How do you resolve seeming contradictions in SR?

  • I
  • Thread starter curiousburke
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Frames
In summary, resolving seeming contradictions in Special Relativity (SR) involves understanding the principles of simultaneity, time dilation, and length contraction. These effects arise from the invariant speed of light and the relativistic transformations applicable between different reference frames. By analyzing scenarios from the perspectives of different observers, one can clarify misconceptions and demonstrate that what appears contradictory at first can be reconciled through the framework of SR. This often requires careful consideration of the observers' relative motion and the application of Lorentz transformations to ensure consistency across different frames of reference.
  • #71
@robphy this is going to take me some time to decipher.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Ibix said:
View attachment 341329
If you ignore D for a moment, the only thing you can measure is the time between A and B reaching C - and here you can see that the time between those events as measured by C is shorter than the time measured by A and B, by comparing the vertical distance between the crossings.
Sorry, you mean draw another slanted red fine line that intersects the point (event) where the B red thin line meets the C blue thin line. Then evaluate the spacetime distance between the first red fine line through A/C (i.e. A meets C) and the last red fine line and compare with the vertical distance between those 2 events along the vertical C blue thin line.
 
  • #73
cianfa72 said:
Sorry, you mean draw another slanted red fine line that intersects the point (event) where the B red thin line meets the C blue thin line. Then evaluate the spacetime distance between the first red fine line through A/C (i.e. A meets C) and the last red fine line and compare with the vertical distance between those 2 events along the vertical C blue thin line.
No, I just mean measure C's proper time between meeting A and B, which corresponds to coordinate time in this frame.
 
  • #74
Ibix said:
No, I just mean measure C's proper time between meeting A and B, which corresponds to coordinate time in this frame.
Yes, from the point of view of C along its worldline. But what about the difference of time between those two events (A meets C and B meets C) from the point of view of observers A and B (that share the same slanted red fine lines simultaneity convention) ?
 
  • #75
cianfa72 said:
Yes, from the point of view of C along its worldline. But what about the difference of time between those two events (A meets C and B meets C) from the point of view of observers A and B (that share the same slanted red fine lines simultaneity convention) ?
You could add a red line of simultaneity through B reaching C if you want, but you can't read red times off that graph without a calculation or robphy's clock diamonds.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72
  • #76
I see I've missed a few posts in this thread.
curiousburke said:
FWIW, Ibix, it's probably very frustrating working with people like me, sorry.
No, it's fine. Nobody learns instantly and, as various other posters in this thread will know, I've needed things repeated a few times myself.
 
  • Like
Likes curiousburke
  • #77
Ibix said:
but you can't read red times off that graph without a calculation or robphy's clock diamonds.
Yes, that was my point: in that diagram we add the aforementioned slanted red fine line through the event (B meets C) and calculate the spacetime distance between this and the other slanted red fine line through event (A meets C) along a straight line Minkowski-orthogonal to them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top