When a train is moving with respect to a stationary observer, he will measure an object on the train as shorter than an observer on the train would measure it.Correct moving objects are length contracted.
However if he later climb onto the train and measure the object again he will find it longer than he measured it previouslyCorrect the object is no longer moving relative to him so it is not length contracted.
a contradiction for a global observer (Gods eye view)What is that supposed to mean? What is a global observer?
One can't say the object was really shorter.Sure you can.
What is a global observer?
An observer observing both observers from outside of time.Since being outside of time is impossible, this observer is impossible.
When a train is moving with respect to a stationary observer, he will measure an object on the train as shorter than an observer on the train would measure it. However if he later climb onto the train and measure the object again he will find it longer than he measured it previously: a contradiction for a global observer (Gods eye view). One can't say the object was really shorter.
a contradiction for a global observer (Gods eye view).There is no absolute observer.
When a train is moving with respect to a stationary observer, he will measure an object on the train as shorter than an observer on the train would measure it. However if he later climb onto the train and measure the object again he will find it longer than he measured it previously: a contradiction for a global observer (Gods eye view). One can't say the object was really shorter.The 'God's eye view', or more commonly, the 'view from nowhere' is an accepted way of considering a system. In such a view, the train is a worldline and does not have a current state or a specific velocity. The length of the train (width of the train worldline) depends
Length isn't a property of an object.A rigid object has a proper length, which is considered the property of the length of the object, so I must disagree with your assertion. I mean, I'm a relational guy, so I see relations in almost everything that most people take as properties (including ontology), but proper length and proper mass are properties even in my book.
Length is a property of the object AND the environment in which it is measured. Change the environment and the value of the length can change.
An observer observing both observers from outside of time.
A rigid object has a proper length,
"Rigid bodies" are not a thing you can have in special relativity.Good catch.
"Rigid bodies" are not a thing you can have in special relativity. A Rigid body is an idealisation used in Classical Mechanics but the concept of it is not consistent with special relativity.First of all, I'm just talking about something like a train where the front and rear of the thing are going at the same speed, assuming it isn't accelerating. Yes, trains typically vibrate, and thus are not 'Born rigid' objects, which is the idealization to which you refer.
The speed of sound in a rigid body would be infinite.Only in a Born rigid object, since yes, sound is by definition strain, and any strain at all will break the object, which doesn't violate SR. Yes, I realize that many websites (wiki) state this argument against it, but the argument is fallacious since sound cannot be transmitted at all through an object and still have it exhibit Born rigid motion.
E.g. Simultaneity cannot be maintained in all frames of reference where there is some spatial seperation between the events. So, if a rod was "rigid" in one frame then all particles in it must have the same acceleration at the same time.This is incorrect. An accelerating rod has different proper acceleration along its length, else length contraction could not occur. That means that the front and back of the rod are not moving at the same speed in inertial frames other than the frame of the rod.
Switch to another frame and that acceleration loses its simultaneity and the body isn't "rigid" anymore.We have a different definition of rigidity then. As long as the object is stationary in its own frame at any given time, the motion is considered to be rigid motion.
One can't say the object was really shorter.
You're absolutley right, talanum.No, he,s wrong and so are you.
You can't say the object was really shorter because it assumes that length is a property that the object can have all on its own.There was no such assumption made. The length really is shorter in a moving frame relative to a stationary frame, just like time really is dilated in a moving frame relative to a frame at rest.
Again my point is not about idealized Born rigid objects, but rather about ordinary real objects where the two endpoints are effectively stationary relative to each other. Such objects have a proper length, which is a property of the object, not a frame dependent relation.I'm not following this, which is probably my fault. "The two endpoints are stationary relative to each other" - so there is a frame of reference involved, we can pick the front end to be the origin of the frame and the back end has 0 velocity in that frame. So it is the frame where the object is stationary (+ or - some translation). Yes, then there is a unique length you will observe for the object, although it seems that you have told me (up to translation) which reference frame we were using and I also know about the motion of the object in that frame (it is stationary).
If you you don't think that is accurate then you don't think Special Relativity is accurate which, considering all of the rigorous testing SR has undergone, seems like you are on the wrong side of science.
