Some thoughts about Bell's string paradox alternatives

In summary, If both spaceships maintain the same and constant proper acceleration, the string breaks because of the non-simultaneity of the acceleration effects at both ends of the string. But, if the spaceship engines maintain a constant and same F/M ratio, the string does not break.
  • #1
member 728827
TL;DR Summary
Doing a small change in the statement of the Bell's paradox - to consider engines with constant and same F/M ratio (F is the propulsion force), instead of a constant and same proper acceleration, I think that string does not break (is my own conclusion, not being an expert in SR).
Thinking about Bell's string paradox , I understand that if both spaceships maintain the same and constant proper acceleration, the string breaks because of the non-simultaneity of the acceleration effects at both ends of the string.

But I want to introduce and consider a slight and subtle change in the statement of the original Bell’s paradox, as follows:

Where the statement of the Paradox reads that both spaceships keep the same and constant proper acceleration, I consider instead that the spaceship engines keep a constant and same F/M ratio (where F is the propulsion force). So, it's no longer the Bell's string Paradox, although at the first glance seems the same thing.

My experience is that people don't usually get the point of what this change means, and argue that it's just the Bell's scenario, so string breaks, and there's nothing to discuss about. But, it's not the Bell's scenario.

What follows is the conclusions I get, based in my limited SR background during University studies, and some online courses about the subject now that I'm retired. Don't take it too seriously.

Lets consider that both spaceships depart from their initial parking position in space, and after 1 minute proper time at leading spaceship S2, both spaceships have reached the nominal 1g=9.8 m/s2 acceleration, and the engines are set to their nominal F/M ratio, that is kept constant and will not change thereafter.

At 1 hour proper time at leading spaceship S2, the string, that until now was allowed to extend - but not to runaway - from S2 to S1 keeping a zero tension at hook point in S1, is progressively stopped from further deployment. Considering an initial proper cable length of 10 Km at that proper time (according to S2), I get the following results using the constant proper acceleration coordinate equations, and considering the line of simultaneous events for the observers:

@1 hour:
v1cm=1.9235e-08 m/s,
L1cm=5,000.000035 m,
v2cm=1.9235e-08 m/s,
L2cm=5,000.000035 m

where [cm] is the middle point between spaceships, v1cm and v2cm are the respective relative speeds to the [cm] and L1cm+L2cm is the total length of the deployed string, from spaceship to spaceship.

Being the v2cm so small @1 hour when we fix the string to S2, let's see if it's possible to end with a static equilibrium condition. From now on, I'll be always referring to the [cm] accelerated frame observer. I’ll only analyze the leading S2 spaceship, and consider that the trailing S1 spaceship acts symmetrically, counterbalancing the string tension. For the static equilibrium, we need Newton's 2nd law:

##(\alpha_{cm}-\alpha_{2})*M=\frac{E \cdot A \cdot (2 \cdot \delta)}{L_{1cm}+L_{2cm}}##

where E is the Young’s module, A is the cross section area of the string, and L1cm and L2cm are the proper distances from spaceships S1 and S2 to [cm]. All measures are as observed by [cm] in its line of simultaneous events at given proper time of 1 hour.

Note that αcm is the proper acceleration of the reference frame [cm] we’re considering – which is always undisturbed by any action of the string –, and α2 is the final proper acceleration of S2. Perhaps α2 should be divided by a ##\gamma^3(v_{2cm})## Lorentz factor?, but would be pretty close to 1 for any practical purpose.

As for the theory of constant proper acceleration, I know about the Born rigidity condition. So, for two accelerating bodies Scm with αcm and S2 with α2 to keep a constant proper distance D, α2 needs to have the following value:

##\alpha_2=\frac{c^2*\alpha_{cm}}{(c^2+\alpha_{cm}*D)}##

So, I predict that the [cm] observer, due to the action of the string will observe the relative speed to S2 decrease, until this speed vanishes, moment in which S2 has to be in the Born rigid motion condition respect to [cm], and so thereafter will keep a constant proper distance from [cm], and therefore also from S1 because S1 acts symmetrically.

But I don’t know yet if the system can get to a static equilibrium condition.

Then, I need to consider the v2cm relative speed initial condition. From the energy-wise perspective, the string has to “take up” as elastic potential energy, the initial relative kinetic energy of the S2 spaceship with respect to [cm], plus the work done by the “fictitious” relativistic force acting over the spaceship’s mass along the length of the elongation δ of the string.

Ok, the “fictitious” relativistic force is the reason of the drifting away of the spaceships, and its as “fictitious” as it can be a “Coriolis” force due to a rotating observer’s frame. I don’t know exactly how the relativistic relative acceleration will behave during the transient period, but for [cm] observer starts as the known measured α2cm, and ends being zero. Anyway, what I want is to know is which should be the total work done by the fictitious force to balance the energy equation.

##\frac{1}{2} \cdot M \cdot v_{2}^2 + rw = \frac{\frac{1}{2} \cdot E \cdot A}{L_{1cm}+L_{2cm}} \cdot \delta^2##

With the values considered, I get the following results:

α2cm = 9.7999999999947 m/s2
string elongation δ = 3.425e-04 m
work done by relativistic force = 2.725e-07 J

The relativistic force work done is positive, and then the static equilibrium scenario is possible. Should that value resulted negative, then static equilibrium would not be reachable, and I guess that the spaceships bounce, and the solution is then a periodic oscillation.

And, by the way, the string doesn’t break.

This first setup most resembles the Bell's scenario, in which the string is always fixed at both ends. I could also do the same, with the string fixed at both ends from the start, but I would arrive to the same conclusion: If instead of considering that the proper acceleration is always constant, I consider that is the F/M ratio of the engines what is kept constant - so proper acceleration can freely change -, then the string doesn't break.

The change in proper acceleration is really tiny, and would be very difficult even to measure it.

If instead of 1 hour, we wait 1 Year (or 6 months, or 3 months…) proper time as measured in S2, then static equilibrium state is not mechanically possible.

