B Simultaneity in Special Relativity: Examining the Theory

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter MartinWyckmans
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Simultaneity
MartinWyckmans
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Thanks for opening the millionth thread about this. My teacher has been explaining special relativity and I became confused at simultaneity.
This is my train of thought, where did I go wrong?

Say a sensor is moving at a speed of c-1 m/s to the right. Somewhere to the left of the sensor there's a wall with a small opening. 2 balls fall down behind the wall and the distance between the balls is 1 meter, and when they pass the small opening the ray of light that gets reflected by the ball gets sent through the opening. The ray of light moves to the right, towards the sensor, with a speed of c. Taking the sensor as point of view, the light travels towards the sensor with 1 m/s. If the second ray of light coming from the second ball hits the sensor 1 second later than the first sensor, then the rays of light began traveling at the same time and the balls would fall simultaneously. In other words, if \Delta t = \Delta x / (c-v) with \Delta t the time difference measured in the sensor, then the actions happen simultaneously.
And say the sensor is moving towards the wall/balls/ray of light, then the formula would be \Delta t = \Delta x / (c+v)
My teacher dismissed my question almost immediately because he said (c+v) is impossible, but I'm not saying the sensor is traveling with a speed that's (c+v). Is it still wrong?

I don't know if I've made myself very clear, so maybe an analogy works better.

Say there're 3 ancient cities; Sparta, Athens and Rome. One day, a messager from Athens visits Sparta, saying the city has been sacked. Two days later, a messager from Rome visits Sparta, saying Rome has been sacked. The Spartans are fearful and wonder whether the same empire sacked both cities. They know that the distance between Sparta and Athens is 200 kilometers and the distance between Sparta and Rome is 600 kilometers. The messagers are trained to run 200 kilometers each day. The time between the two messagers was 2 days. Calculating the time difference with the formula: \Delta t = \Delta x / v 2 = 400 / 200 and we see that the time difference is indeed 2 days.

Does this not apply in special relativity? I know that getting the right velocity v would be very difficult to really use, but is this how it theoretically works?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!
MartinWyckmans said:
... the distance between the balls is 1 meter...
In which frame of reference? Distance is relative.
MartinWyckmans said:
...the light travels towards the sensor with 1 m/s.
The light travels toward the sensor at speed c, the speed of light is c in every inertial frame of reference.
 
MartinWyckmans said:
Taking the sensor as point of view, the light travels towards the sensor with 1 m/s.

No, it doesn't. Velocities add differently in relativity; see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_relativity

If you plug in c and c minus 1 m/sec in the formula, you will see that it gives the result c, which means that light moves at c relative to the sensor from the sensor's point of view.
 
Thanks both of you, I'm beginning to better understand it now!
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
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...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top