The importance of velocity in simultaneity

[Micheth]

You can't do that - the distance between the clocks contracts in exactly the same way that the train would if it were there.

Sorry my above comment was referring to Ibix's statement that the distance between the clocks contract. The wiki article stating that it does not.

No, because it's only before they start, and once they've both agreed that they've both stopped accelerating, that they agree that they're in the same state of motion. In between those two points, differences can accumulate.

Sorry I don't understand what you're saying here. If they undergo the exact same acceleration/uniform motion, then how can differences accumulate?

 

[A.T.]

The article states "The distance between the spaceships does not undergo Lorentz contraction with respect to the distance at the start".

That's right, because Lorentz contraction relates lengths in different frames, not at different time points in the same frame.

So there has been no change in distance between them if they accelerated exactly the same.

If there is no distance change in the ground frame, then there must be a distance increase in their rest frame. That's why the string between the rockets breaks.

 

[Micheth]

If there is no distance change in the ground frame, then there must be a distance increase in their rest frame. That's why the string between the rockets breaks.

The article seems to argue that the string breaks not because of increased distance but because of Lorentz contraction (of the string). If there's no matter between them also being accelerated, then there's nothing to contract, whereas the article clearly states that the distance would remain the same...

 

[A.T.]

The article seems to argue that the string breaks not because of increased distance but because of Lorentz contraction (of the string).

Yes, Lorentz contraction says the moving string is longer in its rest frame, than in the ground frame. So if it keeps its length in the ground frame, it must elongate in it rest frame.

If there's no matter between them also being accelerated, then there's nothing to contract, whereas the article clearly states that the distance would remain the same...

If the distance remains the same in the ground frame, then it must increase in the frame of the rockets. That's what Lorentz contraction says, and the existence of the string is irrelevant here.

 

[Micheth]

If the distance remains the same in the ground frame, then it must increase in the frame of the rockets. That's what Lorentz contraction says, and the existence of the string is irrelevant here.

I think the distance stays the same even in the frame of the rockets (clocks in this case).
If the distance were to increase, then equally accelerating objects would move away from each other.

 

[A.T.]

I think the distance stays the same even in the frame of the rockets (clocks in this case).

No, it cannot stay the same in both frames, because Lorentz contraction relates the lengths in different frames, and says they are different.

If the distance were to increase, then equally accelerating objects would move away from each other.

Their distance increases, in their rest frames.

 

[Micheth]

Their distance increases, in their rest frames.

But then why does wiki state: "The distance between the spaceships does not undergo Lorentz contraction with respect to the distance at the start."
(It doesn't say that their distance increases either)

 

[A.T.]

But then why does wiki state: "The distance between the spaceships does not undergo Lorentz contraction with respect to the distance at the start."

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ty-in-simultaneity.789927/page-2#post-5045671

 

[Micheth]

QUOTE=A.T. said: ↑
Their distance increases, in their rest frames.[/QUOTE]

QUOTE="Micheth, post: 5045717, member: 547880"]But then why does wiki state: "The distance between the spaceships does not undergo Lorentz contraction with respect to the distance at the start."
(It doesn't say that their distance increases either)[/QUOTE]Oops I missed that it did say their distance increases but from the viewpoint of an observer on the ground (the initial rest frame).
But the clocks themselves accelerate equally and at the point they pass the platform (and get hit by lightning bolts) they ought to register the same time, no?

 

[A.T.]

Oops I missed that it did say their distance increases but from the viewpoint of an observer on the ground (the initial rest frame).

It increases in the frame of the rockets. It stays constant in the ground frame.

But the clocks themselves accelerate equally and at the point they pass the platform (and get hit by lightning bolts) they ought to register the same time, no?

If the lightning bolts are simultaneous in the ground frame, and the clocks had always the same speed (and thus tick rate) in the ground frame, then yes.

 

[Micheth]

It increases in the frame of the rockets. It stays constant in the ground frame.
If the lightning bolts are simultaneous in the ground frame, and the clocks had always the same speed (and thus tick rate) in the ground frame, then yes.

The article said: "the rest length between the two has increased in the frames in which they are momentarily at rest (S′)".
I interpret that as meaning the ground frame, where they were initially at rest.
(There being no increase in distance between them in their inertial frame.)