@1 Year:
v1cm=1.9996e-04 m/s,
L1cm=7,900.618106 m,
v2cm=1.9996e-04 m/s,
L2cm=7,900.618106 m

Being the numbers so small, the initial relative speed is only 0.2 mm/s @1 Year, the string can withstand the tension with no problem, and I guess that the solution would be probably an oscillation of both spaceships, bouncing but not breaking the string, and with a slack string most of the time.

So, if this is the case, not only the string doesn't break, but for the most part of the time, is slack, with no tension.

For the curious minds, here the Python code I made. Remark that I had to use a multi-precision numerical package, to get the required accuracy:

Python:
from mpmath import *
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import odeint
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

C =299792458  # speed of light
C2=power(C,2) # square of speed of light
M =1.0e+9     # 1000000 tons each spaceship
A0=9.8        # desired (comfortable) proper acceleration
L0=10000.0    # initial length of string/distance
"""
mechanical thread characteristics...
https://www.cablesestructurales.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Catalogo-%20Cables%20-inoxidables.pdf
Diameter: 1 mm  Area:0.6 mm2  Break tension: 84 Kg
E =1.3e+11    # 130000 N/mm2 Young modulus
AR=6.0e-7     # 1 mm Diameter / 0.6 mm2 section Area
"""
DAYs=24*3600
HOURs=3600

"""
Earth frame observer ct,x coordinates for constant proper accelerating bodies
tau: proper time  acc: proper acceleration
Parametric (tau) world line coordinates
"""
def ct_x(tau,acc,l0):
    return (C2/acc)*sinh(acc*tau/C),(C2/acc)*cosh(acc*tau/C)+l0

mp.dps = 32

def VelocityCM(tc):

    # Used to find intersection of simultaneity line from tc in CM to corresponding t1 in S1
    tc11 = lambda t1,k: (C2/A0)*(k*sinh(A0*tc/C)-sinh(A0*t1/C))
    tc12 = lambda t1,k: (C2/A0)*(k*cosh(A0*tc/C)-cosh(A0*t1/C))+(0.5*L0)

    # Used to find intersection of simultaneity line from tc in CM to corresponding t2 in S2
    tc21 = lambda t2,k: (C2/A0)*(k*sinh(A0*tc/C)-sinh(A0*t2/C))
    tc22 = lambda t2,k: (C2/A0)*(k*cosh(A0*tc/C)-cosh(A0*t2/C))-(0.5*L0)

    t1,k=findroot([tc11,tc12],(tc,1.0))
    t2,k=findroot([tc21,tc22],(tc,1.0))

    # Coordinates (ct,x) for Earth frame
    ct1,x1=ct_x(t1,A0,-0.5*L0)
    ctc,xc=ct_x(tc,A0,0.0)
    ct2,x2=ct_x(t2,A0,+0.5*L0)
  
    # Proper (=real) distance from CM to...
    lc1=sqrt(power(x1-xc,2)-power(ct1-ctc,2))  
    lc2=sqrt(power(x2-xc,2)-power(ct2-ctc,2))

    # With the proper times, calculate the speeds relative to Earth frame
    vc=C*tanh(A0*tc/C)
    v1=C*tanh(A0*t1/C)
    v2=C*tanh(A0*t2/C)

    # Using relativistic speed addition, calculate de relative speeds viewed by CM frame
    v1c=(vc-v1)/(1-(vc*v1/C2))
    v2c=(v2-vc)/(1-(vc*v2/C2))
  
    gmc=C/sqrt(C2-power(vc,2))  

    # Elapsed time in Earth frame
    tearth=(C/A0)*sinh(A0*tc/C)
    # Distance traveled according to Earth frame
    dearth=(C2/A0)*cosh(A0*tc/C)
  
    return v1c,v2c,t1,t2,lc1,lc2,gmc

def Graphic(tau_ini,tau_end,stp):
 
    tCM=np.arange(tau_ini,tau_end,stp,dtype=float)
  
    v1c=np.full_like(tCM,0.0)
    v2c=np.full_like(tCM,0.0)
    a2c=np.full_like(tCM,0.0)
    l2c=np.full_like(tCM,0.0)
    gmc=np.full_like(tCM,0.0)

    i=0

    for tc in tCM:
        r_v1c,r_v2c,r_t1,r_t2,r_l1c,r_l2c,r_gmc = VelocityCM(tc)

        l2c[i]=r_l2c-(0.5*L0)
        v1c[i]=r_v1c
        v2c[i]=r_v2c
        gmc[i]=r_gmc

        # Calculate acceleration from speed change
        # don't know how to obtain this value otherway!
        if (i==0):
            v_2=r_v2c
        elif (i==1):
            v_1=r_v2c
            dt=2.0*(tc-tCM[0])
        else:
            acc=(r_v2c-v_2)/dt
            a2c[i-1]=acc

            v_2=v_1
            v_1=r_v2c

        i+=1
      
    fig, ax1 = plt.subplots()

    # ax1 ...
    ax1.set_xlabel('γ (Lorentz)')
    color = 'tab:blue'
    ax1.set_ylabel('a2c m/s²',color=color)
    ax1.tick_params(axis='y',labelcolor=color)
  
    ax1.plot(gmc[1:-1],a2c[1:-1],color=color,linestyle='dotted')
    """
    # ax2 ...
    ax2 = ax1.twinx()

    color = 'tab:green'
    ax2.set_ylabel('ΔL m',color=color)
    ax2.tick_params(axis='y',labelcolor=color)
  
    ax2.plot(gmc[1:-1],l2c[1:-1],color=color)
    """
    plt.title('[cm] Start=%4.1f End=%4.1f (days)'%(tau_ini/DAYs,tau_end/DAYs))
  
    fig.tight_layout()
    plt.grid()

    plt.show()

def EqSystem(tbrk):

    eq1 = lambda a,d,rw: a-(A0*C2/(C2+A0*(lc2+d)))
    eq2 = lambda a,d,rw: (A0-a)*M-(E*AR*(2*d)/(lc1+lc2))
    eq3 = lambda a,d,rw: 0.5*M*power(v2c,2)+rw-(0.5*E*AR/(lc1+lc2)*power(d,2))
  
    v1c,v2c,t1,t2,lc1,lc2,gmc = VelocityCM(tbrk)
    print('v1c=%.9e'%(v1c))
    print('v2c=%.9e'%(v2c))
    print('lc1=%.9e'%(lc1))
    print('lc2=%.9e'%(lc2))

    a2born,dl,relw=findroot([eq1,eq2,eq3],(A0,1,1),Verify=True)
    print('SOLUTION IS:')
    print('α2b=%.13e m/s² dl=%.3e m relw=%.3e J'%(a2born,dl,relw))

