I Simultaneity: Train and Lightning Thought Experiment

[Ibix]

By analyzing data entirely from within the train, she can conclude that the train is moving.

How? By noting that she saw the flashes non-simultaneously? That just tells her that the lights weren't synched properly.

If, for some reason, she knows that the lights are synched correctly in the ground frame then she can deduce that she is moving in that frame. But that's all.

 

[itfitmewelltoo]

It may be easier to recognize that for the stationary man, he "sees" the from the front strike reach the women before the rear strike. For him, the relative velocity of the light from the front is c-v. The rear strike light reaches her at a speed of c+v. v being the velocity of the train. The man agrees that the woman does not see simultaneous events. They are separated by 2v.

 

[Peter Martin]

Wrong. She can conclude that the train is moving relative to the ground, but for all relevant purposes this is described as the ground moving in the train's rest frame. All that she will be able to conclude is what the relative velocity between the ground and the train is, but any observer can do this based on their own rest frame.

I agree that she can calculate the train's speed only relative to the ground. But considering the train "at rest" and the ground "speeding past", tell me how the ground's speed can affect how light behaves in the in the train. If you were in a basement laboratory and did the experiment with the two strobes you would be shocked if the flashes arrived at the center location sequentially. So (to repeat) how does the "moving" ground affect how light behaves in the "stationary" train?

 

[Orodruin]

But considering the train "at rest" and the ground "speeding past", tell me how the ground's speed can affect how light behaves in the in the train.

It doesn't. Hence you cannot conclude that the train is "moving". What matters is in which frame the flashes are supposed to be simultaneous. This is not something universal. If they are simultaneous in the train frame they will not be in the ground frame and vice versa. The situation is completely symmetric.

 

[Janus]

I agree that she can calculate the train's speed only relative to the ground. But considering the train "at rest" and the ground "speeding past", tell me how the ground's speed can affect how light behaves in the in the train. If you were in a basement laboratory and did the experiment with the two strobes you would be shocked if the flashes arrived at the center location sequentially. So (to repeat) how does the "moving" ground affect how light behaves in the "stationary" train?

To repeat what Orodruin has already stated, it doesn't. The flashes produced by strobes which are activated by the train observer flipping a switch are different flashes than the ones that would be produced by the lightning strikes which hit the ends of the train as described in the original version of the experiment.

Let's assume that both set of flashes are in play. The lightning strikes hit the ends of the trains simultaneously in the embankment frame as the two observers pass each other, and the strobes at the ends of train go off simultaneously in the train frame as the two observers pass.
The conclusion of both observers will be that there were four separate flashes. Each observer will see the light from two of the flashes simultaneously and the light from the other two arriving at different times. Each will judge a different pair of flashes as having occurred simultaneously; Lightening strikes for the embankment, strobes for the train. Neither of them will say that either strobe fired at the same moment as lightning struck that end of the train.

 

[Ibix]

But considering the train "at rest" and the ground "speeding past", tell me how the ground's speed can affect how light behaves in the in the train.

To restate what Orodruin and Janus have said - it doesn't. The point is that when you set up the experiment, you choose in which frame the flashes are simultaneous.

That frame is significant to this experiment alone. It's not significant to any physics. For example you could rig red flashlamps that fire simultaneously in the train frame and blue flashlamps that fire simultaneously in the ground frame and run both experiments (i.e., a "ground is at rest" and a "train is at rest" version) in one pass by the embankment.

 

[Orodruin]

To underscore Ibix’s point: The entire point of the example of the train and light flashes is to demonstrate that what simultaneous means depends on the frame. It is a very common misconception among laymen and physics students alike to think that it is possible to state that two events are simultaneous without understanding that the specification of the frame they are simultaneous in actually affects their physical setup.

 

[JulianM]

What must happen is that in each frame the two flashes illuminate the observer in that frame on both sides of the observer at the same time. This is a an observable event.

The passenger sees both sides of the platform observer illuminated at the same time and the platform observer sees both sides of the passenger illuminated at the same time.