I still can't see why the platform frame is not going to see the clocks registering the same time. They both had the same acceleration history (even as viewed from the ground), in the same direction, for the same time period. Why would they show different times?

 

[A.T.]

The article said: "the rest length between the two has increased in the frames in which they are momentarily at rest (S′)".
I interpret that as meaning the ground frame, where they were initially at rest.

No, it means their rest frames (note the plural) during the acceleration.

I still can't see why the platform frame is not going to see the clocks registering the same time.

It will, if they accelerate synchronously in the ground frame, as is the case in Bell's scenario.

 

[Micheth]

No, it means their rest frames (note the plural) during the acceleration.

Then I have no idea what rest frames it's referring to...
I thought they were at rest, and then and then accelerated

It will, if they accelerate synchronously in the ground frame, as is the case in Bell's scenario.

I would think that's what happened with my clocks too.
So the platform observer observes the clocks reading exactly the same times, and the lightning bolts hitting simultaneously, right?
And they stop functioning at those identical times.

 

[A.T.]

Then I have no idea what rest frames it's referring to...

The inertial frames where the rockets are at rest at different time points during the acceleration.

So the platform observer observes the clocks reading exactly the same times, and the lightning bolts hitting simultaneously, right? And they stop functioning at those identical times.

In your modified scenario without the train, that is a possible variant.

 

[Micheth]

The inertial frames where the rockets are at rest at different time points during the acceleration.

Ah I see, which makes sense to me since as far as they're concerned, they haven't moved with respect to each other.

In your modified scenario without the train, that is a possible variant.

Ok :-) then continuing with the modified scenario, instead of a rider on the train, we have a third party accelerating between and in tandem with the clocks.
(In other words, all the previous characters just without the train)
But it has been established that the rider would experience the lightning bolts occurring out of synchrony, no? His own clock (carried with him and in synchrony with the other two) would say they hit at different times, but when everything comes to rest (or even before that), he checks the clocks that have stopped, and they register the same time, i.e. the time the platform observer claims it happened.

 

[A.T.]

Ah I see, which makes sense to me since as far as they're concerned, they haven't moved with respect to each other.

No. According to the ground frame they haven't moved apart. But according to their rest frame they have.

instead of a rider on the train, we have a third party accelerating between and in tandem with the clocks.

In the middle with same acceleration in the ground frame as the clocks?

But it has been established that the rider would experience the lightning bolts occurring out of synchrony, no?

If they are simultaneous in the ground frame, they aren't in the middle-man's frame.

His own clock (carried with him and in synchrony with the other two)

It's synchronous in the ground frame, not in his own rest frame.

would say they hit at different times, but when everything comes to rest (or even before that), he checks the clocks that have stopped, and they register the same time,

Yes, and he has no problem with that. In his frame the clocks where running with an offset, and where hit with the same offset, so they stopped showing the same time.

 

[Micheth]

If they are simultaneous in the ground frame, they aren't in the middle-man's frame.

It's synchronous in the ground frame, not in his own rest frame.

Yes, and he has no problem with that. In his frame the clocks where running with an offset, and where hit with the same offset, so they stopped showing the same time.

Hmmm. I would think two (or three clocks) set to be synchronous, and then all undergoing exactly the same accelerations, would be synchronous especially in their own frames?
Otherwise wouldn't atomic clocks running next to each other quickly run out of synch? They're constantly undergoing identical acceleration (earth rotation+revolution, not to mention galactic, cluster, etc.)

 

[A.T.]

Hmmm. I would think two (or three clocks) set to be synchronous, and then all undergoing exactly the same accelerations, would be synchronous especially in their own frames?

Their accelerations aren't synchronous in their own frames, so there is no reason to expect the clock times to remain synchronous in their own frames.

 

[Micheth]

Their accelerations aren't synchronous in their own frames, so there is no reason to expect the clock times to remain synchronous in their own frames.

I thought they were, being identically accelerated.
If not, then wouldn't three clocks lined up in the same order on earth, and being hurled through space toward the Great Attractor, have asynchronous accelerations and thus we couldn't trust synchronized "stationary" atomic clocks on the earth?