    # A negative relw means "no static equilibrium" but bouncing?

# EqSystem(365*DAYs)
Graphic(365*DAYs,395*DAYs,8*HOURs)

Some details about the scenario I considered for the Python code, and the theory behind.

The setup.-

For the journey to be comfortable for the crew, the constant propulsion force of the engine is calculated to give a 9.8 m/s2 (1g) proper acceleration to the mass of the spaceship.

The stationary reference frame (“Earth frame” so to speak) located in outer space is where the spaceships are initially parked. For sake of simplifying the math, with reasons that I’ll explain later, I consider that the x-coordinate origin of such stationary frame is located ##\frac{c^2}{\alpha}## meters away from the parking spot, where α is the nominal proper acceleration, and c is the speed of light.

Then, the conceptual middle point between the spaceships, call it [cm], is at position ##x_{cm}=\frac{c^2}{\alpha}##, the trailing spaceship S1 is at ##x_1=\frac{c^2}{\alpha}-\frac{D_0}{2}##, and the leading spaceship S2 is at ##x_2=\frac{c^2}{\alpha}+\frac{D_0}{2}##.

The spaceships have a mass of 109 Kg each. It’s a lot, but the effects that we’ll observe are really tiny, so we need some big numbers. For the same reason, the distance between spaceships at the start position is 10 Km.

The string is a steel cable. As to do not disturb the performance of the leading spaceship, that has to pull the string, I decided to use a very light one, whose mechanical characteristics are as follows:

Cable diameter: 1 mm, Area section: 0.6 mm2,
Young modulus: 130,000 N/mm2,
Break tension: 840 N,
Lineal density: 0,005 Kg/m

This seems odd for 109 Kg spaceships, but keep in mind that we’re not towing the trailing spaceship. Initially, the cable has only to withstand the inertial forces due to the acceleration and its mass, which is 50 Kg for 10,000 meters of cable. From now on, I call it “string” again.

In fact, during the journey – after settling down the spaceships at departure -, the tension of the string at the hook point in trailing spaceship S1 is considered always zero, if not stated contrary for some reason.

Of course, there’s a tension in the string at S2 leading spaceship, because it’s pulling the string with an acceleration. So, there’s a certain amount of “pretension” in the string that is about half the load it can withstand without breaking.

Nonetheless, the initial distance between the spaceships when they reach the nominal acceleration is adjusted to 10,000 meters (the string is a little elongated), and with zero tension in hook point S1.

Theory used.-

With a constant F/M ratio from the engines, the spaceships follow a constant proper acceleration worldline in hyperbolic motion, and without any string interference they behave as in Bell’s scenario. So far, so good.

In the space-time diagram, the worldlines can be described by the following coordinate equations, considering the trailing spaceship S1, a middle point [cm] and the leading spaceship S2:

##ct_1=\frac{c^2}{\alpha}\cdot\sinh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_1}{c}) \quad x_1=\frac{c^2}{\alpha}\cdot\cosh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_1}{c})-\frac{D_0}{2}, \quad S_1## starts at ##(0,\frac{c^2}{\alpha}-\frac{D_0}{2})##

##ct_{cm}=\frac{c^2}{\alpha}\cdot\sinh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_{cm}}{c}) \quad x_{cm}=\frac{c^2}{\alpha}\cdot\cosh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_{cm}}{c}), \quad S_{cm}## starts at ##(0,\frac{c^2}{\alpha})##

##ct_2=\frac{c^2}{\alpha}\cdot\sinh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_2}{c}) \quad x_2=\frac{c^2}{\alpha}\cdot\cosh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_2}{c})+\frac{D_0}{2}, \quad S_2## starts at ##(0,\frac{c^2}{\alpha}+\frac{D_0}{2})##

We’re free to choose the position of x=0 in space, and we can always set it where appropriate for the problem studied. In this case, if the worldline of the [cm] conceptual observer starts at (0,c2/α), then for any event-point of that worldline, the corresponding line of simultaneous events is the line that connects the (0,0) origin with the event-point, and that makes the math much easier.

To prove that, we do the derivative of (ct,x) parametric worldline with respect to proper time ##\tau##:

##[c\cdot\cosh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_{cm}}{c}),c\cdot\sinh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_{cm}}{c})]##

This vector is tangent to the worldline event-points, and so it represents the ct' axis for the accelerating spaceship. The x' Minkowski-orthogonal axis is the reciprocal, and then:

##[c\cdot\sinh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_{cm}}{c}),c\cdot\cosh(\frac{\alpha\cdot\tau_{cm}}{c})]##

And so, a line that passes by the (0,0) origin and connects with the event-point in the worldline, is just the x' axis/line of simultaneous events for that event-point. This is a known property of the Rindler horizon, and at any proper time, the (0,0)-event is always simultaneous with the proper time in the spaceship.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Lluis Olle said:
I consider instead that the spaceship engines keep a constant and same F/M ratio (where F is the propulsion force)
How does this differ from constant proper acceleration?
 