They do not see rhesus events happen at the same time unless they are co-located.

 

[Ziang]

After Einstein's train left the park, it railed along a very long swimming pool.
On the ground, two ends of the pool were touched with two sticks at the same time. Water waves from the two ends met each other right at the middle point O of the pool. The observer standing at point O took a picture of the waves and sent it to the lady sitting on the train.
On the train, according to SR, two ends of the pool were not touched simultaneously, the lady wondered why the waves met each other right at the middle point O.

 

[Ibix]

the lady wondered why the waves met each other right at the middle point O.

Then she wondered whether mechanical wave speeds in a medium might be different if the waves were moving with or against the bulk motion of the medium...

 

[Janus]

After Einstein's train left the park, it railed along a very long swimming pool.
On the ground, two ends of the pool were touched with two sticks at the same time. Water waves from the two ends met each other right at the middle point O of the pool. The observer standing at point O took a picture of the waves and sent it to the lady sitting on the train.
On the train, according to SR, two ends of the pool were not touched simultaneously, the lady wondered why the waves met each other right at the middle point O.

And we are back to the addition of velocities theorem. If s is the speed of the waves through the water as measured by the pool and the observer standing at point O, and v is the velocity of the train relative to the pool, then the lady on the train will measure the waves traveling through the pool in the same direction as she is relative to the pool as being
(v-s)/(1-vs/c²)
relative to the train.
and the waves traveling in the opposite direction as moving at
(v+s)/(1+vs/c²)

Basically what happens according her is that while one set of waves leaves one end of the pool before the other set of waves leaves its end, the waves that left first are traveling slower with respect to the pool then the waves that left later, and this difference in wave speed results in them still meeting at the midpoint of the pool.
Both she and the Observer at point O agree that the waves meet at the midpoint, They just disagree as to the sequence of events that led to this end result.

 

[Ibix]

One can also make a general observation that all classical mechanical phenomena (except gravity) are applied electromagnetism, when you get right down to it. They're all about atoms interacting through their electromagnetic fields. So all mechanical phenomena are necessarily compatible with relativity, no matter how counterintuitive it may appear.

Far and away the simplest way to understand this, I think, is a Minkowski diagram of the sort I posted in #70. Then you can see clearly that nothing about the 4d object changes; it's just your interpretation of the data you receive that produces different 3d slices of it.

 

[Peter Martin]

After Einstein's train left the park, it railed along a very long swimming pool.
On the ground, two ends of the pool were touched with two sticks at the same time. Water waves from the two ends met each other right at the middle point O of the pool. The observer standing at point O took a picture of the waves and sent it to the lady sitting on the train.
On the train, according to SR, two ends of the pool were not touched simultaneously, the lady wondered why the waves met each other right at the middle point O.

Love it!

 

[JulianM]

Love it!

What Ziang is describing is the motion of a wave in a medium.

Sounds too much like Aether doesn't it?

 

[Ibix]

What Ziang is describing is the motion of a wave in a medium.

Sounds too much like Aether doesn't it?

You have that backwards. Aether was expected to behave like the water does, but the whole thing turns out not to be a good model for the propagation of light. Water still behaves like water.

 

[JulianM]

You have that backwards. Aether was expected to behave like the water does, but the whole thing turns out not to be a good model for the propagation of light. Water still behaves like water.

That's what I was saying. Ziang's description of waves in a pool is reminiscent of aether theory, which we know is incorrect and is not the way light behaves.

 

[Ziang]

... the waves that left first are traveling slower with respect to the pool then the waves that left later,...

The medium (water) does not depend on moving direction of waves. Would you tell me how water waves can travel at different speeds in different directions with respect to the pool?

 

[Ibix]

The medium (water) does not depend on moving direction of waves. Would you tell me how water waves can travel at different speeds in different directions with respect to the pool?

Because velocities don't add linearly and the pool is in motion in this frame.

 

[Janus]

The medium (water) does not depend on moving direction of waves. Would you tell me how water waves can travel at different speeds in different directions with respect to the pool?

