Why does time and space have to be relative?

AI Thread Summary
The Lorentz transform demonstrates that both time and length are relative concepts, challenging the notion of absolute time. The discussion centers on why it is impossible to create a mathematical transformation that maintains the speed of light as constant while keeping time absolute. Measurements of distance rely on simultaneous observations, which differ across inertial reference frames (IFORs), leading to discrepancies in perceived simultaneity. Attempts to construct such a transform have been considered but found insufficient to reconcile these differences. Ultimately, the nature of light's speed necessitates the relativity of both time and length.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
The lorentz-transform shows that both length and time are relative concepts.
My question is: Why does both time and length have to be relative? Why can't you mathematically construct a transform which transforms your x' relative to x such that light has same speed in both the x and x' frame while still keeping time an absolute quantity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
The lorentz-transform shows that both length and time are relative concepts.
My question is: Why does both time and length have to be relative? Why can't you mathematically construct a transform which transforms your x' relative to x such that light has same speed in both the x and x' frame while still keeping time an absolute quantity?
Measurement of a distance requires simultaneous measurements of two different points in space. The reason distance measurements are not the same in all inertial reference frames (IFORs) is because observers in different IFORs do not agree on what is simultaneous.

AM
 
aaaa202 said:
The lorentz-transform shows that both length and time are relative concepts.
My question is: Why does both time and length have to be relative? Why can't you mathematically construct a transform which transforms your x' relative to x such that light has same speed in both the x and x' frame while still keeping time an absolute quantity?
You can, and it was considered, but that is not sufficient.
We discussed this in the recent (and still open) discussion thread here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=625509

This is specifically addressed in post #20 and following posts:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4036452
 
aaaa202 said:
The lorentz-transform shows that both length and time are relative concepts.
My question is: Why does both time and length have to be relative? Why can't you mathematically construct a transform which transforms your x' relative to x such that light has same speed in both the x and x' frame while still keeping time an absolute quantity?
Say event A is light being emitted from a flashlight and event B is the light entering your eye. In the rest frame, the distance between your eye and the flashlight is x, so the time it will take for the light to propagate from A to B is x/c, where c is the speed of light. In the moving frame, x' is the distance between the two events. If x' is different and you insist c remains the same, can the time interval between A and B remain unchanged?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top