Revisiting Einstein's Train Experiment: Unraveling the Mysteries of Relativity

  • #51
You ask questions about things you already know because that way you get answers that you already know?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
As always I'm again misunderstood. In short, no.
 
  • #53
GhostLoveScore said:
As always I'm again misunderstood. In short, no.

Did you try the Minowski simulator?
 
  • #54
upload_2015-9-12_15-35-13.png


The diagram we above shows events now versus events on the moon now (1.25 light seconds away). First diagram shows the timeline for Earth - simultaneous.

Imagine the spaceship is touching down on the moon and the astronaut says "one small step for man one giant leap" his foot hits the ground at exactly 12 noon GMT. The TV image will arrive on Earth in 1.25 seconds. As shown by the light cone on the first diagram.

The second diagram is for an observer passing Earth towards the moon at exactly 12 noon GMT at a speed of 0.99c. For him/her, the touchdown already occurred 8.77 seconds ago on the observer's clock or 1.24 seconds ago on Earth's clocks.

So basically he says we have twice the lag on the radio signal from the moon and that touch down was at 11:59 58.76 seconds GMT not at 12:00 GMT. He also points out that the GMT clocks on the moon are not synchronised with Earth's GMT clocks.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-9-12_15-31-44.png
    upload_2015-9-12_15-31-44.png
    59.3 KB · Views: 519
  • Like
Likes Stephanus
  • #55
upload_2015-9-12_16-13-8.png

Ok this one shows the train and the lightning strikes.

First diagram - you're observer on the train in the middle of the two lightning strikes. In your frame of reference they are simultaneous.

Second diagram - an observer on the platform adjacent to you at precisely the moment you calculate the lightning strike's occurred.

For the observer the back strike occurred 8.77 seconds ago and the front strike will not occur for another 8.77 seconds.

Alternative approach

He will see your front clock reading -1.2375 seconds of what your back clock says.

This is because Velocity x distance = time 0.99 x 1.25 = 1.2375 train seconds

1.2375 train seconds x gamma = 8.772 observer seconds.

So this is why you see the back and front strikes which he considers simultaneous separated by + / - 8.772 seconds respectively.

Reason

The best way to understand it is that the spacetime interval for any two events is invariant; and that between any two events there exists a Proper distance or a Proper Time, which cannot be reduced by any observer.

The interval is like a sort of unique code between any two events, which all observers will agree on whatever they're inertial frame.

(interval = distance - time)

The moment of the lighting strikes was a space like event. This produces a certain type of interval which is the same for all observers whatever their intertial frame - its not possible for anyone even light, to have been at both space like events. There is a fixed distance gap between the events which cannot be eliminated.For the train the events were simultaneous and therefore it can measure the Proper Distance.

No other observer in the Universe can possibly measure a lower Proper Distance unless they share the trains frame of reference. Also, no observer can record Less time between the events than the train because... the train measured 0 time between events.

Therefore any other observer must either add time, or add distance to the trains measurement. And, because of the formula they cannot add one without the other otherwise the interval will increase.

Because the Proper Distance cannot be reduced if any observer wants to use a different reference frame and measurement system the only thing they can do is add extra distance to the train's measurement. This is because the train already has the lowest possible distance and 0 time.

Because the spacetime interval is the same for all observers and the formula is interval = distance - time. If an observer adds time, then they must also add distance. Alternatively, If they add distance then they must also add time.

For the observer on the platform the train's clocks are not synchronised and so the train moves between lightning strikes. The events are therefore separated by a greater distance than for the person on the train

To keep the interval fixed, the observer must add an appropriate amount of extra time between the events to match the extra distance.

interval = train distance plus the observers extra distance - (train's time (zero) + the observer's extra time)
 
Last edited:
  • #56
15characters said:
Did you try the Minowski simulator?

I did not have time today to try it, I just came here to see if there are new posts. I will take a look at it tonight.
 
  • #57
GhostLoveScore said:
I did not have time today to try it, I just came here to see if there are new posts. I will take a look at it tonight.

The only way to understand it is to take the time to actually study the subject and actually try to learn something new rather than just asking random questions.
 
  • #58
15characters said:
The only way to understand it is to take the time to actually study the subject and actually try to learn something new rather than just asking random questions.

I'm not asking random questions and I am trying to understand relativity. I am reading lots of different content (e-books, short articles, youtube videos, java applications). I'm sorry if it seems like I have a hat full of questions and every day I pick random one and ask it here.
 
  • #59
GhostLoveScore said:
I am reading lots of different content (e-books, short articles, youtube videos, java applications)

That may be part of your problem. More is not better here - you will be better off finding one good source and working all the way through it. Physics Forums is an invaluable resource, but it is most effective at helping you over the hard spots in the road when you hit them, not at mapping out the road for you in the first place.

Of course that leaves you with the problem of knowing a good source when you see it. Not everything on the internet is bad, but very little of it has been carefully vetted as an effective teaching tool and coherent presentation of the entire picture, whereas any serious textbook has been... so that's your best bet. You could do worse than Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics".
 
  • Like
Likes Stephanus and 15characters
  • #60
Stephanus said:
[..] I still can't make out like the OP question, why the velocity addition formula should be ##W = \frac{U+V}{1+UV}##?

According to whom?
The moving object or the rest observer?
For the moving object, since there is no preferred inertia frame of reference, "the moving object" can consider itself at rest. So the light travels from it travels at ... the speed of light.