 

[PeterDonis]

wouldn't atomic clocks running next to each other quickly run out of synch? They're constantly undergoing identical acceleration

Careful. You are conflating two different concepts of acceleration. Also, you are now talking about curved spacetime (because you said the clocks were at rest on Earth), which brings in additional complications that I would recommend avoiding for this discussion.

An object sitting at rest on Earth experiences nonzero proper acceleration--this is just what we normally call "weight". Similarly, an object on the train in your scenario experiences proper acceleration while the train is starting up; it feels "weight" as the train accelerates. Once the train is at a constant speed, the weight goes away; if we imagine the train out in free space somewhere, it and everything in it will be weightless once it's moving at a constant speed.

The "acceleration" of the object relative to the Sun, the galaxy, the galactic cluster, etc. is not proper acceleration; it's not felt as weight. It's just coordinate acceleration; in coordinates in which the Sun is at rest, the Earth and everything on it are accelerated.

Now suppose we have two atomic clocks, far out in free space somewhere (to eliminate any complications involved with curved spacetime), lined up along the $x$ axis. They start accelerating--in the sense of proper acceleration--in the $x$ direction. As they accelerate, their clocks will indeed get out of sync, even if they are both feeling identical proper acceleration. But if they both accelerate in the $y$ direction (i.e., perpendicular to their separation), they will not get out of sync.

(You can indeed carry this over to curved spacetime, with some caveats. For example, two atomic clocks sitting at the same altitude on Earth, separated by a small distance horizontally, will not get out of sync; the acceleration they feel is perpendicular to their separation. But two atomic clocks sitting at slightly different altitudes, with no separation horizontally, only vertically, will get out of sync. However, other aspects of this scenario will not work the same as the corresponding scenario in flat spacetime, so once again, I recommend avoiding any scenario in which gravity is present for this discussion.)

 

[A.T.]

I thought they were, being identically accelerated.

Only in the ground frame. But if they stop accelerating simultaneously in the ground frame, then they do not stop accelerating simultaneously in their frame.

atomic clocks on the earth?

See Peter's post. You should try to understand it in flat space time first, without gravity.

 

[Micheth]

Careful. You are conflating two different concepts of acceleration. Also, you are now talking about curved spacetime (because you said the clocks were at rest on Earth), which brings in additional complications that I would recommend avoiding for this discussion.
...
(You can indeed carry this over to curved spacetime, with some caveats. For example, two atomic clocks sitting at the same altitude on Earth, separated by a small distance horizontally, will not get out of sync; the acceleration they feel is perpendicular to their separation. But two atomic clocks sitting at slightly different altitudes, with no separation horizontally, only vertically, will get out of sync. However, other aspects of this scenario will not work the same as the corresponding scenario in flat spacetime, so once again, I recommend avoiding any scenario in which gravity is present for this discussion.)

Thanks for the detailed response. I was under the impression that GR saw gravity and acceleration as identical, but now I see there is difference between proper & coordinate acceleration (which incidentally I find intuitive as well) (I might shorthand it as: gravity "pulls" while proper acceleration "pushes")
Anyway, so to understand this correctly, proper acceleration (PA) WOULD cause the clocks to get out of sync whereas coordinate acceleration (CA) would not?

But as I continue to think about it, it seems that CA would produce at least as much non-synchrony in the clocks because any gravitational source you placed (in the direction of their alignment) is going to affect the closer one more (earlier) and the farther one less (later), and I can't imagine a scenario where CA could be produced in exactly the same manner to all 3 clocks lined up. Maybe there would be a way.
Whereas it still seems PA could (theoretically) be simultaneously produced in all 3... (if all conditions (forces, vectors, etc.) were reproduced in all 3)

 

[PeterDonis]

proper acceleration (PA) WOULD cause the clocks to get out of sync whereas coordinate acceleration (CA) would not?

It's not that simple. First, consider flat spacetime. In flat spacetime, any object with nonzero proper acceleration will also have nonzero coordinate acceleration in any inertial frame. So you can't separate the two.

In a non-inertial frame, in either flat spacetime or curved spacetime (in curved spacetime, there are no global inertial frames), it's possible to have proper acceleration without coordinate acceleration. However, gravitational time dilation is not a function of acceleration; it's a function of position--how deep you are in the gravity well. So even in this case, it's not really correct to say that proper acceleration causes clocks to go out of sync.