You can choose exactly how you want to try and define a rigid body. That's what I was trying to say. You don't have to imagine it as a body where all parts accelerate together simultaneously - but you can. That is what a classical rigid body would do.By classic, you mean non-relativistic? But this whole discussion is about relativistic motion, so discussing Newtonian rigid motion is off topic, no?
If you try to keep this characteristic then you sacrifice the constancy of length in the reference frame where the rod is stationary (exactly as you said).OK, you seem to be talking about relativistic motion, but with every part of the object experiencing identical proper acceleration, which will distort the object, which no longer has any frame in which the parts are at rest.
Alternatively, you can consider it more in terms of a rigid motion, in this case the length of the rod is constant in the reference frame of the rod BUT you sacrifice the uniformity of acceleration of its parts (exactly as you said).You use the word ‘sacrifice’ like uniformity of proper acceleration (a violation of the equivalence principle) is somehow desirable to keep in this scenario.
(I'm not going to add all the details about in which frame and where, the sentences are already too long). You seem to favour a definition based on the idea of a rigid motion.No, I favored a very loose definition, not the ideal Born rigidity definition. I way saying (in reply to your assertion that an object has no property of length) that (e.g.) a loaf of bread has a defined frame independent proper length at a given time despite the fact that its proper length changes if you accelerate it by application of a force at one end. That proper length is a property of the loaf.
Not necessarily. For an inertial object, the front and rear are stationary relative to each other, which is a frame independent fact. For an accelerating object, this is only true relative to the inertial frame in which the object is momentarily stationary, which yes, involves that frame.Again my point is not about idealized Born rigid objects, but rather about ordinary real objects where the two endpoints are effectively stationary relative to each other. Such objects have a proper length, which is a property of the object, not a frame dependent relation.I'm not following this, which is probably my fault. "The two endpoints are stationary relative to each other" - so there is a frame of reference involved
it seems that Talanum thinks objects should just have a length.The unique proper length is a frame independent quantity and thus serves as the length property of the object. This is the length that Talanum probably means, but he wants it to be that length relative to any frame, which it isn't.
I was suggesting they don't have a unique length until we know something about the reference frames and motion.
By classic, you mean non-relativistic?Yes. I'm old, so "classical mechanics" is just Newtonian mechanics. New definitions sometimes include SR as classical.
so discussing Newtonian rigid motion is off topic, no?I'm only guessing what was being considered as a rigid body and by whom.
My example was simply the proper length of a trainBut someone mentioned rigid objects, not sure who and it was days ago.
I think I need a citation somewhere that this is a valid form of rigid motionSome citations were given in an earlier post. It's not that it is "valid" in the sense of being the best definition, it isn't. It's just that this idea of rigidity can and has been considered by Physicists and still seems to be a view of "rigidity" that ordinary people may want to have ---> quickly leading to problems, including transmission of force at speeds ~ infinity etc. Nothing that would be a problem in Newtonian mechanics - but in SR nothing vibrates, moves or transmits that fast.
You use the word ‘sacrifice’Can't keep every characteristic that a rigid body may have in Newtonian mechanics when you make the transition to SR. Not all of them are important. Someone mentioned Violation of the Equiv. principle but that isn't a thing to worry about in SR, that's a GR thing.
Not necessarily... (is a reference frame involved)My original reply was intended to show that a suitable frame to measure that length (in the ordinary way with a ruler) can be constructed. However, this assumes Talanum would want to define and measure length that way - see later.
The unique proper length is a frame independent quantity and thus serves as the length property of the object. This is the length that Talanum probably meansThis is one of the more important items. Is Talanum willing to consider "proper length" as a property of the object? I'm only guessing but most people just want to consider length as something they can measure with a ruler. I guess we won't know unless Talanum replies.
Pauli wrote "the concept of a rigid body has no place in relativistic mechanics,”I’d agree with this, but I’m not claiming any ‘mechanics’ in the normal sense of the word. I said that if you exerted any stress on a Born rigid object (like touch it with your finger), it must break, so including such an object into the usual mechanics isn’t going to work.
while Panofsky and Phillips state that special relativity “precludes the existence of the ‘ideal rigid body’ .”Agree again, but quantum mechanics pretty much does that job nicely. I’m simply claiming that mathematically, Born rigid linear motion and acceleration does not violate SR. A rotating object can exhibit Born rigid motion, but cannot undergo angular acceleration, so it has to have always been rotating.
