Terrell Revisited: The Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the debate surrounding James Terrell's assertion that Lorentz contraction is "invisible" to observers in motion. The key points include the relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, and length contraction, which are illustrated through a thought experiment involving a circular room filled with smoke and mirrors. The author argues against Terrell's claim by demonstrating that Lorentz contraction is indeed observable, particularly when analyzing the apparent lengths of objects at varying speeds, specifically at 30% and 90% of the speed of light. The conclusion drawn is that Terrell's argument lacks validity, as the Lorentz contraction remains visible under the conditions described.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity concepts, including time dilation and length contraction.
  • Familiarity with the relativity of simultaneity and its implications in physics.
  • Knowledge of Lorentz transformations and their application in relativistic physics.
  • Basic comprehension of aberration equations and their relevance to light behavior in motion.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the relativity of simultaneity in different reference frames.
  • Explore the mathematical foundations of Lorentz transformations in detail.
  • Investigate the aberration equations and their effects on perceived object lengths at relativistic speeds.
  • Review historical and contemporary critiques of Terrell's argument regarding Lorentz contraction.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the nuances of Special Relativity and the implications of Lorentz contraction in observational contexts.

  • #181
JDoolin said:
And high redshift objects, such as distant supernova with z>7, and CMBR with z>1000.
The high redshift objects are traveling more than .866c but straight away from us.
I wouldn't count that, only macro objects passing each other at the same place and time with a relative speed. Cosmological redshifts are generally not regarded as high-speed motion, but rather a dynamical change in the metric that determines distances.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #182
JDoolin said:
There's "superluminal jets":
The superluminal jets probably consist of particles--not individual macroscopic objects. And high redshift objects, such as distant supernova with z>7, and CMBR with z>1000.
The high redshift objects are traveling more than .866c but straight away from us.
I explicitly said "near earth", which is what would be needed to try to photograph the effects you've been simulating.
 
  • #183
Ken G said:
I wouldn't count that, only macro objects passing each other at the same place and time with a relative speed. Cosmological redshifts are generally not regarded as high-speed motion, but rather a dynamical change in the metric that determines distances.

And that is a matter of contention, which I would rather not hijack this thread to discuss. A consensus position is that relative velocity of distant objects simply has no well defined meaning.
 
  • #184
PAllen said:
I explicitly said "near earth", which is what would be needed to try to photograph the effects you've been simulating.

About 53 million light years away, M87 has a superluminal jet that is large enough to distinguish some macroscopic detail.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/superlum/superlum.htm

Now that doesn't occupy a large solid-angle, but it should still show the stretching and compression along the axis of it's velocity.

The jet is simultaneously being shot out from both sides of the active galaxy, which would provide a dramatic difference between the jets moving away, and the jets moving toward us.

We might not see the superluminal jet "go by" like this abstract object does here:
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/web_images/ViewFollowing19.gif

But we would still observe whatever details are present in the approaching cloud, stretched out by the superluminal effect, and on the other side, flattened by the combination of the recession effect and the Lorentz Contraction effect.
m87jet_hst_big.jpg

So, for instance, why here, does the jet seem to only come out of one side of the galaxy? Is it an asymmetrical event, or is it actually coming out of both sides, equally, but our perception of the receding jet are so slowed that we can't see it yet?
 
  • #185
Well, the other jet would be red shifted and dimmed versus blue shifted and brightened. Don't know that fully accounts for no visibility, but it would certainly contribute. There is a large component velocity towards us for superluminal apparent motion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K