Trying to Understand Light in Motion: A Frustrating Puzzle

[Doc Al]

i think the problem here is that when i said the video is wrong everyone thought i was saying the concept of relativity of simultanety was wrong.

The video could have been improved a bit, but the general idea of it is correct. On the other hand, you have convincingly demonstrated through your posts in this thread that you do not understand the relativity of simultaneity. What has changed?

 

[Doc Al]

here is how i see the relativity of simultaneity

if a two bolts of lightning hit the platform equidistant from the observer on the platform he will see the flashes simultaneously.

Sure, if they struck at the same time in the platform frame. (As is the case here.)

if the passenger on the train was equidistant from the flashes when they occurred in the platform frame - then by the time the flashes moved from the source to her eyes she will have moved towards one and away from the other. so she will see two flashes but not simultaneously.

the amount of time between each flash from the passengers frame will depend on the speed that she is travelling.

OK. But the key point is that one can use these facts to deduce that the lightning strikes were not simultaneous in her frame.

the problem is that the video says the flashes occurred in her frame then moved to his frame and then moved again from his frame back to her frame.

Huh?

The lightning strikes are events that happen. They occur in all frames!

 

[solarflare]

The video could have been improved a bit, but the general idea of it is correct. On the other hand, you have convincingly demonstrated through your posts in this thread that you do not understand the relativity of simultaneity. What has changed?

at least now you are not saying the video is 100% accurate - like i was saying all along

the video is wrong because according to the video they will both see the strikes simultaneously -

you say that they can't see them smultaneously using mathematical data - therefore agreeing with what I am saying

so wheres the problem - all you have to do is study the video and see where the person who made it went wrong

 

[Doc Al]

at least now you are not saying the video is 100% accurate - like i was saying all along

I would have changed one of the illustrations, but the main point of the video is correct.

the video is wrong because according to the video they will both see the strikes simultaneously -

Where does it say that? (It's not that wrong!) The video clearly states otherwise.

you say that they can't see them smultaneously using mathematical data - therefore agreeing with what I am saying

But you have been arguing in this thread that they were simultaneous in all frames!

so wheres the problem - all you have to do is study the video and see where the person who made it went wrong

Please state exactly what you think is wrong with the video.

 

[solarflare]

the trains frame is the origin of the strikes - the person uses that frame and says r1 = r2 and because the light travels the same distance from each strike he sees them simultaneously.

if the strikes happen seperatley in the trains frame like you say - then he can not be equidistant from each strike. he must be further away from one of them if they occur to him as simultaneous.

 

[Doc Al]

the trains frame is the origin of the strikes

No, the strikes occur in all frames!

- the person uses that frame and says r1 = r2 and because the light travels the same distance from each strike he sees them simultaneously.

This is your erroneous conclusion--nothing to do with what the video said. You seem to think that just because the distance is the same that the light must reach the center of the train simultaneously. Why?

if the strikes happen seperatley in the trains frame like you say - then he can not be equidistant from each strike. he must be further away from one of them if they occur to him as simultaneous.

When you say 'he' I'm not sure who you refer to. But no matter. From the platform frame, the platform observer is exactly in the middle of the strikes when they occur. And the train passenger is certainly in the middle of the train.

So?

 

[solarflare]

the strikes happen in one frame first - the trains frame
they then occur in the platform guys frame only after the light has traveled from the trains frame to the platform frame.

 

[Dale]

this is a clear example of of picking and choosing data.

What is wrong with setting r1 to 1 cm, or 1 mm, or 1 Angstrom? We are choosing a scenario (ie setting boundary conditions), so we are free to do that any way we want. We are picking boundary conditions, not data.

What we are not free to do is to pick and choose what data arises from the boundary conditions like you want to do. I have proven mathematically two different ways that your claim that both observers receive the light from both strikes at the same time cannot be true. You cannot pick any set of boundary conditions which lead to the data you are claiming.

Can you derive any logical inconsistency with my setting r1 to an arbitrarily small value? Do you understand your logical inconsistency I have shown two different ways?

 

[Dale]

its like a scoolboy pointing out the teachers error and the teacher instead of looking to see if he made a mistake just tells him he is wrong and continues to teach the wrong stuff

No, this is the usual situation where a student insists they know better than the teacher but the student is simply wrong. You are hardly the first student to have trouble understanding the relativity of simultaneity.

