The Mysterious Synchronization of Clocks in Special Relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the synchronization of clocks in the context of special relativity, particularly focusing on scenarios involving moving trains and stationary observers. Participants explore how different observers perceive the timing of clocks that emit light signals, considering both theoretical implications and practical examples.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a clock mechanism using light beams and questions how synchronization is affected when clocks are placed on a fast-moving train, suggesting that an outside observer would see them as unsynchronized.
  • Another participant argues that both clocks on the train tick consistently for both the outside observer and the train observer, attributing this to effects that cancel each other out, and claims that relativity is not necessary for this analysis.
  • A different participant expresses confusion about why identical emitters would produce light beams at different rates as perceived by the outside observer.
  • Another participant suggests that while clocks may appear to slow down or speed up depending on their direction relative to the observer, they would still remain synchronized in terms of overall timing.
  • One participant proposes a scenario with a third clock that operates differently, suggesting that it would be perceived as out of sync by the outside observer, despite being synchronized from the train's perspective.
  • Several participants discuss the implications of the speed of light being constant in all directions and how this affects the synchronization of clocks, with some asserting that this leads to contradictions in the observers' perceptions.
  • Another participant references the concept of "relativity of simultaneity" to explain the differing perceptions of clock synchronization between observers in different frames of reference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the clocks can be considered synchronized from the perspective of an outside observer versus that of a traveler on the train. There is no consensus on the implications of their observations or the necessity of relativity in explaining the phenomena.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge various assumptions, such as the constancy of light speed and the effects of motion on perceived timing, but do not resolve the underlying complexities or contradictions in their arguments.

shlosmem
Messages
47
Reaction score
2
Let's say we have a clock that work like this , districts beam of lights are sent in constant time gaps (created by a crystal or some other radioactive process) to a sensor. the sensor is connected to a counter that counts the number of beams, and here we have our clock.
Now if we put 2 clocks such this in a room they will remain more or less synchronized regardless to the position we put them.
But if we think on a train traveling very fast, and we put 2 of the clocks in the train one is sending the lights to the driving direction and one to the opposite direction, according to an observer standing outside the train the clocks cannot remain synchronized because relative to the observer the lights meets the sensor more frequently on the second clock. But as we know a traveler inside the train will see synchronized clocks.
How this inconsistency in the state of world is explained in special relativity? (if the clocks transmitting the counting numbers what the outside observer will receive)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The outside observer will readily understand that both clocks 'tick' mutually consistently. For the one firing in the direction of train's motion, the emitter's motion means the spacing between pulses is compressed, while the receiver moving away perceives expansion relative to emitter. These effects exactly cancel. For the clock firing the other direction, the emitter's pulses appear (to outside observer) to have expanded gap, but then receiver moving towards emission point, sees compression. The effects cancel. Thus, both outside observer and train observer see both clocks running at the same rate. There is no need for relativity at all in this analysis. Relativity only enters to note that both train clocks are slow as observed by outside observer, compared to their own. That is, the fact that both clocks agree for both observers is fully explained by Galilean relativity. Only the time dilation of both clocks as observed by outside observer is a relativistic effect.
 
PAllen said:
For the one firing in the direction of train's motion, the emitter's motion means the spacing between pulses is compressed, ... For the clock firing the other direction, the emitter's pulses appear (to outside observer) to have expanded gap, ... .

Thanks PAllen,
But I am not sure I fully understand. Why the observer will see emitters who are identical but creating the light beams in a different rates?
 