Now we go back to what Ibix said in post #112.
The waves moving through the water depends on interaction between the molecules, which in turn relies on electromagnetism. Since the whole initial premise of the Train experiment is that the speed of light (and thus the speed of electromagnetic interaction) is invariant. This means the speed of interaction between water molecules according to the train observer will be dependent on this fact. The speed of the waves measured by them relative to themselves also depends on this. This in turn results in her measuring the speed of the wave with respect to point O to differ depending on the direction the waves are traveling.
This is how things work in a Relativistic universe. Your whole objection seems to be based on the idea that the conclusions run counter to Newtonian rules. We don't live in a Newtonian universe, so we shouldn't expect its behavior to be constrained to Newtonian rules.

 

[Ziang]

So I can say that according to SR,
If a medium is moving straight at a constant velocity, the velocity of mechanic waves in/on the medium depends on the direction of wave propagation.
For an example, if the water was touched at the center of a moving pool, then the waves look like eggs instead of circles.

 

[Ibix]

So I can say that according to SR,
If a medium is moving straight at a constant velocity, the velocity of mechanic waves in/on the medium depends on the direction of wave propagation.
For an example, if the water was touched at the center of a moving pool, then the waves look like eggs instead of circles.

Yes.

I don't really understand what you are trying to get out of this. SR does produce counterintuitive results, yes, but that's just because your intuition isn't developed to handle extreme situations. Can you explain to us what you hope to learn by posting scenarios where SR's predictions are surprising to you?

 

[Ziang]

The Einstein's train is now railing along a long and very light box. At the center of the box, we install two identical spring guns in opposite directions.
On the ground, these two guns shoot two identical balls at the same time. These balls also hit the opposite walls at the same time. The observer standing on the ground claim that the box is sitting still.
On the train, according to SR, the two balls do not hit the opposite walls simultaneously. So the box would be moving jerkily with respect to the lady sitting on the train, right?

 

[jbriggs444]

The Einstein's train is now railing along a long and very light box.

But you proceed to assume that the box is rigid. It is not.

 

[Ibix]

So the box would be moving jerkily with respect to the lady sitting on the train, right?

The box is not perfectly rigid since this would imply an infinite speed of sound, so this is exactly the same as your previous scenario. The shock waves from the impacts will always meet in the middle. The parts of the box not yet reached by the shock wave are not in motion.

I repeat: what are you hoping to learn by this process?

 

[Nugatory]

There's no acceleration involved here, so the box is analogous to the rails the train in the original experiment rides on - its rigidity is not a concern and can be safely assumed. The problem is the erroneous conclusion

So the box would be moving jerkily with respect to the lady sitting on the train, right?

No, all the motion is perfectly smooth. The two events "first ball hits front wall" and "second ball hits rear wall" do not happen at the same time in the frame in which the train and the lady are at rest, while they do happen at the same time in the frame in which the box is at rest.

 

[jbriggs444]

Rigidity comes in because of the assumption of a "very light box" and the conclusion that the box [apparently assumed to be a rigid whole] would be "moving jerkily". The two ends might each move jerkily, but they would not move rigidly and simultaneously in all frames.

 

[Ibix]

There's no acceleration involved here, so the box is analogous to the rails the train in the original experiment rides on - its rigidity is not a concern and can be safely assumed.

I disagree, although I suspect as a point of language. I think Ziang is imagining that the box remains stationary in the frame where the ends are hit simultaneously, but jerks one way then the other in other frames. The reality, of course, is that the impact events are space-like separated so the ends move independently at least until they enter the future light cone of the other end's impact event. And in practice much longer than that because the shock wave propagation is so slow compared to light. That's why I said that rigidity (or lack thereof) is important here.

 

[Peter Martin]

To restate what Orodruin and Janus have said - it doesn't. The point is that when you set up the experiment, you choose in which frame the flashes are simultaneous.

That frame is significant to this experiment alone. It's not significant to any physics. For example you could rig red flashlamps that fire simultaneously in the train frame and blue flashlamps that fire simultaneously in the ground frame and run both experiments (i.e., a "ground is at rest" and a "train is at rest" version) in one pass by the embankment.