Regardless of the video, YOUR statements are wrong, as I have proven multiple times.

 

[Doc Al]

the strikes happen in one frame first - the trains frame
they then occur in the platform guys frame only after the light has traveled from the trains frame to the platform frame.

No. The lightning strikes happen--in all frames. When viewed from the platform frame, those strikes happen at the same time; when viewed from the train frame, at different times. But they are the same strikes.

 

[Dale]

if the passenger on the train was equidistant from the flashes when they occurred in the platform frame - then by the time the flashes moved from the source to her eyes she will have moved towards one and away from the other. so she will see two flashes but not simultaneously.

OK, so now you agree that data point 6 above (post 127) is correct?

 

[solarflare]

The lightning strikes are events that happen. They occur in all frames!

yes they are events that happen in all frames - but they happen at different times in each frame.

when you look at the stars you are seeing light that was emitted millions of years ago - not at the point when you see it.

the light strikes the train - therefore that is the starting point

the platform observer sees the light after it has traveled from the train to his eyes

the strikes do not originate in his frame

 

[solarflare]

I made this spacetime diagram a while ago, and I *think* it corresponds to the original scenario that is being discussed here. Maybe it will help. The "worldline" of the train (which is its path through spacetime) is clearly indicated, and it of course coincides with the t' axis:

The worldline of the photon that is coming in from the front (i.e. from the positive side) clearly intercepts the worldline of the train before (i.e. at a smaller value of t') the worldline of photon that is coming in from the rear (negative side) does.

The coordinate grid I've drawn is for the train observer, in the primed (t',x') coordinate system.

this graph shows that at t=0 there are two strikes - indicating that the strikes wer simultaneous.

the two strikes actually happen on the train

follow the lines to the observer and he sees the flashes simultaneously also - after a set amount of time has passed.

now take this graph and make the strikes hit the platform - the platform is the platforms guys frame so that is where they originate -

he sees the light simultaneously but the train observer sees them seperately.

the video has put the lightning striking in the wrong place - it should strike the platform not the train

 

[solarflare]

Sure, but for simplicity let's set r1 to some small value, say 1 cm. Then it is reasonable to neglect it and also to consider the lightning strikes to have marked both the train and the platform.

you want to neglect a key factor

and to say that the strikes mark both the train and the platform means that they must happen simultaneously also

 

[Doc Al]

The lightning strikes are events that happen. They occur in all frames!

yes they are events that happen in all frames - but they happen at different times in each frame.

when you look at the stars you are seeing light that was emitted millions of years ago - not at the point when you see it.

the light strikes the train - therefore that is the starting point

the platform observer sees the light after it has traveled from the train to his eyes

the strikes do not originate in his frame

It's certainly true that the lightning must occur before anyone can see it, no matter what their frame. But that's a triviality. (No need for relativity to understand that!)

There are several distinct events that are of interest in this scenario:
(1) Lightning strikes the front of the train (and the section of platform under the front of the train at that moment)
(2) Lightning strikes the rear of the train (and the section of platform under the rear of the train at that moment)
(3) Light flash from the front of the train reaches the platform observer
(4) Light flash from the rear of the train reaches the platform observer
(5) Light flash from the front of the train reaches the train passenger
(6) Light flash from the rear of the train reaches the train passenger

Discuss the scenario in terms of these events (which occur in all frames, of course) and you will be less likely to stumble.

To start you off, here are the facts:
Events 1 & 2 occur at the same time in the platform frame. (This is given in the setup.)
Events 3 & 4 occur at the same time in every frame.
Events 5 & 6 occur at different times in every frame.

What's interesting is what these facts tell us about the times of events 1 & 2 in the train frame. That's where the relativity of simultaneity comes in.

 

[solarflare]

why put r1 = r2 in the video if if its of importance?

 

[solarflare]

if they happen at the same time in the platform guys frame then the guy that made the video needs to put the strikes happening before they reach the centre of the platform.

and r1 can not = r2

 

[Doc Al]

Sure, but for simplicity let's set r1 to some small value, say 1 cm. Then it is reasonable to neglect it and also to consider the lightning strikes to have marked both the train and the platform.

you want to neglect a key factor

If I recall from the video correctly, r1 and r2 are the distances from the lightning strikes to the platform observer according to the platform observer. It's kind of silly to think of them as being 1 cm. Is the train that tiny?

