Special Relativity Train Scenario

kasha
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Assume there is an engineer who built a tunnel, tunnel length is 10m, and we have a train its length is also 10m...so the tunnel can encompasses the entire length of the train.

But if we assume that train is a light express train, it always comes through the tunnel at relativistic speed, let's say train speed = 0.8c, relative to the observing engineer.
So the civil engineer who built the tunnel, watches the train gets shorter due to special relativity (Train length relative to the standing engineer is 5m).

Does it make sense to say: since the train crosses the tunnel at relativistic speed close to the speed of light, so the engineer can build a shorter tunnel (length 5m) and tunnel can still encompasses the full length of the train?!? Engineer has saved money on the lower cost shorter tunnel.!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the only constraint on the tunnel length is that the entire train has to fit into the tunnel at some instant of time in the tunnel's rest frame, then yes, the tunnel could be built shorter if the train were guaranteed to be moving at relativistic speed. However, I don't see how any actual tunnel would have this as its only constraint. Tunnel lengths are determined by what must be tunneled through, not by what's going to be passing through the tunnel.
 
  • Like
Likes kasha
You may want to google for "pole-barn paradox" - the path you're on is going to take you there pretty quickly.
 
  • Like
Likes kasha
PeterDonis said:
If the only constraint on the tunnel length is that the entire train has to fit into the tunnel at some instant of time in the tunnel's rest frame, then yes, the tunnel could be built shorter if the train were guaranteed to be moving at relativistic speed. However, I don't see how any actual tunnel would have this as its only constraint. Tunnel lengths are determined by what must be tunneled through, not by what's going to be passing through the tunnel.

You are right...there is no actual implementation of my scenario. Tunnel Height is more realistic constrain than the tunnel length. but couldn't come up with a scenario that would utilize the Tunnel Height, because the tunnel height would be unchanged relative to the train operator since the train moves on the x-axis whereas the tunnel's height is y-axis.

Thanks a lot
 
Nugatory said:
You may want to google for "pole-barn paradox" - the path you're on is going to take you there pretty quickly.

Oh wow...never heard of that paradox, but that makes much more sense than by training fitting in a tunnel :-)

Got all the answers I was looking for: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/polebarn.html

Many Thanks
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top