JesseM
Science Advisor
- 8,519
- 16
I still don't get it, what does "sum the LT time solutions" mean? You can break down a worldline into a lot of short segments and calculate the proper time along each one, but again I don't see how this would involve the LT. If the endpoints of each segment had a spatial separation of dx and a time separation of dt and the velocity on that segment was v (all in whatever frame you were using), the proper time could either be calculated using the spacetime interval \sqrt{dt^2 - (1/c^2)dx^2} or equivalently using the time dilation equation \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} dt. But in both cases we are only using the coordinates of a single frame, so we aren't using the LT which relates the coordinates of two different frames.GrayGhost said:JesseM,
Wrt integration, I mean only that each observer must sum his own proper time for each infitesimal over the interval, as he goes. Also, he must similarly sum the LT time solutions (of the other guy) for each infitesimal over the interval, as he goes.
Do you have a clear mathematical procedure in mind or are you just basing this on a vague sense of how SR calculations work? If you have a clear idea, please spell out the equations; if not, consider the possibility that you may just be mistaken about how proper time along a worldline is calculated.
I never said you cannot use a simultaneity convention in a non-inertial frame that matches up at every moment with simultaneity in the instantaneous inertial rest frame of an accelerating object, in fact I definitely said you could do this. But the point is that in a non-inertial frame there is no longer anything particularly "useful" about this, since neither the 1st postulate nor the 2nd postulate can be expected to hold in a non-inertial frame with this sort of simultaneity convention. So why do you think a non-inertial frame with this sort of simultaneity convention is any better (or more consistent with SR) than a non-inertial frame with a different sort of simultaneity convention? Do you contend there is any concrete advantage or is it just that it has a greater aesthetic appeal to you?GrayGhost said:So, Einstein's convention is the result of the 2nd postulate which stems from Maxwell's theory, and it's very useful because the 1st postulate is able to be upheld. You contend that his convention cannot be applied from the non-inertial POV.
I suspect you mean something different by "kinematic" then I would--can you define that word for me? I would say that the LT relate one purely inertial coordinate system covering all of spacetime to a different purely inertial coordinate system covering all of spacetime. The "v" that appears in the transformation equations must be a constant, not a variable which changes at different values of the time-coordinate, otherwise you are no longer dealing with the "Lorentz transformation" but rather some rather different coordinate transformation. Do you disagree?GrayGhost said:Wrt twin B's use of the LTs, I just don't see what the problem is. Twin B measures light at c at his location. The LTs are kinematic.
I have no idea what it would mean to "account for configurational changes" when you "apply the LTs". Here are the Lorentz transformation equations:GrayGhost said:In that I have to disagree. Twin B may apply the LTs, so long as he accounts for the configurational changes that arise in his surroundings due to changes in his own state of motion, which arise due to changes in his own orientation within the continuum as he undergoes proper acceleration.
t' = gamma*(t - vx/c^2)
x' = gamma*(x - vt)
y'=y
z'=z
with gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
They're pretty straightforward, if you know the coordinates t,x,y,z of some event in the unprimed frame, you plug those coordinates into these equations to get the coordinates t',x',y',z' in the primed frame. And again, v is a constant in these equations. So can you explain mathematically, in terms of these equations, what it means to "account for configurational changes" and how that could alter the value of t',x',y',z' for an event with a known t,x,y,z? Do you just mean that at different times B would have a different rest frame so at one time he might be interested in the coordinates t',x',y',z' of frame #1 but at a different time he might be interested in the coordinates t'',x'',y'',z'' of a different frame #2?
Why can't it be? Any observer is free to use any frame they want to, their own state of motion does not obligate them to use a particular frame, it's simply a matter of convention that for inertial observers we typically define what each one "observes" in terms of their rest frame. But even if I am an inertial observer, nothing would stop me from ignoring this convention and making all my measurements and calculations from the perspective of an inertial frame which is moving relative to me at 0.6c, for example. Do you disagree?GrayGhost said:This particluar effect cannot be neglected by B
I don't understand what you mean by "no less preferred". Usually a "preferred" frame or set of frames is one where the equations of the laws of physics take some "special" form that they don't in other frames, and in this sense all inertial frames are "preferred" when compared to non-inertial ones in SR, since commonly-used useful equations such as Maxwell's laws or the time dilation equation only work in inertial frames.GrayGhost said:They are the very reason that the non-inertial POV is far less convenient, although no less preferred...
Again, don't know what "dynamic configurational changes" means. It's starting to seem like a lot of your argument is based on technobabble, vaguely technical-sounding phrases which in fact have no well-defined meaning. Please either use standard terms in the standard way, or if you're going to make up your own non-standard terminology, please define it in precise mathematical terms.GrayGhost said:When you asked what I was talking about "wrt dilation between B's departure event and B's turnabout event", I was referring to these dynamic configurational changes.
Don't know what you mean by "proper length" here, usually proper length/proper distance refers to the distance along some particular spacelike worldline, although sometimes proper length also refers to the rest length of some rigid object moving inertially. I don't see how either meaning would make sense here.GrayGhost said:Remember, twin B travels across some proper length of the A-frame (an invariant)
How can a "length" be contracted? I can understand what it means for the length of a rigid object to be contracted, but not a free-floating "length" which doesn't seem to be the length of any particular object (or the distance between two objects). And didn't you just say this "length" was an "invariant", meaning it should be the same in every frame? Again, please try not to speak in vague technobabble, give me something like a specific numerical example where we can actually calculate a value for whatever "length" you're talking about.GrayGhost said:which per B must be contracted since he witnesses said length in motion.
Don't know what you mean by "move". Certainly there is no coordinate system where a given event has shifting positions at different times, since each event is instantaneously brief and only happens at a particular instant in time. But the position coordinates of the events may of course be different in different frames.GrayGhost said:However, B's departure and turnabout events do not move per anyone, because events never move
When you say "their separation" you talking about their time separation (difference in time coordinates \Delta t between the two), their distance separation (difference in position coordinates \Delta x between the two), or the invariant spacetime interval (\sqrt{\Delta t - (1/c^2)\Delta x}? And likewise what does "proper separation" mean? Again I would request that you give some simple numerical example where you give specific values for the terms you use.GrayGhost said:... and their separation is dilated wrt the proper separation.
Objects don't have a "sense-of-simultaneity", again it is simply a matter of convention what coordinate system we associate with what object. As I said, even if I am an inertial observer I am perfectly free to use an inertial coordinate system moving at 0.6c relative to me, this goes against the most common convention for what is meant by the words "my perspective" but as long as I explain what I'm doing there is no physical reason why I am "wrong" to use a frame other than my rest frame. Do you disagree?GrayGhost said:So as twin B accelerates wildly, the separation between the 2 events changes wildly, and twin A advances or digresses wildly along his own worldline (per B, not per A or anyone else) because B's sense-of-simultaneity rotates rapidly.