You'll have a much easier time of it if you think of the train as being miles long.

and to say that the strikes mark both the train and the platform means that they must happen simultaneously also

Think of the lightning bolts as being huge sparks that hit the ends of the train and the platform (wherever the ends of the train happens to be at that moment) at the same time.

 

[Muphrid]

the video has put the lightning striking in the wrong place - it should strike the platform not the train

It does not matter whether the strikes actually hit the train or the platform, solarflare. This is why someone else was saying consider the simplest case, which is when the strikes actually hit both in one event. All that matters are the x-coordinates of the strikes.

you want to neglect a key factor

and to say that the strikes mark both the train and the platform means that they must happen simultaneously also

No, it doesn't mean simultaneity in the train's frame. Why do you think it does?

the light strikes the train - therefore that is the starting point

the platform observer sees the light after it has traveled from the train to his eyes

the strikes do not originate in his frame

The strikes are events; they do not belong in any frame. You can just as easily talk about two moving, omni-directional sources of light. These sources do not have to move the same as the train--or even as the platform! All that matters is that the platform observer perceives both of them to have been equidistant from him when he receives each source's light pulse.

the strikes happen in one frame first - the trains frame
they then occur in the platform guys frame only after the light has traveled from the trains frame to the platform frame.

See above; the strikes are events that do not belong to any specific frame. They may have coordinates according to frames, but the strikes themselves (not just when the flashes from those strikes reach observers) have the same time coordinates in the platform frame, yet the forward strike has a different, earlier time coordinate from the rear strike.

 

[Dale]

you want to neglect a key factor

It is not a key factor.

why put r1 = r2 in the video if if its of importance?

What is r2? You defined r1 as the distance between the train tracks and the platform, but you never defined r2. According to your definition of r1, it is not important and can be made as small as we like.

I don't recall the video ever discussing the distance between the tracks and the platform, but again, no mistakes in the video eliminate the errors that YOU are making.

 

[solarflare]

finally Doc al agrees with somthing i said :-)

it wasnt me that said to think of the distance as really tiny.

 

[solarflare]

if you do not know what r2 is - then you obv have not watched the video - r2 is defined in the video as being = to r1

 

[solarflare]

the train is on the tracks - not the platform - r1 is the distance from the rear strike to the platform guy - r2 is the distance from the front strike to the platform guy

 

[Muphrid]

the train is on the tracks - not the platform - r1 is the distance from the rear strike to the platform guy - r2 is the distance from the front strike to the platform guy

Now that you've clarified what you think these distances are, I agree. You gave the impression you thought that r1 was the distance from the platform observer to the track, which is why I said "there is no r1". This problem is almost always done in only 1 dimension for clarity.

 

[Dale]

the train is on the tracks - not the platform - r1 is the distance from the rear strike to the platform guy - r2 is the distance from the front strike to the platform guy

OK, then this statement of yours is not correct:

the train is on tracks that are a distance from the platform r1

The distance from the tracks to the platform is not the same as the distance from the rear strike to the platform guy.

For clarity, from now on, let's call the distance from the tracks to the platform d. That distance, d, can be made as small as desired and can be neglected. Also, for clarity, it would help if you would use the quote feature to identify things that you are quoting.

Do you now agree with all of the data presented in post 127?

 

[cepheid]

this graph shows that at t=0 there are two strikes - indicating that the strikes wer simultaneous.

The graph indicates that the strikes both occur at t = 0, meaning that they were both simultaneous in the platform frame. The graph also clearly shows that the two strikes DON'T occur at the same value of t'. One occurs at t' < 0, and the other one at t' > 0, as I explained extensively in my accompanying explanation, and in the second version of the diagram that I posted later. Did you actually read any of that, or are you just interested in using the diagram to perpetuate your own false assertions?

the two strikes actually happen on the train

In the scenario I envisioned, the strikes occur along the rails at x = ±4, x being position values in the platform frame, with the platform observer at x = 0. Whether the train is long enough that these strikes actually hit the front and rear of it, or whether they occur on the rails just ahead of the train and just behind it, is irrelevant.

follow the lines to the observer and he sees the flashes simultaneously also - after a set amount of time has passed.

