Relativity: light in train with person in it

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter accountkiller
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Relativity Train
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of simultaneity in the context of special relativity, specifically examining two scenarios involving a person named Mavis on a train moving close to the speed of light and her observations of light and lightning strikes. The focus is on understanding why Mavis perceives different timings for events in these scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that simultaneity is frame-dependent, explaining that Mavis perceives the events differently based on her reference frame in each scenario.
  • One participant clarifies that in the first scenario, Mavis sees the lightning strikes as non-simultaneous because she is moving toward one strike and away from the other, while in the second scenario, both light beams depart from the center of the train simultaneously in her frame.
  • Another participant suggests that Mavis's perception of the timing of light reaching the walls is influenced by the time it takes for the light to reflect back to her, leading to the conclusion that she sees the light reaching both walls at the same time.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of assuming simultaneity in different frames, with one participant proposing that if both lightning strikes were simultaneous in Mavis's frame, she would perceive them as reaching her at the same time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the frame-dependent nature of simultaneity but express differing views on how Mavis's observations in the two scenarios relate to each other. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these observations and the interpretations of simultaneity.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of defining events and reference frames when discussing simultaneity, indicating that assumptions about the timing of events can lead to different conclusions depending on the observer's frame of reference.

accountkiller
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
Throughout our relativity section in class, we've had two problems with light and a train, and I'm confused as to why they are two different answers.

The first is that Mavis is on a train moving close to the speed of light, and lightning bolts hit the left (back) and right (front) part of the train. Mavis thinks the right one struck first since she is moving toward that part, since the train is moving with her in it, so the wave front of that one reached her before the other one.

Now, another problem says that two lights shoot in from the middle of the train (distance of train divided by 2), one goes straight left, hitting left wall and one goes straight right, hitting right wall. Again, the train is going close to the speed of light. However, the answer for this one is that in Mavis's perspective, she sees the light reaching both walls at the same time, because she is in rest frame, because to her, the cart isn't moving.

Well, to her, the cart isn't moving in the first problem either, right? So how come she has different perspectives in the two scenarios?

I'd appreciate an explanation, thank you!

(It's not a homework problem but just me asking a question about a concept, so I hope this is the right category.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The key problem here is that what is 'simultaneous' to one observer is not 'simultaneous' to another one.
In the second situation, Mavis is in the frame in which the two events of light hitting each side of the train are simultaneous, while in the first situation, she is not.

To make it a little more technical and, hopefully, more clear:
if you define the two events as
A = flash hits the front of the train,
B = flash hits the back of the train
then the two situations are basically described as:
1) "A and B happen simultaneously in some rest frame (i.e. the station) and Mavis is moving with respect to that frame (in the special relativistic sense, i.e. with constant velocity)"
and
2) "A and B happen simultaneously in the rest frame of Mavis."
 
mbradar2 said:
Throughout our relativity section in class, we've had two problems with light and a train, and I'm confused as to why they are two different answers.

The first is that Mavis is on a train moving close to the speed of light, and lightning bolts hit the left (back) and right (front) part of the train. Mavis thinks the right one struck first since she is moving toward that part, since the train is moving with her in it, so the wave front of that one reached her before the other one.

Now, another problem says that two lights shoot in from the middle of the train (distance of train divided by 2), one goes straight left, hitting left wall and one goes straight right, hitting right wall. Again, the train is going close to the speed of light. However, the answer for this one is that in Mavis's perspective, she sees the light reaching both walls at the same time, because she is in rest frame, because to her, the cart isn't moving.

Well, to her, the cart isn't moving in the first problem either, right? So how come she has different perspectives in the two scenarios?
Because in the second scenario both beams depart from the center at the same moment (and this happens at a single point in space and time so there are no simultaneity issues, all frames should agree both beams departed from the center at the same moment), while in the first scenario both beams reach her at the center at different moments, so if she assumes the train was at rest and that both beams moved at c the only way she can account for this difference is to assume the lightning struck both ends at different times. Note that in the first scenario, we assumed that the lightning struck both ends simultaneously in the frame of the observer on the track who sees the train moving, and that's why we get the conclusion that both beams reach the center at different moments; you could instead consider a different physical scenario where both ends were struck simultaneously in Mavis' frame, and in this case both beams would reach Mavis at the center at the same moment (but in this case, the track observer would have to conclude that the two strikes happened non-simultaneously)
 
Last edited:
The first problem is asserting that when Mavis is moving toward the source of light (which is when the light is moving to the left), it takes less time than when she is moving away from the source of light (which is when the light is moving to the right), assuming that the same distance is involved in both cases, correct?

So let's apply that idea to the second problem. The light going to the left will take less time to hit the rear wall than it takes for the light going to the right to hit the front wall, correct? But Mavis can't see that yet. She has to wait for the two wave fronts to reflect back to her so that she can then see them, correct? So now the light reflecting off the rear wall (moving to the right) will take more time to come back to her than it takes for the light reflecting off the front wall (moving to the left) to come back to her, correct? And guess what? Since the distances in both round trip light trips are the same, and they each experience both a longer time trip and a shorter time trip (but in a different order), the totals for both round trips are the same. That is why Mavis sees them as reaching the walls at the same time, correct?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K