  • #3
Lluis Olle said:
Where the statement of the Paradox reads that both spaceships keep the same and constant proper acceleration
I don’t think that’s right…. I’ve always seen it described as both spaceships maintaining the same coordinate acceleration, as measured in the frame in which they are initially at rest (although it works with any inertial frame - just harder to specify the initial conditions).
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #4
Nugatory said:
I don’t think that’s right
It is. The proper acceleration of the two spaceships in the Bell spaceship paradox is identical. That is what makes the string between them stretch and break (as opposed to spaceships in Rindler motion, where the one in front has smaller proper acceleration than the one in back, which is what allows them to maintain constant proper distance from each other so a string between them will not stretch).

In more technical language, the expansion scalar of the Bell congruence, the set of hyperbolas with constant proper acceleration and a common "pivot point" (meaning they are all at rest in the starting inertial frame at the same instant), is positive, while the expansion scalar of the Rindler congruence is zero.

Nugatory said:
I’ve always seen it described as both spaceships maintaining the same coordinate acceleration, as measured in the frame in which they are initially at rest
Not quite. They start out maintaining the same coordinate acceleration, but in relativity it is impossible for an object to maintain the same coordinate acceleration in a given inertial frame indefinitely.
 
  • #5
This was discussed in another forum https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=85475.0

The scenario seems to be that the two ships maintain constant acceleration, but with the lead ship reeling out the string as needed. After a while (a day at 1 g?), the brakes is put on the reeling out and additional tension develops on the stretching string, accelerating the rear one more than 1g, and slowing the lead ship. It bounces rather than breaks (the bouncing being what the python code simulates). The speed is slow enough that speed of sound through the cable is not considered.

I apparently offended the OP by questioning whether this was a pure thought-experiment or if practical matters were to be considered (such as finding a ship that can accelerated for an entire day with the precision needed to detect a few mm/hour of string contraction after about 850 km/sec of delta-v)

Nugatory said:
I don’t think that’s right…. I’ve always seen it described as both spaceships maintaining the same coordinate acceleration, as measured in the frame in which they are initially at rest (although it works with any inertial frame - just harder to specify the initial conditions).
Constant coordinate acceleration is only possible for finite time, and is frame dependent. At 1g, one can only maintain constant coordinate acceleration for almost a year, with the proper acceleration increasing the entire time. Before the coordinate year is up, the proper acceleration hits infinity and the coordinate acceleration must halt.

But yes, for that finite time, a string between a pair of ships under constant coordinate acceleration will also break.
 
  • #6
Lluis Olle said:
I consider instead that the spaceship engines keep a constant and same F/M ratio (where F is the propulsion force). So, it's no longer the Bell's string Paradox, although at the first glance seems the same thing
If F/m is the same then a is the same also and this is standard Bell’s paradox. Nothing you have described to this point distinguishes this one from the standard one.

Lluis Olle said:
the string tension
Here is the first actual difference from the standard scenario. The usual approach uses a string that is weak and inextensible precisely so that the tension is negligible. Once you make a non-negligible tension then this is no longer strictly a special relativity problem. It now involves material properties like stiffness and breaking strength. The answer then depends on the material properties, not just relativity.

Lluis Olle said:
My experience is that people don't usually get the point of what this change means
That is probably because you didn’t clearly state the part that is the actual change. The actual change is to introduce a non-delicate string, not the thrust.

Unfortunately, I am not sure what you want to introduce that change for. By doing so you make the paradox more complicated and less instructive. If the string is delicate enough then it breaks and if it is strong enough then it doesn’t. What are we supposed to learn from that?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Halc said:
The scenario seems to be that the two ships maintain constant acceleration, but with the lead ship reeling out the string as needed. After a while (a day at 1 g?), the brakes is put on the reeling out and additional tension develops on the stretching string, accelerating the rear one more than 1g, and slowing the lead ship.
As @Dale has commented, this makes the scenario more about material properties than about relativity, and I don't see the point of it. We already know that the string breaks in the standard Bell spaceship paradox, and we already know that there is a way--the Rindler congruence, where the ship in front has smaller proper acceleration than the ship in back--for two spaceships to accelerate in the same direction and maintain constant proper distance. Invoking a string with non-negligible tension to basically transition from one to the other is certainly a possible scenario, but what does it tell us that we don't already know?
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #8
PeterDonis said:
Not quite. They start out maintaining the same coordinate acceleration, but in relativity it is impossible for an object to maintain the same coordinate acceleration in a given inertial frame indefinitely.
I’m sorry, that was intended to be read as “the same coordinate acceleration as each other”, not unchanging coordinate acceleration which is of course impossible.

To quote Bell: “[the two ships] will have at every moment the same velocity, and so remain displaced one from the other by a fixed distance”, a frame-dependent description using coordinate velocities and frame-dependent simultaneity and distance. And to make it so the coordinate accelerations in the frame in which the separation is fixed must be the same at the same time for both ships.
 
  • #9
Nugatory said:
that was intended to be read as “the same coordinate acceleration as each other”
Ah, got it. Yes, in the standard Bell spaceship paradox the coordinate accelerations of the two ships, in the inertial frame in which they start out at rest at the same instant, will always be the same.
 
  • #10
PeterDonis said:
How does this differ from constant proper acceleration?
Because to keep a constant acceleration always, means to make the required force as great as necessary. What force do you need to keep the acceleration? 1 trillion Newtons? No problem.
 
  • #11
PeterDonis said:
As @Dale has commented, this makes the scenario more about material properties than about relativity, and I don't see the point of it.
The mass of the spaceships I choose to be 109 Kg, and a 1 mm steel string (which is ridiculous for the ship mass magnitude), just to show that the "fictitious" relativistic force that breaks the Bell's string is tiny, and a 109 Kg spaceship at 1g can't break a cable with a resistance of 840 N if not - at any cost - keeps the proper acceleration constant, not even considering than being pulled by the leading spaceship, the string has already a tension of 500 N.

For the Born condition, the needed proper acceleration change is so small, that can be easily provided by a fragile string. The Bell's paradox is correct, but people misses that little detail.