If you're referring to the platform observer, then sure, I agree. If you're referring to the train observer, then no. The diagram clearly shows that the strikes reach the train observer at different times, because they strike at different times.

now take this graph and make the strikes hit the platform - the platform is the platforms guys frame so that is where they originate -

he sees the light simultaneously but the train observer sees them seperately.

the video has put the lightning striking in the wrong place - it should strike the platform not the train

Neither of the statements in bold make any sense whatsoever. It makes no difference whether the strikes hit the train in particular, or the platform ahead of the train and behind it. ANY scenario in which the lightning strikes at points equidistant from the platform observer, and in which the positions of the platform observer and train observer coincide at the origin at t = t' = 0, will result in the spacetime diagram I drew, which shows that the strikes occur simultaneously for the platform observer, and not for the train observer.

I also don't understand what you mean about the strikes "originating" in a particular frame. I'm not sure what you think an inertial reference frame is, but it is just a coordinate system that is rigidly attached to some unaccelerated body. You can conceptualize it as a rigid latticework of rods and clocks used for making physical measurements of distance and time. One such coordinate system (with the unprimed coordinates) is rigidly attached to the track or platform, and the other one (with the primed coordinates) is rigidly attached to the train. It's not like as if they are two alternate realities or something, so it's not possible to assert that something can "happen" in one frame and not in another. As Doc Al has repeatedly tried to convince you, the strikes are events that must occur in both frames. An event is something that occurs at a definite spacetime location. In the platform frame, it would have definite spacetime coordinates (t,x,y,z). This event must also have definite spacetime coordinates (t',x',y',z') in the train frame. What special relativity says is that these sets of coordinates are, in general, different from each other for two inertial frames that are in relative motion. I.e. the events can occur at different places and at different times as measured in the two frames. The two sets of coordinates are related to each other by a Lorentz transformation.

 

[solarflare]

if the lightning strikes the train - then it will mean that the train is considered stationary and the platform is moving

 

[Doc Al]

if the lightning strikes the train - then it will mean that the train is considered stationary and the platform is moving

Why in the world do you think that?

Viewed from the platform, the train is always moving; viewed from the train, the platform is moving. Nothing to do with the lightning striking the train or not.

 

[Dale]

if the lightning strikes the train - then it will mean that the train is considered stationary and the platform is moving

Nonsense. Lightning can strike moving objects.

Consider the lightning strikes to leave a char mark such that the size of the mark is greater than d. Then one strike can leave a mark on both the platform and the train.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Here is the transcript for the first minute of the video devoted exclusively to the platform frame:

Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car, and another standing on the platform as the train races by. As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car - one on the front, and one on the rear. The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous, since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed, the speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike, because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from the rear.

This states in no uncertain terms that when the center of the car (where the passenger is) passes the platform observer, the flashes of light from the strikes reach him at the same time. Therefore, they also reach the passenger at the same time (as long as there is no distance between them which is the only way you can meaningfully interpret this statement apart from seeing the video).

And what does the video show?

At 20 seconds into the video are these three images captured in rapid succession:

 

[solarflare]

posts 164 and 165

1 agrees with me and the other doesnt

 

[ghwellsjr]

Then the video goes back and repeats the sequence of the platform observer seeing the lightning flashes by panning up above him (unfortunately, I can only put three videos on a single post so this will be scattered among several posts):

 

[ghwellsjr]

Notice how in the first image here, they depict the progress of the two flashes of light hitting the window in which the observer is (although they don't show her, it's the second window from the front of the train car-the second window from the right). They hit simultaneously. Then in the next image, the two flashes hit the platform observer:

 

[Dale]

posts 164 and 165

1 agrees with me and the other doesnt

They are both pointing out that you made a mistake in calling the distance between the track and the platform "r1". Do you understand that r1 is not the same as the distance between the track and the platform, which I suggest we call "d"?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Here's where they show that the platform observer is equidistant from the two lightning strikes that hit the moving train car (at an earlier time but they have not shown this):