The idea of a rigid body is easily defined in Newton Mechanics.Defining it in mechanics that are wrong in the context under discussion seems to be starting on the wrong foot.
However, the concept is not easily defined in SR and some of the properties that a rigid body has in Newton Mech. cannot be maintained.Under SR, Born rigid linear motion is one where at all times the proper distances are maintained between all components of the object. That works for both theories, and thus seems to be the better definition, but it needs modification if the rotating case is to be considered. Seems like an easy definition if you ask me. I made it up, so I’m not quoting any official definition. Yes, some of the Newtonian properties (the ones in the more ambiguous definintions above) are lost. Particles in an accelerating object do not experience identical proper acceleration (as is well illustrated with the Bell’s spaceship scenario), and due to RoS, relative to some frame in which one particle is in motion, other particles of the accelerating object are going to be moving at different speeds, again well illustrated by something like Rindler coordinates.
If you do define a rigid body in SR as something where length between particles = constantProper separation, but yes, I chose to define it that way.
in a frame where the object is at restProper distance isn’t a frame dependent quantity.
THEN acceleration of the object causes problems. As you mentioned previously, to allow for length contraction, there will be some inertial frames of reference where the back end has to accelerate more than the front end.Acceleration is absolute, and thus also not frame dependent. Yes, acceleration of the various parts of a rigid body is higher at the rear and lower at the front (front being in the direction of acceleration).
In such a frame of reference the object has clearly lost something that a rigid body in Newtonian mechanics would have had (the object looks like it is being compressed as time evolves, which wouldn't be allowed in Newtonian mechanics)It is a problem with Newton’s theory then, not a problem with reality.
If you want to ensure that there is never an inertial reference frame where the object seems to be deformedHow things appear is a relation between the thing and an observer, not a property of the object. Linear length contraction is not deformation. It is merely a coordinate effect.
Another problem with such an object is that if you assume the body is rigid in this way then external forces applied to the front end must be instantly transmitted through the body to the back end in every reference frame.As I said, any external imbalanced force (not applied everywhere in proportion) will constitute finite stress and will break the rigidity of the object, but it won’t violate SR.
(If it wasn't then the front and back end won't retain the same acceleration and the object should deform as time evolves). I believe this is where the common reference to "the speed of sound" comes in.Sound cannot pass through a Born rigid object. That would constitute stress.
We aren't really interested in sound, it's just that in a real world object the forces between particles would be produced only by a small movement of one particle toward or away from anotherThere are no forces between particles of a Born rigid object. That would be stress. This is a big reason why QM forbids such objects since there’s no way to do away with such forces. Hence we must drop to the abstract mathematical case where the object is a continuous solid with zero forces anywhere within. Such a homogeneous object would have no temperature, as opposed to the one made of particles at temp absolute zero.
This lead people like Pauli to believe that there wasn't any place for anything like a rigid body in SR.He should conclude there is no place for a rigid body in reality, but SR is a mathematical model which doesn’t forbid Born Rigid motion.
It’s because length was being discussed, and a non-rigid object doesn’t have a proper length and thus has no one length property. A hypothetical vehicle (car, train) is essentially rigid in that it has a meaningful length despite the fact that real trains change length considerably between compression and tension states.Quote from: HalcMy example was simply the proper length of a trainBut someone mentioned rigid objects, not sure who and it was days ago.
None that defined rigid motion that way, in the context of relativity.Quote from: HalcI think I need a citation somewhere that this is a valid form of rigid motionSome citations were given in an earlier post.
Is Talanum willing to consider "proper length" as a property of the object? I'm only guessing but most people just want to consider length as something they can measure with a ruler.Proper length can be directly measured with a ruler. Coordinate length isn’t so easily measured with a ruler, but it can be done.
I may have got this wrong but when people are questioning if length contraction can happen, then it seems unlikely they are considering length as "proper length".Agree, but that length is a relation with a frame, not a property of the thing being measured.