In your reply you state, "The point is that when you set up the experiment, you choose in which frame the flashes are simultaneous." So please answer my question in this scenario.

You are Zeus, the god of thunder and lightening. You can cause a bolt of lightning simply by pointing a finger at a location. You are hovering over the railroad tracks crossing a countryside. A man stands beside the tracks waiting for a train to pass.

Scenario 1: From your right, a high-speed train approaches. You can see a woman passenger’s head sticking out a window at the train’s midpoint. As the two observers come face-to-face, you intend for lightning to strike the tracks just ahead of and behind the train such that the man sees the two flashes as simultaneous. How do you time the lightning bolts?

Scenario 2: This time you are hovering over the high-speed train. The countryside is slipping by from left to right. As the two observers come face-to-face, you intend for lightning to strike the tracks just ahead of and behind the train such that the woman sees the two flashes as simultaneous. What do you differently from what you did the first time?

Many thanks for your time and attention.

 

[Janus]

In your reply you state, "The point is that when you set up the experiment, you choose in which frame the flashes are simultaneous." So please answer my question in this scenario.

You are Zeus, the god of thunder and lightening. You can cause a bolt of lightning simply by pointing a finger at a location. You are hovering over the railroad tracks crossing a countryside. A man stands beside the tracks waiting for a train to pass.

Scenario 1: From your right, a high-speed train approaches. You can see a woman passenger’s head sticking out a window at the train’s midpoint. As the two observers come face-to-face, you intend for lightning to strike the tracks just ahead of and behind the train such that the man sees the two flashes as simultaneous. How do you time the lightning bolts?

Scenario 2: This time you are hovering over the high-speed train. The countryside is slipping by from left to right. As the two observers come face-to-face, you intend for lightning to strike the tracks just ahead of and behind the train such that the woman sees the two flashes as simultaneous. What do you differently from what you did the first time?

Many thanks for your time and attention.

You'd aim at different points of the tracks.
Example: In scenario 1, the train, as measured by Zeus, is 10 km long. The tracks also has kilometer markers along it. So, for example, if the track observer is stationed at the 45 km marker, he would aim so that one lightning bolt strikes the 40 km marker at the moment the rear of the train is next to it and the other bolt strikes the 50 km marker when the front of the train is next to it.
Now we will also assume that the relative velocity between train and tracks is 0.866c

Now we switch to the second scenario. The train is not 10 km long. The 10 km measured in scenario 1 was due to length contraction. In scenario 2, Zeus measures the proper length of the train, which is 20 km. He also now measures the tracks as length contracted and the km placed along it as being only 1/2 km apart. Now, in order to hit the tracks just in front of the train as the train observer passes the 45 km mark, He has to aim at the 25 and 65 km markers on the tracks.

There is one thing to that also has to be accounted for in both of these scenarios Even Zeus' power to create lightning bolts is subject to the laws of Relativity. In other words, when he points his finger at a spot, the lightning can not strike at that spot any sooner than it would take for light to travel the distance between his finger and the spot. If you try to assert that it is instantaneous, then you are violating the rules you are intending to test. This means that the "Zeus" scenarios are really no different than scenarios where our train and track observers are given switches that they use to trigger the flashes, with the signals traveling along the wires at c.

 

[Ziang]

No, all the motion is perfectly smooth.

Now I install two laser guns instead of spring guns. Two light beams carry momentums and hit the mirror-walls of the box at different time points with respect to the train.
Is the box still moving smoothly with respect to the lady sitting on the train?

 

[Ibix]

You are Zeus, the god of thunder and lightening. You can cause a bolt of lightning simply by pointing a finger at a location. You are hovering over the railroad tracks crossing a countryside. A man stands beside the tracks waiting for a train to pass.

It's impossible to discuss a supernatural entity interacting with reality. What I can tell you is how an SFX guy would rig his squibs so that when Lawrence Olivier points his finger somebody somewhere records simultaneous strikes.