I was curious about the magnitude of the force involved in breaking the string. Seems that nobody cares although.
 
  • #12
PeterDonis said:
Ah, got it. Yes, in the standard Bell spaceship paradox the coordinate accelerations of the two ships, in the inertial frame in which they start out at rest at the same instant, will always be the same.
Bell Speakable and Unspeakable in QM (page 67).jpeg
 
  • #13
PeterDonis said:
As @Dale has commented, this makes the scenario more about material properties than about relativity, and I don't see the point of it. ..., but what does it tell us that we don't already know?
It's not about the properties of material, but to show that the force that breaks the string in the Bell's scenario is really tiny - I have put numbers, I hope that being accurate -, chose a "fragile" string as mentioned in the statement of the Paradox, chose a huge spaceship of 109 Kg ... and the string doesn't break, because it goes, obviously, into the Born rigidity condition. But for that, I need that the force not to increase arbitrarily as to keep a constant proper acceleration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Nugatory said:
I’m sorry, that was intended to be read as “the same coordinate acceleration as each other”, not unchanging coordinate acceleration which is of course impossible.

To quote Bell: “[the two ships] will have at every moment the same velocity, and so remain displaced one from the other by a fixed distance”, a frame-dependent description using coordinate velocities and frame-dependent simultaneity and distance. And to make it so the coordinate accelerations in the frame in which the separation is fixed must be the same at the same time for both ships.
Bell Speakable and Unspeakable in QM (page 67).jpeg
 
  • #15
Halc said:
This was discussed in another forum https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=85475.0

The scenario seems to be that the two ships maintain constant acceleration, but with the lead ship reeling out the string as needed. After a while (a day at 1 g?), the brakes is put on the reeling out and additional tension develops on the stretching string, accelerating the rear one more than 1g, and slowing the lead ship. It bounces rather than breaks (the bouncing being what the python code simulates). The speed is slow enough that speed of sound through the cable is not considered.

I apparently offended the OP by questioning whether this was a pure thought-experiment or if practical matters were to be considered (such as finding a ship that can accelerated for an entire day with the precision needed to detect a few mm/hour of string contraction after about 850 km/sec of delta-v)Constant coordinate acceleration is only possible for finite time, and is frame dependent. At 1g, one can only maintain constant coordinate acceleration for almost a year, with the proper acceleration increasing the entire time. Before the coordinate year is up, the proper acceleration hits infinity and the coordinate acceleration must halt.

But yes, for that finite time, a string between a pair of ships under constant coordinate acceleration will also break.
Halc: I ended the discussion because it was pointless. I did't wan't to talk about the material properties, or about the mass or mass-less status of the string, but of the fact that a fragile string can withstand the tiny relativistic force, if you keep the propulsion force constant.
 
  • #16
Lluis Olle said:
Halc: I ended the discussion because it was pointless. I did't wan't to talk about the material properties, or about the mass or mass-less status of the string, but of the fact that a fragile string can withstand the tiny relativistic force, if you keep the propulsion force constant.
Are you saying that Bell forgot that a string can stretch, rather than break?
 
  • #17
Dale said:
If F/m is the same then a is the same also and this is standard Bell’s paradox. Nothing you have described to this point distinguishes this one from the standard one.

Here is the first actual difference from the standard scenario. The usual approach uses a string that is weak and inextensible precisely so that the tension is negligible. Once you make a non-negligible tension then this is no longer strictly a special relativity problem. It now involves material properties like stiffness and breaking strength. The answer then depends on the material properties, not just relativity.

That is probably because you didn’t clearly state the part that is the actual change. The actual change is to introduce a non-delicate string, not the thrust.

Unfortunately, I am not sure what you want to introduce that change for. By doing so you make the paradox more complicated and less instructive. If the string is delicate enough then it breaks and if it is strong enough then it doesn’t. What are we supposed to learn from that?
As I said, people don't usually get the point. If you keep the F/M ratio constant, or if you wish to consider a constant mass always, then a constant Force make an object move constant acceleration. But as soon as it gets to a stepped road, being the force as stated constant, it will decrease its acceleration.

The string I chose is ridiculously fragile for a 109 spaceship. Is just to put some numbers and see that the force that breaks the Bell's string is tiny, and it's not difficult for a fragile string to avoid breaking, and make the spaceship go to the Born condition, if we just play fair, and don't allow the force to increase arbitrarily to meet the statement of the paradox, that says that the acceleration keeps constant.

Where Bell's says "fragile string", that was an unnecessary statement... any string breaks in his scenario, even if it's a 1 meter diameter titanium cable, will break.
 
  • #18
PeroK said:
Are you saying that Bell forgot that a string can stretch, rather than break?
As Halc said in that thread, Bell never talked about forces, so didn't talk about stretching the string either. And it didn't mention nothing about, because the statement in Bell's paradox that the "string is fragile" is unnecessary, ... any string breaks in his scenario.
 
  • #19
Dale said:
If F/m is the same then a is the same also and this is standard Bell’s paradox. Nothing you have described to this point distinguishes this one from the standard one.

Here is the first actual difference from the standard scenario. The usual approach uses a string that is weak and inextensible precisely so that the tension is negligible. Once you make a non-negligible tension then this is no longer strictly a special relativity problem. It now involves material properties like stiffness and breaking strength. The answer then depends on the material properties, not just relativity.

That is probably because you didn’t clearly state the part that is the actual change. The actual change is to introduce a non-delicate string, not the thrust.

Unfortunately, I am not sure what you want to introduce that change for. By doing so you make the paradox more complicated and less instructive. If the string is delicate enough then it breaks and if it is strong enough then it doesn’t. What are we supposed to learn from that?
I don't know what you can learn from that. What I learned is about the order of magnitude of the relativistic accelerations and relative speeds that an accelerated observer midpoint of the two spaceships will measure. And I learned about the order of magnitude of the forces that play, because that was one of the things I learned to always consider when I studied to be an Engineer.

If you are not interested in that kind of details, then nothing to learn obviously.
 