Relative reference is an illusion that appearsYou seem to be the only one who thinks it exists (outside of computer addressing).
We are told that there is no absolute reference, so pretending to run is as good as actually doing itNobody tells anyone that.
The beaker that is not moving, if it had consciousness and an imagination, can pretend to be the moving reference,No, it can't because it didn't experience the accelerations which the other beaker did.
Bored_Chemist, this seems like it may just be "fighting talk" and yo mama jokes but be careful not to drive people away from taking an interest in science, please.You have not been here long, so you will soon find out that puppypower has absolutely no interest in science.
Each relative reference may see the other reference appear contracted in space and time. However, if you include mass, as a stand alone variable, one has a way to determine absolute reference priority.For once, instead of just making inane statements, please demonstrate the math that shows that including mass will give an absolute reference frame.
It's like another paradox to be resolved.It's a washed up version of the Twins paradox.
I was going to mention the bug - rivet paradox which was discussed back in my day.I wish they'd stop calling things paradoxical that are not. Nothing in SR is paradoxical, else it would be demonstrated to be self-inconsistent. This one is a mild variant on the barn-pole or ladder 'paradox' which isn't paradoxical for the same reason.
those two events are outside each other's causal light conesYes, I agree and I've always liked the explanation using light cones and causal effects. You've presented the explanation very well.
I wish they'd stop calling things paradoxical that are not.Yes.
An interesting observation about relativity is connected to clock experiments where clocks will permanently gain or lose time. Paradoxically, although time will change in a permanent way clock distance/size changes due to relativity are fully reversible.This is incorrect. The traveling twins clock ticked slower and his ruler was shorter than the at home twins clocks and rulers. When the traveling twin returns and stops his clocks now again ticks at the same rate as the at home twins clock and his ruler is the same length as the at home twin. Since the traveling twins clock ran slower during the trip, less time passed for him than the at home twin. Since the traveling twin had a shorter ruler he traveled fewer miles than his at home twin measures. The time dilation and length contraction are analogous to each other. The age difference is permanent and the distance traveled difference is permanent.
Let's say that initially both twins are separated from each other, while having the same ageThat can only happen if they both accelerated and decelerated at exactly the same rate.
and one of them is moving at a constant velocity towards the second one.That means the moving twin must have accelerated to the constant velocity.
But when at some point those twins will meet in space, one of them will be older than the other - how can it be, if in the rest frames of each twin it was the other twin, that was moving?The twin that accelerated will be the one that is younger when he decelerates to the other twins frame, just as SR predicts.
Problem is, that in SRT the twin paradox can be explained only in the case of two-directional motion, where one twin is traveling to a distant destination and comes back to the second twin.A one way trip will still result in the traveling twin being younger. Say you fly to a planet at relativistic speeds that is 10 ly away. When he lands on the planet (let's assume the 2 planets are relatively stationary with each other) he will be younger than the stay at home twin.
No, that can only happen relative to a few very specific frames and not relative to most others. The comment by CS is making the very same mistake as the OP: Assuming an absolute ordering of events, such that the comment has meaning without a frame reference.Let's say that initially both twins are separated from each other, while having the same ageThat can only happen if they both accelerated and decelerated at exactly the same rate.
Given the usual definition of twins (born at the same event), yes, but any pair of people can be in this situation, moving towards each other with the same age in some frame, and having never significantly accelerated. This technicality isn't what invalidates CS's point.Quote from: CrazyScientistand one of them is moving at a constant velocity towards the second one.That means the moving twin must have accelerated to the constant velocity.
But The twin that accelerated will be the one that is younger when he decelerates to the other twins frame, just as SR predicts.No. The one moving at the higher speed in the frame in which they are initially they are the same age will be the younger. Acceleration doesn't directly come into play and need not occur at all. Nobody needs to 'decelerate' (as you put it) at all. Acceleration would only be necessary to keep them in each other's presence after they meet, and then it matters completely not at all which ones do the accelerating.
A one way trip will still result in the traveling twin being younger. Say you fly to a planet at relativistic speeds that is 10 ly away. When he lands on the planet (let's assume the 2 planets are relatively stationary with each other) he will be younger than the stay at home twin.Only relative to a subset of reference frames, and not relative to others. Relativity of simultaneity means that there is no objective age difference between twins that are not co-located, but your comment seems to imply otherwise.