For the rest observer viewing the light sent from the moving object?The analogy goes further I think. It's like you're at the podium watching a sound wave generated by a race car. The speed of the sound is not [(the speed of the car) + (the speed of the sound)], the speed of the sound generated by the car travels at sound speed, about 340 m/s.
But the analogy stops here.
The speed of the sound wrt car is [(the speed of the sound) - (the speed of the car)]
The speed of light wrt moving object is [(the speed of light) - (the speed of the moving object)]
Is it because the car travels at the same medium and light doesn't travel at some medium?
One conceptual model that works for SR is that the car and the light travel (or perhaps one should say "propagate") through the same medium. That's one way to make sense of it.
Another conceptual model that works for SR is that the car and the light describe trajectories through Spacetime, interpreted as a 4D physical "medium".
There were never ending debates on this forum in which people, in vain, tried to disprove either or both interpretations, and a stop of such debates is being enforced here. Remains that you can choose the interpretation you like: whichever fits better with how your brain is wired. :cool:
You can find the debates including elaborations of how those models work by means of a search on this forum of such terms as "block universe".
 
  • #61
harrylin said:
One conceptual model that works for SR is that the car and the light travel (or perhaps one should say "propagate") through the same medium. That's one way to make sense of it.
Another conceptual model that works for SR is that the car and the light describe trajectories through Spacetime, interpreted as a 4D physical "medium".
There were never ending debates on this forum in which people, in vain, tried to disprove either or both interpretations, and a stop of such debates is being enforced here. Remains that you can choose the interpretation you like: whichever fits better with how your brain is wired. :cool:
You can find the debates including elaborations of how those models work by means of a search on this forum of such terms as "block universe".

Numbers - speed of object

Light from any moving object will arrive at the observer at C. That observer will calculate the speed of light with relation to the moving object as: C minus speed of object.

Example

Light from a spacecraft heading towards Earth at 0.99c will arrive at Earth at speed C. The speed of the spacecraft is 0.99C. The speed of light is C. Therefore the speed of object with relation to the light emitted is 1C - 0.99C = 0.01C according to observers on Earth

For the comet the speed of light with relation to itself would obviously not be 0.01C, it would be C. The comet would calculate that the light arrived at Earth at 1.99C (from the comets perspective)

The formula for adding velocities is not required for the above analysis. It would be required if the comet traveling towards Earth at 0.99C fired a rocket towards Earth at 0.2C (or any velocity) relative to itself. Then the speed of the rocket relative to Earth would be calculated using the velocity addition formula.

Sources

"Spacetime Physics"

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/time_dil.html


Interpretation

I don't think the special theory of relativity is matter of "interpretation" - particularly for non experts in the field (like me). What difference does it make how one's brain is "wired"? How is that relevant to the facts? How can physics be a matter of personal choice?

Where you describe a "medium" through which light and the car "propogate", would such a medium be analogous to the ether? How can that be "one way to make sense of" the Theory.

How can you describe Spacetime as "another conceptual model that works for special relativity"?
 
Last edited:
  • #62
15characters said:
Numbers - speed of object

Light from any moving object will arrive at the observer at C. That observer will calculate the speed of light with relation to the moving object as: C minus speed of object.

Example

Light from a spacecraft heading towards Earth at 0.99c will arrive at Earth at speed C. The speed of the spacecraft is 0.99C. The speed of light is C. Therefore the speed of object with relation to the light emitted is 1C - 0.99C = 0.01C according to observers on Earth

For the comet the speed of light with relation to itself would obviously not be 0.01C, it would be C. The comet would calculate that the light arrived at Earth at 1.99C (from the comets perspective)

The formula for adding velocities is not required for the above analysis. It would be required if the comet traveling towards Earth at 0.99C fired a rocket towards Earth at 0.2C (or any velocity) relative to itself. Then the speed of the rocket relative to Earth would be calculated using the velocity addition formula.

Sources

"Spacetime Physics"

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/time_dil.html


Interpretation

I don't think the special theory of relativity is matter of "interpretation". Especially if you do not understand the basics - like velocity addition. Can you explain?

For example, where you said a "medium" through which light and the car "propogate", would such a medium be analogous to the ether? How can that be "one way to make sense of" the Special Theory.

How can you say spacetime is just one of the many "conceptual model" that works with relativity and that another model that works would be one where there is a medium through which light passes (similar to ether)?

Finally, what difference does it make how one's brain is "wired"? How is that relevant to the facts? How can it be a matter of personal choice which interpretation is correct?

See our FAQ for how multiple interpretations such as Harrylin mentions are possible, and also the PF policy he refers to:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe.772224/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
Thanks guys for your answers, I have some personal things to do and I don't have time to read through last 7-8 replies but I will. And I will read Spacetime Physics.
 
  • #64
A bunch of unnecessary argumentation has been removed from this thread.

Please try to stay on topic... and not make unnecessary work for the mentors... Please?
 
Last edited:
  • #66
PAllen said:
See our FAQ for how multiple interpretations such as Harrylin mentions are possible, and also the PF policy he refers to:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe.772224/

Bad link :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
pervect said:
Bad link :(
Well, so is the link from the FAQ list at the top of relativity forum! This was apparently recently broken. It should be fixed.
 
Back
Top