Today Special Relativity dies

In summary, the conversation discusses the simultaneous emission and detection of photons in different reference frames, specifically in the case of a man standing on a movable platform bed between two photon emitters. The outcome varies depending on the reference frame and the movement of the platform. The ambiguity lies in the lack of definition of the specific reference frames in each case.
  • #71
ram1024 said:
so here we have emitted simultaneously, and DETECTED simultaneously, despite difference in relative position to the emitters of the photons.

Hold on: I thought both observers were located at the midpoint of the train. In other words, I thought that both of them were equidistant from the sources. If not, then they certainly will not both report having received the light pulses simultaneously. This has nothing to do with Einstein vs. Galileao, it's simple geometry.

i thought SR was supposed to claim non-simultaneity for moving towards a light source vis-avis Case#3 post 1?

It is nonsimultaneous for observers in a different inertial frame. But you set this up so that the clocks, the emitters, and the observers are all in the same frame, so SR effects don't even show up. They won't show up until a third party, who is moving relative to the frame of the original observers, enters the scene.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
or "flaws in the experiments"

might be more apt. we'll see as this discussion continues :D
 
  • #73
ram1024 said:
or "flaws in the experiments"

No, that's not it. Professional physicists perform experiments to the most exacting standards possible. Each part of an experiment is worked out in great detail by a whole team of scientists. For some internet bozo to come along and suggest that they don't do their job correctly is just plain laughable. Really, what other profession is subject to this indignity? What would you say if someone who obviously has no clue about your profession (assuming you have one) were to come along and tell you that you don't really understand the thing that you go in and do all day, every day?

might be more apt. we'll see as this discussion continues :D

No, we won't see it in this discussion. It's not possible, even in principle, to determine if the experiments are at fault, because your thought experiments don't make any connection to the experiments.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
so do me a favor and go back to case #1 2, and 3 for me Tom and state your "true / false" predictions

i'm getting conflicting data from two people who i know to be good at this SR thing.
 
  • #75
First I need you to answer my comments from Post #71. Are both observers at the midpoint of the train, or aren't they?
 
  • #76
Case #2:
Code:
[u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
   [u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
      [u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
         [u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]

Platform is moving. SR concludes the photons (still emitted simultaneously) will be detected by the observer at the exact same time. (observer is standing exactly in the center of the platform, equidistant from both sources)

(True / False) ?

Case #3:
Code:
[u]|(->                    (o)                 <-)|[/u]
[u]|(->                       (o)              <-)|[/u]
[u]|(->                          (o)           <-)|[/u]
[u]|(->                             (o)        <-)|[/u]

Man is moving on platform towards an emitter. SR concludes that photons are NOT detected at the exact same time.(observer starts at the exact center of the platform, equidistant from the two sources and moves towards the right emitter)

(True / False) ?
 
  • #77
As case #2 is now stated, I revert to my original response (false). Since you don't specify the frame in which "simultaneously" is measured, the natural assumption is that you mean it is the frame in which the pictures are drawn.

Case #3 is similarly ambiguous; my true was, again, under the assumption that "simultaneously" is measured in the frame in which the pictures are drawn.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
ram1024, I see that you still waste other's time. Please see that post#76 itself does not contain enough information to give answers.

If you didn't change the conditions, my understanding is:

The emitters are stationary wrt the platform in both cases. The emitters emit light simultaneously according to the clocks synchronized in the platform frame.

Case#2: Does the midpoint observer (co-moving with the emitters on the platform) detect the photons at the same time? (my answer is yes, so, True)

Case#3: Does the moving observer (moving towards one of the emitters) detect the photons at the same time, given that the observer was at the midpoint (according to clocks on the platform) when the photons were emitted ? (my answer is no, so, True)

ram1024, I must add that you don't deserve any attention if you insist on asking ambiguous questions.
 
  • #79
the emitters are welded TO the train and NEVER move relative to each other.

the conditions set forth are NOT ambiguous. you have answered as i expected SR to answer. Tom and Hurkyl are putting forth different answers though, but they're not really detailing their answers so it's hard for me to piece together where the difference in understanding is.

i'm pretty sure my outline of the experiment is not vague.

two synchronous clocks set a specified distance apart emitting a photon at what would be to THEM synchronous times (no inertial effects happen to one that do not also happen to the other). drop a moving observer in the center in one case, and in the other case a stationary observer but the whole train is moving.

i can continue to keep explaining it over and over using different words until you understand it exactly if you want, but in the interest of progress let's keep that to a minimum :D
 
  • #80
ram1024 said:
the emitters are welded TO the train and NEVER move relative to each other.