  • #20
Lluis Olle said:
And I learned about the order of magnitude of the forces that play, because that was one of the things I learned to always consider when I studied to be an Engineer.
But why the complex maths to learn that? A pair of Bell rockets have acceleration ##g## and are connected by a string of length ##l##. If the front rocket instead follows the Born rigid trajectory let its proper acceleration be ##g-\delta g##. If we make the observations that the ##x## coordinate of such a family of observers is related to its proper acceleration by ##x=c^2/a## and that the difference in ##x## coordinates of the rockets must be ##l##, then ##\delta g## can be found by $$\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{c^2}g+l&=&\frac{c^2}{g-\delta g}\\
&\approx&\frac{c^2}g\left(1+\frac{\delta g}g\right)\\
\delta g&\approx&\frac{lg^2}{c^2}
\end{eqnarray*}$$which is manifestly tiny for any realisable ##l## and ##g##. Thus, only a tiny force is needed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis and Dale
  • #21
Once you say that "the front rocket instead follows the Born rigid trajectory...", then it's all said, because the change in acceleration required, or the difference between spaceships, is given by the Born rigidity condition...

##\delta_g=\alpha_{1}-\frac{c^2*\alpha_{1}}{(c^2+\alpha_{1}*D)}##

Your formula doesn't fit, because, for example, length is in the denominator of the Born formula, and acceleration is not squared in the Born formula.
 
  • #22
PeroK said:
Are you saying that Bell forgot that a string can stretch, rather than break?
Bell put a "material fragile string" into play, when he could instead just say that the proper distance between spaceships would increase, even when the two spaceships have an equal acceleration. But he said "a fragile string", which is ambiguous to start with. It was an unnecessary literary figure, for the "kids".

I didn't introduce the string into the paradox. Is there, as Bell stated.

But Bell didn't talk about string stretching, or any force that breaks the string. And it's clear why not: If from a conceptual relativistic accelerated frame with that same acceleration, in a middle point between spaceships, you observe a speed relative to you of the leading spaceship, let's say 10-6 m/s, then that relative speed - that comes from a fictitious force due to your accelerated frame (think about a Coriolis force, for example) -, will keep increasing, and the string will stretch at that same increasing speed, and the relativistic force exerted to the string will be whatever is needed to keep the spaceship drifting away form the observer, undisturbed by any tension force of the string. Is this a fair play from the string point of view?
 
  • #23
Lluis Olle said:
Once you say that "the front rocket instead follows the Born rigid trajectory...", then it's all said,
Exactly. So why the huge long post?
Lluis Olle said:
Your formula doesn't fit, because, for example, length is in the denominator of the Born formula, and acceleration is not squared in the Born formula.
The exact version of my formula is ##\delta g=\frac{g^2l}{gl+c^2}##, as you can easily verify. Rearranging it to match your version of the Born rigidity criterion is then trivial algebra.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis, Dale and member 728827
  • #24
Lluis Olle said:
Anyway, what I want is to know is which should be the total work done by the fictitious force to balance the energy equation.

##\frac{1}{2} \cdot M \cdot v_{2}^2 + rw = \frac{\frac{1}{2} \cdot E \cdot A}{L_{1cm}+L_{2cm}} \cdot \delta^2##

Being the numbers so small, ... would be probably an oscillation of both spaceships, bouncing but not breaking the string, and with a slack string most of the time.

So, if this is the case, not only the string doesn't break, but for the most part of the time, is slack, with no tension.
I have some minor corrections.

For the energy balance, the correct formula is with v2cm, not v2:

##\frac{1}{2} \cdot M \cdot v_{2cm}^2 + rw = \frac{\frac{1}{2} \cdot E \cdot A}{L_{1cm}+L_{2cm}} \cdot \delta^2##

And, when I say that if the spaceships can't go to static equilibrium condition I guess the string would be slack, with no tension..., I mean that the S1 trailing string tension will be zero most part of the time... of course, leading spaceship always pulls the string.

I will add the following answer I gave to some of you, because I think it clarifies what the post is about:

I didn't introduce the string into the paradox. Is there, as Bell stated.

Bell put a "material fragile string" into play, when he could instead just say that the proper distance between spaceships would increase, even when the two spaceships have an equal acceleration. But he said "a fragile string", which is ambiguous to start with. It was an unnecessary literary figure, for the "kids" so to speak.

But Bell didn't talk about string stretching, or any force that breaks the string. And it's clear why not: If from a conceptual relativistic accelerated frame with that same acceleration, in a middle point between spaceships, you observe a speed relative to you of the leading spaceship, let's say 10-6 m/s, then that relative speed - that comes from a fictitious force due to your accelerated frame (think about a Coriolis force, for example) -, will keep increasing, and the string will stretch at that same increasing speed, and the relativistic force exerted to the string will be whatever is needed to keep the spaceship drifting away form the observer, undisturbed by any tension force of the string. Is this a fair play from the string point of view?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Ibix said:
Exactly. So why the huge long post?

The exact version of my formula is ##\delta g=\frac{g^2l}{gl+c^2}##, as you can easily verify. Rearranging it to match your version of the Born rigidity criterion is then trivial algebra.
Is such a "huge" post because I though is the policy of the Forum (not to do a huge post, but to include all relevant information), and because 80% of the size if due the inclusion of the Python code, and a little of theory for accelerated bodies that I used for the program which of course, is not intended for you to read, who already know all that details. And for that very same reason, those parts are put at the very end of the post.

As for the formula, you're right, it's the same, sorry.

But take into account that for saying "the spaceship goes into the Born rigidity condition", first you have to somehow prove that the spaceship can indeed go to the Born rigidity condition, is not that easy.
Post largo.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
Lluis Olle said:
It's not about the properties of material, but to show that the force that breaks the string in the Bell's scenario is really tiny
The ultimate strength, or breaking strength, is the specific material property that cannot be avoided in your scenario. That is the property that determines how much tension the string can produce.