Let's define time zero to be the moment that the man and the woman pass. In both your scenarios, you rig the squibs to detonate at time zero. The only difference is whether you sync the squibs' clocks to train clocks or trackside clocks - that's the choice you make.

As Janus points out, the tricky part is where to place the squibs, but since I believe we rigged the scenario so that the train and embankment were the same length in the embankment frame you can just attach the squibs to the train when you want simultaneity in the train frame and to the embankment when you want simultaneity in the embankment frame.

 

[Ibix]

Now I install two laser guns instead of spring guns. Two light beams carry momentums and hit the mirror-walls of the box at different time points with respect to the train.
Is the box still moving smoothly with respect to the lady sitting on the train?

Same answer as before. Why do you think this changes anything?

 

[Peter Martin]

Janus, I can't thank you enough for your time and effort to explain the train-lightening experiment to me. I'm still processing your reply, so I'll thank you properly when I finish. I believe your explanation is the first time anyone on PF has introduced length contraction into their explanation of this thought experiment.

On another (sort of) note, I understand time dilation based on Einstein's "light clock". I've even done the algebra. What I don't get is how length contraction is derived from time dilation. I'd appreciate any thoughts you care to offer.

 

[vanhees71]

Janus, I can't thank you enough for your time and effort to explain the train-lightening experiment to me. I'm still processing your reply, so I'll thank you properly when I finish. I believe your explanation is the first time anyone on PF has introduced length contraction into their explanation of this thought experiment.

On another (sort of) note, I understand time dilation based on Einstein's "light clock". I've even done the algebra. What I don't get is how length contraction is derived from time dilation. I'd appreciate any thoughts you care to offer.

Maybe this helps?

https://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/srt.pdf

 

[jbriggs444]

On another (sort of) note, I understand time dilation based on Einstein's "light clock". I've even done the algebra. What I don't get is how length contraction is derived from time dilation. I'd appreciate any thoughts you care to offer.

There are three pieces. Length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity. Ignore anyone of the three and the other two will not make coherent sense.

 

[Janus]

Janus, I can't thank you enough for your time and effort to explain the train-lightening experiment to me. I'm still processing your reply, so I'll thank you properly when I finish. I believe your explanation is the first time anyone on PF has introduced length contraction into their explanation of this thought experiment.

On another (sort of) note, I understand time dilation based on Einstein's "light clock". I've even done the algebra. What I don't get is how length contraction is derived from time dilation. I'd appreciate any thoughts you care to offer.

First consider the standard light clock demonstration like the one shown here with a relative velocity of 0.866 c

Now modify it by adding mirrors aligned parallel to the motion as well as perpendicular.
If we assume no length contraction for the "moving" mirrors you would get the following :

Note that the horizontally traveling pulse for the moving mirrors doesn't even complete 1 leg of the round trip before the stationary mirror's pulses make their two round trips. More importantly, the vertical and horizontal pulses for the moving mirrors do not return to the starting point together. If this were true, then you would have a test that someone at rest with respect to the moving mirrors could use to tell that they were in absolute motion. (This is basically what the Michelson Morley experiment was looking for.)

If however, the moving mirrors are length contracted as measured in the frame of the stationary mirrors by the same factor as the time dilation, you get this.

Now the horizontal pulse for the moving mirrors complete the round trip in the same time as the vertical one does. The horizontal pulse does hit the right mirror after the vertical one hits the bottom mirror, but this is just the relativity of simultaneity being expressed. These events are not simultaneous according the the frame from which the animation is seen, but they would be for someone riding along with the moving mirrors.

 

[Nugatory]

On another (sort of) note, I understand time dilation based on Einstein's "light clock". I've even done the algebra. What I don't get is how length contraction is derived from time dilation.

The length of something is the distance between where its two endpoints are at the same time. Relativity of simultaneity, as shown by the train/lightning experiment, tells us that "at the same time" is frame-dependent, and therefore lengths also must be frame-dependent.

The easiest way to work out the exact formula is to start with the Lorentz transformation, from which both length contraction and time dilation follow.