I have thought about this one to surly the clocks will appear to slow down in one direction and speed up in the opposite direction as they traveling towards and away from the standing observer unlike the vertical clocks that appear to just slow down.
They would not be unsynchronized though as they both will of course slow and speed up the same amount still meaning one tick (backward and forth motion of the clocks) would take the same amount of time by both clocks. And as the light would spend more time traveling away from the observer than traveling towards the over all amount no doubt if you calculated it will agree with a vertical clock on the same train.
 
shlosmem said:
Let's say we have a clock that work like this , districts beam of lights are sent in constant time gaps (created by a crystal or some other radioactive process) to a sensor. the sensor is connected to a counter that counts the number of beams, and here we have our clock.
Now if we put 2 clocks such this in a room they will remain more or less synchronized regardless to the position we put them.
But if we think on a train traveling very fast, and we put 2 of the clocks in the train one is sending the lights to the driving direction and one to the opposite direction, according to an observer standing outside the train the clocks cannot remain synchronized because relative to the observer the lights meets the sensor more frequently on the second clock. But as we know a traveler inside the train will see synchronized clocks.
How this inconsistency in the state of world is explained in special relativity? (if the clocks transmitting the counting numbers what the outside observer will receive)
First it may be useful to make two corrections.
1. A train that "is traveling fast" suggests constant speed. Then according to the outside observer, the light meets the sensor just as frequently on the rear clock because the distance is constant (conservation of cycles!). However, during the preceding acceleration phase, indeed the light meets the sensor more frequently on the rear clock.
2. The traveler inside the train will interpret the clocks as having gone out of sync if this traveler does an "Einstein synchronization" inside the train for its new state of motion.
 
"Then according to the outside observer, the light meets the sensor just as frequently on the rear clock because the distance is constant (conservation of cycles!)."

harrylin - This is exactly what I'm trying to understand her. I thought of 3 facts the outside observer will say.
1. The two light emitters are working on the same rate.
2. The speed of the light is equal for every direction.
3. The distance the light making (from the source to the sensor) is different for every clock.
The conclusion for all this 3 that clocks can’t be synchronized for the observer, so one of them must be wrong. Now PAllen Claim that the first fact is wrong, but I’m still not sure how it can be, If according to rules of physics the 2 emitters should have the same rate.
 
Last edited:
Now I think that we can make this question even harder! This 2 clocks also are not showing the same number they are working with the same rate. But let's make a third clock, that work with a single beam of light moving between mirrors and placing a sensor and counter on one of the mirrors. We can make the distance between the mirrors in such a way that according to someone on the train all the 3 clocks will be synchronized. But according to observer outside the train, the third clock will be completely out of sync with the first 2 clocks, in a way that this clock will be much slower! (This will be like a swimmer swimming one way with the river stream and one way against the river stream).
 
shlosmem said:
"Then according to the outside observer, the light meets the sensor just as frequently on the rear clock because the distance is constant (conservation of cycles!)."

harrylin - This is exactly what I'm trying to understand her. I thought of 3 facts the outside observer will say.
1. The two light emitters are working on the same rate.
2. The speed of the light is equal for every direction.
3. The distance the light making (from the source to the sensor) is different for every clock.
The conclusion for all this 3 that clocks can’t be synchronized for the observer, so one of them must be wrong. Now PAllen Claim that the first fact is wrong, but I’m still not sure how it can be, If according to rules of physics the 2 emitters should have the same rate.
Please read it again: according to PAllen (and myself), for a train at constant speed: "both outside observer and train observer see both clocks running at the same rate."
That means that (1.) The two light emitters are working on the same rate. The consequence of the train analysis is what is often called "relativity of simultaneity". For a primer, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#The_train-and-platform_thought_experiment
 

Similar threads

High School The synchronization of clocks and the relativity of motion
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
7K
Undergrad Understanding Relativity of Simultaneity in Resnick, Part I
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Graduate Electrodynamics of moving bodies - §2: On the relativity of... (again)
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Undergrad Leading Clocks Lag: Twin Paradox Explained
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding Relativity of Simultaneity in Resnick, Part II
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad The wave equation interpretation of special relativity
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Undergrad Understanding Simultaneity Through Male & Female Clocks Meeting
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad Clock Synchronisation -- Do clock speeds go out of synch?
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
Undergrad Clock synchronization for ring-riding observers on rotating disk
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
Undergrad Shouldn't a moving clock appear to be ticking faster instead of slower?
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
8K