If you want to focus on a non-material property that shows the smallness of this effect, then a simpler quantity would be the expansion of the string. That is essentially what @Ibix calculated above. Basically that shows that this proper separation is very small and slow. With that there is no need to change the scenario or analyze the material of the string to make the point.

Lluis Olle said:
I did't wan't to talk about the material properties
Then you cannot have the string providing tension. Once you allow that you need the ultimate strength of the material to determine the outcome.

Besides, in your own analysis you had to include material properties. So I am not sure on what basis you now say that you don’t want to talk about those material properties. You did talk about them.

Lluis Olle said:
As I said, people don't usually get the point.
Just a general suggestion for you: when you notice that multiple smart and informed people don’t get your point, consider the possibility that you are not making your point clearly. It is apparent from your comment that this is not the first place that you have given this scenario and you have repeatedly been met with misunderstanding.

The reason that you have been repeatedly misunderstood is that you are not clearly identifying the key difference between your scenario and the standard one. It is not the constant thrust, it is the tension in the string.

Lluis Olle said:
The string I chose is ridiculously fragile for a 109 spaceship
That is fine, but it is the finite tension that the string provides that makes the difference in the scenario. By burying that fact several paragraphs down in your description you make it likely that people will miss your point. Again, if you find that multiple experts miss your point then you should consider that your point is not made clearly. Here, I am telling you specifically what is unclear.

Lluis Olle said:
Is such a "huge" post because I though is the policy of the Forum (not to do a huge post, but to include all relevant information),
Most of the information is irrelevant. And the relevant information is then obscured simply by being buried several paragraphs deep in the irrelevant information.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
I've no doubt that I'm talking with smart people, and I'm grateful for being able to do so. So, thanks in advance for you patience.

The statement of the post can be unclear, and it's possible that how the post is written to develop the initial statement makes things worst. I'm neither English native speaker, nor I write any kind of scientific paper, so I'll always try to express things to the best of my knowledge and style, and try to resolve any misunderstanding.
Dale said:
The reason that you have been repeatedly misunderstood is that you are not clearly identifying the key difference between your scenario and the standard one. It is not the constant thrust, it is the tension in the string.
Could you please clarify it, because I don't get it. The string will exert a tension force on the spaceships, and this is also written in the Bell's paradox. This tension is what finally breaks the string in the Bell's scenario (and in Bell's words literally an "intolerable stress"). And, is Bell itself who introduces, not a string but a thread, into his paradox, and a "fragile thread", so he's talking about certain ambiguous characteristics of the thread.

Dale said:
but it is the finite tension that the string provides that makes the difference in the scenario.
Is the Bell's scenario, the thread in the Bell scenario breaks due to "intolerable stress". I don't understand, now it's me that it's not getting what are to trying to highlight. ¿?
Dale said:
By burying that fact several paragraphs down in your description you make it likely that people will miss your point.
Could you please point me what is the exact paragraph you are referencing? If it's so, was not my intention to hide anything to trick people... I'm not so naive, and pretend to write in the fine print, at the end, something to trick anybody... I'm not an insurance company representative.

I'm not putting into the "alternative scenario" anything that was not previously in the Bell's paradox itself. The only difference is what I write in the preamble of the post, nothing else hidden:

"Doing a small change in the statement of the Bell's paradox - to consider engines with constant and same F/M ratio (F is the propulsion force), instead of a constant and same proper acceleration, I think that string does not break (is my own conclusion, not being an expert in SR)."

Dale said:
Most of the information is irrelevant. And the relevant information is then obscured simply by being buried several paragraphs deep in the irrelevant information.
That's not a very polite comment, by the way. I think this is not in the guidelines of the forum.
 

Attachments

  • Bell statement 1.png
    Bell statement 1.png
    30.6 KB · Views: 103
  • #28
Lluis Olle said:
Could you please point me what is the exact paragraph you are referencing? If it's so, was not my intention to hide anything to trick people... I'm not so naive, and pretend to write in the fine print, at the end, something to trick anybody... I'm not an insurance company representative.
The first mention of tension in the string is in the 11th paragraph (including the summary and your list of numbers at 1 hour). And even this mention does not explicitly point this out as the key difference from the standard scenario. The reader is expected to infer that. No wonder you have repeatedly experienced people thinking the scenario is no different from the standard one. The difference should be explicitly stated in the first paragraph, not hidden in the 11th.

Lluis Olle said:
And, is Bell itself who introduces, not a string but a thread, into his paradox, and a "fragile thread", so he's talking about certain ambiguous characteristics of the thread.
The statement “fragile thread” is not ambiguous. It means a thread with a negligible ultimate or breaking strength. Just as “smooth” means negligible friction, and “flexible” means negligible bending stiffness, and “light” means negligible mass. All of these are standard terms with unambiguous meaning. The thread being fragile indicates that we can neglect the tension in the thread compared to the other effects in the problem. I.e. the tension force is taken to be 0 in Bell’s formulation. There is nothing ambiguous about his description of the string as “fragile”, but it differs from yours as your string can sustain a non-zero tension and therefore is not “fragile”.

Lluis Olle said:
the thread in the Bell scenario breaks due to "intolerable stress". I don't understand, now it's me that it's not getting what are to trying to highlight.
Yes, for a “fragile” thread any non-zero stress is “intolerable” and it breaks.

Lluis Olle said:
I'm not putting into the "alternative scenario" anything that was not previously in the Bell's paradox itself.
Yes, you are. You are putting in a non-fragile string. That is the key difference.

By Newton’s 2nd law Bell’s assertion that the accelerations are equal means that the net forces are equal. With a fragile string, the tension is 0 so the net force on each rocket is equal to the thrust. Thus, with a fragile string, you asserting equal thrust is the same as Bell asserting equal acceleration.

It is only with your additional change to a non-fragile string that the tension force is non-negligible, the net forces differ, and therefore the accelerations differ. This additional change is therefore essential to your analysis of the scenario and should be explicitly stated in the initial statement.