 

[Micheth]

However, gravitational time dilation is not a function of acceleration; it's a function of position--how deep you are in the gravity well.

That's interesting. I never considered it but now that you mention it a body in free fall in a gravitational field would have double time dilation, that of it's motion toward the grav. center and that of the grav. field itself (how far it's getting into the grav. well)...

So even in this case, it's not really correct to say that proper acceleration causes clocks to go out of sync.

So then... what causes the clocks to go out of sync..?
I had always assumed that if the exact same forces worked in exactly the same way on two objects, causing them to undergo non-uniform motion in exactly the same way, they would perform in exactly the same way (i.e still be in sync).

 

[A.T.]

So then... what causes the clocks to go out of sync..?

You're asking about gravitational time dilation now? This is really a derail of this SR thread, and basically what is already discussed in the other thread, about the distortion of the time dimension:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...t-on-space-thus-causing-gravity.803213/page-2

 

[PeterDonis]

So then... what causes the clocks to go out of sync..?

As A.T. said, gravitational time dilation is off topic for this thread. However, we can consider the flat spacetime (no gravity) example I gave earlier: two atomic clocks, with some separation in the $x$ direction, both accelerating in the $x$ direction with exactly the same proper acceleration. They will get out of sync. As to why, see below.

I had always assumed that if the exact same forces worked in exactly the same way on two objects, causing them to undergo non-uniform motion in exactly the same way, they would perform in exactly the same way (i.e still be in sync).

The problem is with those word "exactly the same". You are assuming they have an absolute meaning, but they don't. Even though the acceleration profiles of both clocks are the same to the clocks themselves (i.e., the acceleration profile of clock A, as seen by clock A, is the same as the acceleration profile of clock B, as seen by clock B), and even though they are the same as seen in a particular fixed inertial frame (i.e., in the frame in which both clocks start out at rest, and start accelerating at the same time, both acceleration profiles look the same), they are not the same when each clock looks at the other (i.e., the acceleration profile of clock A, as seen by clock B, is not the same as the acceleration profile of clock B, as seen by clock A). It's this last fact that causes the clocks to get out of sync.

 

[Micheth]

You're asking about gravitational time dilation now? This is really a derail of this SR thread, and basically what is already discussed in the other thread, about the distortion of the time dimension:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...t-on-space-thus-causing-gravity.803213/page-2

No, I'm still very much talking about accelerating the three objects (it was originally a train with clocks at either end and a rider in the middle, but we just got rid of the train).
(Which I now understand is referred to as "proper acceleration".)
But it was being argued that accelerating all three in exactly the same way would cause the clocks to go out of sync, and I'm still asking why...

 

[Micheth]

As A.T. said, gravitational time dilation is off topic for this thread.

(No, I'm not talking about gravitational time dilation. You stated "It's not really correct to say that proper acceleration causes clocks to go out of sync", so I asked what is it that causes them to go out of sync.)

even though they are the same as seen in a particular fixed inertial frame (i.e., in the frame in which both clocks start out at rest, and start accelerating at the same time, both acceleration profiles look the same), they are not the same when each clock looks at the other (i.e., the acceleration profile of clock A, as seen by clock B, is not the same as the acceleration profile of clock B, as seen by clock A). It's this last fact that causes the clocks to get out of sync.

Hmmm. I don't see why the clocks have to "look at each other"? They undergo the same acceleration profiles, right? And they arrive at their final destinies (the lightning bolts) at exactly the same time, and each will register the time they get struck, right?
For example, as a thought experiment, we could just do one clock, accelerate it to the lightning bolt point, and strike it.
Then, resetting the thought experiment, we do the other clock, accelerating it in the same way, striking it.
(One would have nothing to do with the other.)
So, in my example were are merely doing those two though experiments simultaneously so that they get hit by the bolts simultaneously, and thus register the same times.

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't see why the clocks have to "look at each other"?

Because that's the criterion for whether they are "in sync": whether a given clock reading for clock A is simultaneous with the same clock reading for clock B. Simultaneity is relative, so each clock has to "look at the other" to see whether this criterion is satisfied.

They undergo the same acceleration profiles, right?

