exists. It's mathematically impossible.

Nathan123 said:
What causes the Earth to have a non simultaneous starting time only from the ship's perspective?

You're mis-stating what I said and misinterpreting what the math is telling you. Here is what the math is telling you:

In the Earth frame, event A is simultaneous with event E.

In the ship frame, event A is simultaneous with event C.

Event E and event C are two different events.

Since we have picked event A as the "starting point" for the ship, then "what time" the Earth starts depends on which frame you pick. In the Earth frame, the Earth starts at event E, so it starts at time ##t = -1##. In the ship frame, the Earth starts at event C, so it starts at time ##t' = - 0.8##. But both of these starting events are simultaneous with the ship's start--event A--in the frame in which we pick them as the starting events. That's what defines what event counts as the "starting event" for Earth--the event on the Earth's worldline that is simultaneous with event A in that frame. So there is never a "non-simultaneous starting time" for Earth.

Nathan123 said:
Why is the length -.75 for the ship's frame of reference?

It isn't. There is no such thing as "the length of a frame of reference". The concept doesn't even make sense.

If what you really mean is to ask, what is the meaning of the spatial coordinate ##x' = - 0.75## for event E, in the ship frame? then here is the answer: it has no special meaning in the ship frame, given that we've picked event A as the "starting event" for the ship. But, we could have picked a different starting event for the ship; for example, we could pick an event that I'll call event D, whose coordinates in the ship frame are:

D: ##(x', t') = (0, -1.25)##.

Do you see what this event is? It is the event that is simultaneous, in the ship frame, with event E. In other words, we could, in the ship frame, view things as "starting" at time ##t' = -1.25##, instead of ##t' = - 0.8##. And then we would find that the Earth travels a distance of ##0.75## light-hours in ##1.25## hours to meet the ship, in the ship frame, i.e., at a speed of ##0.6##, as expected. But then, to see how things look in the Earth frame with this choice of a "starting" event, we would have to find the coordinates of event D in the Earth frame. We would do this by the inverse Lorentz transformation, which just reverses the sign of ##v## in the formulas. This gives:

D: ##(x, t) = (-0.9375, -1.5625)##.

So in this version of the scenario, we have everything "starting" at time ##t = -1.5625## in the Earth frame, which means that we now have the ship traveling a distance ##0.9375## in ##1.5625## hours (again, for a speed of ##0.6##). And we see that the ship frame time of ##1.25## hours is ##0.8## times the Earth frame time (time dilation), and the ship frame distance of ##0.75## light-hours is ##0.8## times the Earth frame distance (length contraction).
 
  • Like
Likes SiennaTheGr8
  • #47
Ibix said:
There is no difference between distance and length. You keep implicitly using the distance measure from the Earth's frame as if it is somehow the "real" distance. It isn't. The ship frame's distance measure is just as valid, and the Earth's measure of this distance will be length contracted.
It was nicely taught to me that there is quite a difference between the length contraction of the actual ship and the distance contraction between the ship and earth, even though both use the same exact principle. When you see the ship moving, it's length is contracted. When the ship sees "everything" moving, the distance between it and say Earth is contracted. I have always been discussing distance contraction because it specifically pertains to the issue at hand, while the contraction of the ship does not. So I want to make it clear what I am referring to.
 
  • #48
Ibix said:
It's a direct consequence of the postulates of relativity. I'm guessing from the speed of your response that you ignored my suggestion to look up Einstein's train?
Both occupy the same spacetime. They are actually using different definitions of which slicing of that counts as space.
It's late. I'll get to it when I have time.
 
  • #49
Nathan123 said:
It was nicely taught to me that there is quite a difference between the length contraction of the actual ship and the distance contraction between the ship and earth, even though both use the same exact principle. When you see the ship moving, it's length is contracted. When the ship sees "everything" moving, the distance between it and say Earth is contracted. I have always been discussing distance contraction because it specifically pertains to the issue at hand, while the contraction of the ship does not. So I want to make it clear what I am referring to.

In general, distance is the spatial distance between two events; and, length is the distance between two simultaneous events. This is as true in classical physics as in SR.

For example, a train may travel a distance of 100km in an hour (in some reference frame). The two events are separated in both time and space (in that reference frame).

Whereas, to measure the length of the train, you must have simultaneous measurements for the front and back.

This is why simultaneity is so important in the measurement of length.

Now, if you say that at time ##t## in your reference frame, two objects are a certain distance apart, then that is (For you) a statement about simultaneous events. And the distance you measure is a length.

But, in another reference frame those events may not be simultaneous, so the spatial distance between those events may not be a length.

This is a critical point regarding length contraction.

Also, if we go back to the train example. In the reference frame of someone on the train, the departure and arrival events are at the same place. The distance between those events in that reference frame is zero and length contraction certainly does not apply.

In short, length contraction applies to the measured spatial distance between simultaneous events.

If we go back to the example and imagine that the ship has a long extension in front of, say, 1 light hour. When that reaches the Earth, in the ship's reference frame the ship and the Earth are 1 light hour apart. Let's say that's when the experiment begins for the ship.

But, in the Earth frame, the extension is length contracted. So, when the extension reaches the Earth, the ship is less than one light hour away.

If at that time , the experiment starts for Those on Earth, then we see that the ship and the Earth have different starting distances.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes hutchphd and russ_watters
  • #50
PeterDonis said:
Because that's what you get when you Lorentz transform the coordinates of event A, in the Earth frame, into the ship frame.
Because that's not how the math works. If you want things to start at time ##t' = -1## in the ship frame, then you are picking a different event--a different point in spacetime--than the one I called event A. You can make either choice, but you can't make both at once, because they're inconsistent: you can only pick one event--one point in spacetime--to be the "starting" point on the ship's worldline.
Deciding to pick a different event--point--on the ship's worldline as the "starting" point. You can do that, but that will change the "starting time" in both frames. There is no way to pick one event that will have the same "starting time" in both frames. No such event exists. It's mathematically impossible.
You're mis-stating what I said and misinterpreting what the math is telling you. Here is what the math is telling you:

In the Earth frame, event A is simultaneous with event E.

In the ship frame, event A is simultaneous with event C.

Event E and event C are two different events.

Since we have picked event A as the "starting point" for the ship, then "what time" the Earth starts depends on which frame you pick. In the Earth frame, the Earth starts at event E, so it starts at time ##t = -1##. In the ship frame, the Earth starts at event C, so it starts at time ##t' = - 0.8##. But both of these starting events are simultaneous with the ship's start--event A--in the frame in which we pick them as the starting events. That's what defines what event counts as the "starting event" for Earth--the event on the Earth's worldline that is simultaneous with event A in that frame. So there is never a "non-simultaneous starting time" for Earth.
It isn't. There is no such thing as "the length of a frame of reference". The concept doesn't even make sense.

If what you really mean is to ask, what is the meaning of the spatial coordinate ##x' = - 0.75## for event E, in the ship frame? then here is the answer: it has no special meaning in the ship frame, given that we've picked event A as the "starting event" for the ship.
I still don't understand what exactly is the meaning of the coordinate -.75.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top