Relativity Paradox: Resolving Hand-Waving Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reshma
  • Start date Start date
Reshma
Messages
749
Reaction score
6
Suppose two observers are in relative motion each carrying a meter stick in a position parallel to the relative motion. Each observer on measurement finds the other's stick shorter than his.
On a lighter note; isn't this situation similar to a situation in which "A" waves his hand to "B", in the rear of a moving vechicle driving away from "B". "A" says "B" gets smaller and "B" says "A" gets smaller?

However, by the Lorentz transformation equations, the length of a body transverse to relative motion is measured the same by all inertial observers. So how is the above apparent paradox resolved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Reshma said:
Suppose two observers are in relative motion each carrying a meter stick in a position parallel to the relative motion. Each observer on measurement finds the other's stick shorter than his.
On a lighter note; isn't this situation similar to a situation in which "A" waves his hand to "B", in the rear of a moving vechicle driving away from "B". "A" says "B" gets smaller and "B" says "A" gets smaller?
The issue is not what you would see, but rather what you would measure. While it is true that we see objects getting smaller as they recede, it is not true that they are changing size. If we measure a thing as 1 meter when it is close and seems large, we will still measure it to be 1 meter when it is far and seems small.
 
I would say the apparent paradox could be resolved by a third observer : moving away from A makes A smaller but B bigger. However, taking two "similar bodies" A and B, C will measure the same sizes in A and arriving in B... However let's take 2 synchonized clocks by a signal sender in the center of mass of them. Then a moving observer would synchronize when passing in A and arriving in B he will notice his clock is not showing the same as B..(? at least I suppose)...
 
jimmysnyder already gave the answer to this problem, the lorentz contraction formula does not apply to what observers see using light-signals, it applies to the coordinates they assign events in their own reference frame. See jtbell's comment on this thread on the difference between "seeing" and "observing" in relativity.
 
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...
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(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top