Once again, you are using "the same" as if it had an absolute meaning. It doesn't.

d they arrive at their final destinies (the lightning bolts) at exactly the same time

Once again, you are using "the same" as if it had an absolute meaning. It doesn't.

Rather than continue to wave your hands, I strongly suggest that you do the math. Assign coordinates to events, draw a spacetime diagram, look at the lines of simultaneity for each clock, and see how they don't line up.

 

[A.T.]

I don't see...

As Peter noted, you fail to specify the frame for all your frame dependent statements. You will never get it, until you learn to be precise about this.

 

[Micheth]

Because that's the criterion for whether they are "in sync".

Wouldn't the criterion for whether or not they are in sync simply be, when the simultaneous lightning bolts (simultaneous in the ground frame) strikes them, whether or not they register or don't register the same time? There wouldn't have to be any communication between them at all, at least in this thought exp.

Rather than continue to wave your hands, I strongly suggest that you do the math. Assign coordinates to events, draw a spacetime diagram, look at the lines of simultaneity for each clock, and see how they don't line up.

Well, one would if one knew how. :-)
I'm actually only capable of dealing with the logic of it, as I should hope it would make logical sense.
You could conduct the experiment with one clock, with exactly defined accelerating conditions.
When it arrives at the lightning bolt point (a fixed distance away), it registers a time.
You do it later again with another clock, and if all the conditions were exactly the same, it ought to register exactly the same time, no?
But if you do them together, somehow they get out of sync! Do you see why I'm stumped on that?

 

[PeterDonis]

Wouldn't the criterion for whether or not they are in sync simply be, when the simultaneous lightning bolts (simultaneous in the ground frame) strikes them, whether or not they register or don't register the same time?

Once again, you're assuming that "at the same time" has an absolute meaning. It doesn't.

Please, instead of continuing to wave your hands, actually do the math. You are continuing to repeat things that you have been repeatedly told are not correct.

one would if one knew how. :-)

If you don't currently know how, then I strongly suggest learning. It's really hard to do relativity without the proper tools.

I'm actually only capable of dealing with the logic of it, as I should hope it would make logical sense.

It does. But logic by itself isn't enough. One has to be reasoning from correct premises, and you are not. Your incorrect premise has been pointed out repeatedly, yet you continue to use it.

if you do them together, somehow they get out of sync

You can't "do them together" if they are spatially separated. That's the whole point. If they are both at the exact same spatial location (joined at the hip, perhaps), they they won't get out of sync. But that wasn't your original scenario. Your original scenario was that they are spatially separated: clock A starts at $x = x_A$, and clock B starts at $x = x_B$, where $x_B \neq x_A$, and they both accelerate in the $x$ direction. In that scenario, they get out of sync, because they are not "together".

 

[Micheth]

You can't "do them together" if they are spatially separated. That's the whole point. If they are both at the exact same spatial location (joined at the hip, perhaps), they they won't get out of sync. But that wasn't your original scenario. Your original scenario was that they are spatially separated: clock A starts at x=xAx = x_A, and clock B starts at x=xBx = x_B, where xB≠xAx_B \neq x_A, and they both accelerate in the xx direction. In that scenario, they get out of sync, because they are not "together".

Are you saying that it is impossible to sync the clocks in the first place?
I'm assuming they could be synched initially, in a rest frame.
Yes, my scenario is that they are spatially separated, is that the reason they can't be initially synched?
If so, then are you saying that the problem is not that they "got out of sync" by being accelerated, but that they were never in sync in the first place?

 

[PeterDonis]

Are you saying that it is impossible to sync the clocks in the first place?

No. They can start out in sync, and like you, I am assuming that they do.

 

[Micheth]

No. They can start out in sync, and like you, I am assuming that they do.

So, being initially in sync, couldn't they be programmed to begin accelerating when each reads a specific time value, and wouldn't that be defined as "doing the experiments together"?
To be exactly clear what I'm saying:
There is a fixed distance each must accelerate through. Each could do that separately (on different days maybe) and each would presumably register the exact same time when they reached the "endpoint". Since it takes a fixed mass a fixed time to accelerate under a fixed force through a fixed distance.
This particular experiment would merely be the trivial case where they each began accelerating when they had specific times values reading the same (i.e. at the same time).
By this logic, how could they then get out of sync?