Lluis Olle said:
That's not a very polite comment, by the way. I think this is not in the guidelines of the forum.
I apologize for any perceived impoliteness. It was intended as a clear critique of the description, rather than a personal attack. You have received a lot of feedback from a lot of experts on a lot of forums. By your own description, most believe your scenario to be identical to Bell’s. If one person had made that mistake you could attribute it to their sloppy reading or lack of expertise, but since this has happened repeatedly with many experts the communication problem lies with your description: the description does not clearly state the important change of using a non-fragile string, and it includes a lot of unnecessary details.

Technical writing is not easy because the concepts themselves are not easy. I am not being derogatory or insulting of you, I am showing you the issue so that you can understand why you have received the feedback you have received and (hopefully) become a better technical writer in the future.

When I got my first rough draft back from my advisor for my first technical paper, I remember thinking that it looked like he had bled all over my manuscript there were so many red marks. The feedback was clear, and it hurt, but it was without malice and it made me a better writer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes member 728827
  • #29
Lluis Olle said:
I was curious about the magnitude of the force involved in breaking the string.
Obviously that depends on the masses of the spaceships, the proper accelerations involved, the tensile strength of the string, and how much the string is stretched before it breaks. What's the issue?
 
  • #30
Lluis Olle said:
take into account that for saying "the spaceship goes into the Born rigidity condition", first you have to somehow prove that the spaceship can indeed go to the Born rigidity condition, is not that easy
Yes, it is: @Ibix did it in just a few lines of algebra. The worldlines that the ships have to follow for the two conditions (Bell condition, with string stretching more and more until it breaks, vs. Born rigid condition, where the string's proper length is constant) are well known and easily written down.
 
  • #31
PeterDonis said:
Obviously that depends on the masses of the spaceships, the proper accelerations involved, the tensile strength of the string, and how much the string is stretched before it breaks. What's the issue?
I've no issue.

What I did is to chose a very weak real steel cable (a really ridiculous one, with 1 mm diameter), with a break tension of 840 N, consider a mass 109 Kg (yes, that much) for each spaceship, and simulate an scenario of 1g acceleration and 10 km of cable... and the cable doesn't break, not even close to break, not even considering that the 50 kg cable, pulled by the leading spaceship, is at a load of 500 N just to start with, for being pulled by the leading spaceship.

One reason for that, is that the cable gets to the Born rigidity condition.

All this is what is explained in the post. The cable data is in the "huge" post, just in the "irrelevant" section at the end.
 
  • #32
PeterDonis said:
Yes, it is: @Ibix did it in just a few lines of algebra. The worldlines that the ships have to follow for the two conditions (Bell condition, with string stretching more and more until it breaks, vs. Born rigid condition, where the string's proper length is constant) are well known and easily written down.
@Ibix just expressed the formula of the Born rigidity condition... that doesn't tell if the spaceships system at a proper time meet that condition due the action of a force, like the string pulling. It just tells you which should be the proper acceleration for keeping a given constant proper distance to another point with other proper acceleration.
 
  • #33
Does time dilation have to be taken into account here? I think for an accelerating ship clocks at the front of the ship will tick faster than the back, so presumably, clocks will tick faster on the leading ship.
 
  • #34
Dale said:
The first mention of tension in the string is in the 11th paragraph (including the summary and your list of numbers at 1 hour). And even this mention does not explicitly point this out as the key difference from the standard scenario. The reader is expected to infer that. No wonder you have repeatedly experienced people thinking the scenario is no different from the standard one. The difference should be explicitly stated in the first paragraph, not hidden in the 11th.

The statement “fragile thread” is not ambiguous. It means a thread with a negligible ultimate or breaking strength. Just as “smooth” means negligible friction, and “flexible” means negligible bending stiffness, and “light” means negligible mass. All of these are standard terms with unambiguous meaning. The thread being fragile indicates that we can neglect the tension in the thread compared to the other effects in the problem. I.e. the tension force is taken to be 0 in Bell’s formulation. There is nothing ambiguous about his description of the string as “fragile”, but it differs from yours as your string can sustain a non-zero tension and therefore is not “fragile”.

Yes, for a “fragile” thread any non-zero stress is “intolerable” and it breaks.

Yes, you are. You are putting in a non-fragile string. That is the key difference.

By Newton’s 2nd law Bell’s assertion that the accelerations are equal means that the net forces are equal. With a fragile string, the tension is 0 so the net force on each rocket is equal to the thrust. Thus, with a fragile string, you asserting equal thrust is the same as Bell asserting equal acceleration.

It is only with your additional change to a non-fragile string that the tension force is non-negligible, the net forces differ, and therefore the accelerations differ. This additional change is therefore essential to your analysis of the scenario and should be explicitly stated in the initial statement.

I apologize for any perceived impoliteness. It was intended as a clear critique of the description, rather than a personal attack. You have received a lot of feedback from a lot of experts on a lot of forums. By your own description, most believe your scenario to be identical to Bell’s. If one person had made that mistake you could attribute it to their sloppy reading or lack of expertise, but since this has happened repeatedly with many experts the communication problem lies with your description: the description does not clearly state the important change of using a non-fragile string, and it includes a lot of unnecessary details.

Technical writing is not easy because the concepts themselves are not easy. I am not being derogatory or insulting of you, I am showing you the issue so that you can understand why you have received the feedback you have received and (hopefully) become a better technical writer in the future.

When I got my first rough draft back from my advisor for my first technical paper, I remember thinking that it looked like he had bled all over my manuscript there were so many red marks. The feedback was clear, and it hurt, but it was without malice and it made me a better writer.
Ok, thanks Dale
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #35
Lluis Olle said:
@Ibix just expressed the formula of the Born rigidity condition...
...which is manifestly the equilibrium condition, from boost symmetry. Thus anything else is not an equilibrium and the system will either oscillate around the equilibrium or simply tend towards it.
 

Similar threads

Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
40
Views
3K
Replies
42
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top