Hi guys,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I have studied special relativity for a while now and am doing a project for one of my physics classes on it. The relativity of simultaneity is a concept that I easily grasped when I began reading S.R. and time dilation was the hardest (easiest now). I grasped it (simultaneity) easily because it I found it quite intuitive. The problem is, the way I see it presented, the relativity of simultaneity seems completely Newtonian and to be expected if light has a finite speed. I see it causing an asymmetry and contributing no symmetries, this seems contrary to a good physical law. If these concepts where true, one could easily establish (I think) that events ARE simultaneous when perceived as simultaneous by a system of co-ordinates at rest relative to the two events. Does this all dissolve if one of the events is moving relative to the other?

The presentation that I see the most often is the one with the train and two poles. Like seen at about 2:13 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ6N85lNgHY&NR=1

I have a lot of books on S.R. and I am starting to get into the complicated ones. I noticed that in the original Einstein paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, he makes no reference to any such thought experiment and rather opts for a mathematical approach that I cannot follow. A preliminary look into (I have not read it yet) Six NOT SO Easy Pieces by Feynman seems to show the same thing. I am guessing/hoping that all this train stuff is just a poor explanation/metaphor or this is something that has been corrected by general relativity. I would really like to be able to talk sensibly about this stuff to laypeople, to go on about causality and concepts such how S.R. changed our view of action at a distance.

Much to my dismay, I have also had much difficulty finding satisfactory explanations of E=mc^2 and changes to mass/energy in a body moving at a relativistic velocity. Some of my books make a poor attempt at explaining relativistic momentum and I believe that the above comes from that equation and some combination of the kinetic energy and work equations.

As I write this stuff, I get the impression that I am close to grasping these concepts. I would appreciate it if any physics undergrads or higher qualified individuals with formal S.R. training could help me.

Oups, I just noticed that I messed up the title, too bad you can't edit those things.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Rigorous physical/mathematical proof of relativity of certain aspects of S.R.

Loading...

Similar Threads for Rigorous physical mathematical | Date |
---|---|

Excel Error Bars | Nov 26, 2017 |

LaTeX \newcommand on Physics Forum post | Aug 4, 2017 |

LaTeX Plain latex code not working in Physics forum | Jun 5, 2017 |

Best Mathematics / Physics software | Mar 15, 2017 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**