No, that can only happen relative to a few very specific frames and not relative to most others. The comment by CS is making the very same mistake as the OP: Assuming an absolute ordering of events, such that the comment has meaning without a frame reference.The question was about twins separated by space but both having the same age. My thought was this could be accomplished by one twin flying at say .6c to a point 5 ly away from earth. At the same time the other twin flys at .6c to a point 5 ly away in the opposite direction. Each twin will say that 4 years have passed and the earth will say 5 years have passed. Both twins will agree that they are 10 ly apart and are the same age, which is one year less than there age as calculated on earth. Is that incorrect?
The question was about twins separated by space but both having the same age.That part is ambiguous, as I have explained. CrazyS also stipulated that they're moving towards each other, not reflected in your example which has them moving apart.
My thought was this could be accomplished by...It can be accomplished in any number of ways, including one of them being inertial the whole time. Each 'twin' represents a worldline, and them being age X (unspecified) defines a pair of events, one each on their respective worldlines. Events are frame independent facts. There are two possibilities regarding the relationship between the two events: Either they are outside each other's light cones or they are not. In the latter case, one twin is objectively older than the other, so this is inapplicable. In the former case, the ordering of the two events is frame dependent, so saying they're the same age is the same as saying the two events are simultaneous, which they are only relative so some very specific frames. Relative to most frames, one of the events occurs before the other. This is straight up relativity of simultaneity. Saying they're the same age without a frame reference is the same as saying two spatially separated events are simultaneous without a frame reference. It's not even wrong.
Let's say that initially both twins are separated from each other, while having the same ageThat can only happen if they both accelerated and decelerated at exactly the same rate.and one of them is moving at a constant velocity towards the second one.That means the moving twin must have accelerated to the constant velocity.But when at some point those twins will meet in space, one of them will be older than the other - how can it be, if in the rest frames of each twin it was the other twin, that was moving?The twin that accelerated will be the one that is younger when he decelerates to the other twins frame, just as SR predicts.Problem is, that in SRT the twin paradox can be explained only in the case of two-directional motion, where one twin is traveling to a distant destination and comes back to the second twin.A one way trip will still result in the traveling twin being younger. Say you fly to a planet at relativistic speeds that is 10 ly away. When he lands on the planet (let's assume the 2 planets are relatively stationary with each other) he will be younger than the stay at home twin.
The question was about twins separated by space but both having the same age.That part is ambiguous, as I have explained. CrazyS also stipulated that they're moving towards each other, not reflected in your example which has them moving apart.QuoteMy thought was this could be accomplished by...It can be accomplished in any number of ways, including one of them being inertial the whole time. Each 'twin' represents a worldline, and them being age X (unspecified) defines a pair of events, one each on their respective worldlines. Events are frame independent facts. There are two possibilities regarding the relationship between the two events: Either they are outside each other's light cones or they are not. In the latter case, one twin is objectively older than the other, so this is inapplicable. In the former case, the ordering of the two events is frame dependent, so saying they're the same age is the same as saying the two events are simultaneous, which they are only relative so some very specific frames. Relative to most frames, one of the events occurs before the other. This is straight up relativity of simultaneity. Saying they're the same age without a frame reference is the same as saying two spatially separated events are simultaneous without a frame reference. It's not even wrong.
In your scenario, due to symmetry, they're the same age relative to the Earth frame, but if they're moving apart at over .88c relative to each other as you have them, then in their respective frames, each will say that the other ages ~1.88 years after those 4 years. So different answers depending on the frame used.
Similarly, one could stay home and the other zooms to a star 10 LY away, turns around and starts the journey home. This actually corresponds to the scenario CS mentioned where they're moving towards each other. In that scenario, there are frames in which either is older than the other, and some where they are the same age. It all depends on your arbitrary choice of frame.
In your scenario, due to symmetry, they're the same age relative to the Earth frame, but if they're moving apart at over .88c relative to each other as you have them, then in their respective frames, each will say that the other ages ~1.88 years after those 4 years. So different answers depending on the frame used.Excellent point that I neglected to include.