Why Does an Object Shrink When Traveling Close to Light Speed

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon of length contraction as an object approaches the speed of light. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of this effect, including historical perspectives and varying interpretations of relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the reason behind the observed shrinking of objects at relativistic speeds, seeking a deeper understanding of the phenomenon.
  • Another participant suggests that the concept of length contraction is necessary to explain the consistent measurement of the speed of light across different inertial frames.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that the perceived shrinking is not a physical change in the object itself, but rather a result of the relative motion between the observer and the object.
  • Some participants reference historical approaches to the topic, noting that earlier theories by Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and Poincare predate Einstein's formulation of relativity and offer alternative explanations.
  • One participant critiques the reliance on Einstein's postulates as being outdated, proposing a more visual and geometrical approach to understanding the concepts involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of length contraction and its explanation, with no consensus reached on the most valid approach or understanding of the phenomenon.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence of explanations on foundational assumptions and the historical context of the theories discussed, indicating that interpretations may vary based on differing starting points.

bodhi
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
why does the object shrink in size when they travel close to the speed of light?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We say that this must happen in order to understand why it is that everyone measures the speed of light to be the same before and after they accelerate from one state of steady motion to a different state of steady motion.
 
When you ask a "why" question like this, the answer is always going to depend on what you start with as assumptions. If you ask Euclid why the Pythagorean theorem is true, he'll show you a proof based on his five postulates. But it's also possible to form a logically equivalent system by replacing his parallel postulate with one that asserts the Pythagorean theorem to be true; in this case, we would say that the reason the "parallel theorem" is true is that we can prove it based on the "Pythagorean postulate."

Ghwellsjr has given an answer based on the postulates that Einstein used when he first published relativity in 1905. That's perfectly valid, but in my view that approach is very old-fashioned. Here's the way I prefer to present the subject: http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/0sn/ch07/ch07.html This is basically a streamlined visual and geometrical presentation of an approach that dates back to 1911. Some published papers that use this method:

W.v.Ignatowsky, Phys. Zeits. 11 (1911) 972
Rindler, Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological, 1979, p. 51
Palash B. Pal, "Nothing but Relativity," Eur.J.Phys.24:315-319,2003, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045v1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bodhi said:
why does the object shrink in size when they travel close to the speed of light?

The object does not "shrink" in itself, the length measurements effected by an observer in motion wrt the object are affected by the relative speed between the observer and the object.
bcrowell gave you the mathematical formalism of the above sentence.
 
bcrowell said:
Ghwellsjr has given an answer based on the postulates that Einstein used when he first published relativity in 1905. That's perfectly valid, but in my view that approach is very old-fashioned.
Actually, Ben, my answer is even more old-fashioned than Einstein's theory of relativity published in 1905. It goes back to the explanations offered by Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and Poincare several years earlier and has nothing to do with Einstein's two postulates, especially not his second one.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K