Rotation of a photograph of an object due to relativity

AI Thread Summary
A photograph of an object moving at relativistic speeds appears rotated rather than contracted due to the differing travel times of light from the object's far and near sides. Hartle explains that light from the far side takes longer to reach the camera, causing the object to appear rotated. Specifically, the height of the object (denoted as b) contributes to this effect, as light from the top of the object takes longer to arrive than light from the bottom. This results in a horizontal separation between light rays that leads to the perceived rotation of the object in the photograph. The distinction between the far side and near side is crucial, as the far side is further from the camera, affecting the timing of light arrival.
user1139
Messages
71
Reaction score
8
Homework Statement
Understanding the rotation of a photograph of an object due to relativistic effects.
Relevant Equations
See below.
I came across an interesting question in the Hartle's textbook, "An Introduction to Eisntein's General Relativity". The question is as follows:

Explain why a photograph of an object moving uniformly with a speed approaching the speed of light, parallel to the plane of the film appears not contracted, but rather, rotated. (Assume that the object subtends a small angle from the camera lens.)

Hartle argues that if we consider a rectangular object moving parallel to the plane of the film with speed ##V##, whose length is of rest length ##a## and breadth of rest length ##b##, then the effect can be attributed to the fact that light coming from the far side takes a longer time of ##b/c## than the short side to get to the film.

My question is, what exactly does does Hartle meant by far and near side? And, why does light need to travel an extra distance ##b##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's say that the letter "T" is moving from left to right with the top of the T farthest from the camera.
The top of the T will be seen on the left of the image, because as light from that part of the letter crossed to the bottom of the T, the rest of the T move to the right. So the T will appear about 90 degrees rotated - with the top of the T on the left.

That extra distance b is the height of the letter.
 
To elaborate, consider an observer sufficiently far away from the rectangle such that the light rays can be considered to be parallel upon reaching the observer. If the rectangle has rest length ##a## parallel to the velocity ##v## then in this frame the rectangle is of length ##a\sqrt{1-v^2}##.

If you imagine the rectangle as moving to the right (with the observer positioned below) then a photon emitted vertically downward from the top left corner at ##t=0## becomes vertically level with a photon emitted vertically downward from the bottom left corner at ##t = b##. The horizontal separation between these two photons is ##L_1 = vb##. Meanwhile the horizontal separation between two photons emitted from the bottom left and right corners at ##t=b## is simply ##L_2 = a\sqrt{1-v^2}##. Putting ##\varphi = \sin^{-1} v## it follows that ##L_1 = b\sin{\varphi}## and ##L_2 = a\cos{\varphi}##, i.e. the image is identical to that of a rectangle at rest with respect to the observer, but rotated by angle ##\varphi##.
 
Thomas1 said:
And, why does light need to travel an extra distance ##b##
Because the far side of the object is further from the camera than the near side.

The far side is the side furthest away from the camera and the near side is the side nearest the camera.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top