That part is clear.

the conditions set forth are NOT ambiguous.

It's not the conditions, it's the questions. When you asked in the first 3 cases about simultaneity, you never specified which frame. As Hurkyl says, he was assuming that it was the frame of the train. But since you didn't say so, there's no way to tell.

Tom and Hurkyl are putting forth different answers though, but they're not really detailing their answers so it's hard for me to piece together where the difference in understanding is.

Where do we do that? I have yet to answer Cases 1-3, because the questions aren't well posed.
 
  • #81
Yea, OK, I gave you your (true,true) answer. Now what is it you don't understand?
 
  • #82
i guess I'm failing to see how something detected simultaneously by one observer is not the same in every frame. therefore when i pose a question that says "does the observer detect the photons simultaneously" and you answer back "what frame" it makes no sense to me because no matter how i look at it if he does then he DOES if he doesn't then he DOESN'T. there's no frame that will turn one into the other.

so my response to "what frame" would probably be "pick one"
 
  • #83
ram1024 said:
i guess I'm failing to see how something detected simultaneously by one observer is not the same in every frame. therefore when i pose a question that says "does the observer detect the photons simultaneously" and you answer back "what frame" it makes no sense to me because no matter how i look at it if he does then he DOES if he doesn't then he DOESN'T. there's no frame that will turn one into the other.
so my response to "what frame" would probably be "pick one"

Are you replying to me?

When you said "detected simultaneously", I did not ask "in which frame", because the detection occurs at one point if they are detected at the same time. When you said "emitted simultanously", I did ask "in which frame", because the emissions are separated by distance. OK?

So, since I gave you the answers you expected, assume that I'm interpreting your question as you intended. So again, what is it you don't understand?
 
  • #84
move to case #4 <stage 2>, wespe. it's not true or false it's more of an essay question :D
 
  • #85
Man, I can't believe everybody is giving you such a hard time ram1024. The man in all three cases does detect the photons simultaneously.

case 1: The man is exactly in the middle and the photons are emitted simultaneously in the frame of reference of the platform, therefore the man detects the photons simultaneously.

case 2: The man must receive the photons at the same time, otherwise there would be an absolute frame of reference, which is forbidden.

case 3: The man is equally distant from each emitter at the time of emission, therefore the man will detect each photon at the same time.
 
  • #86
ram1024 said:
i guess I'm failing to see how something detected simultaneously by one observer is not the same in every frame. therefore when i pose a question that says "does the observer detect the photons simultaneously" and you answer back "what frame" it makes no sense to me because no matter how i look at it if he does then he DOES if he doesn't then he DOESN'T. there's no frame that will turn one into the other.

so my response to "what frame" would probably be "pick one"

I asked you "in which frame" with regards to the detection when I thought there were 4 trains, with different observers in different states of motion. The picture confused me a bit.

But now, as regards case 4, I am still confused because you originallly said that both observers are at the midpoint of the train. In response to that, I said that the detection is simultaneous for both. But then you said that the two have different positions relative to the emitters. So, I have to ask, which one is it? Are you considering displacement in another dimension, perpendicular to the axis of the train?
 
  • #87
actually if they're giving me a hard time it's probably because i deserve it :D

but I'm ridiculously patient and not really functioning under a deadline so meh, it doesn't matter :D

you have pointed out something interesting though with

case 3: The man is equally distant from each emitter at the time of emission, therefore the man will detect each photon at the same time.

that. say a man standing on a platform halfway to halfway (crap i better make a picture)
Code:
[u]|(->            (o)            (o)                        <-)|[/u]
                   observer1       observer2

at the time of emission, observer 2 is at the exact center. but at the exact moment the photons are emitted he starts running left and ends up at the position where observer one is. according to what you said he gets hit by photons from both sides simultaneously. but observer 1 just standing there doesn't. he gets hit by photon to the left first and then by photon to the right.
 
  • #88
O Great One said:
case 3: The man is equally distant from each emitter at the time of emission, therefore the man will detect each photon at the same time.

No, the photons meet at the midpoint of the stationary platform. The observer was at the midpoint, but moved to a further location, so he cannot detect them at the same time. I stand by my answer.

ram1024, I'm checking your case #4.

But there's a problem. Case#4:eek:bserver1 is not the same experiment as case#2. Because now there is acceleration involved. In case#2, we assumed the platform was inertial. I will think on this and post my reply.
 
  • #89
here's case #4 again
Case #4:
Code:
observer1
[u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
   [u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
      [u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
         [u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
Code:
observer2
[u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
[u]|(->                       (o)                 <-)|[/u]
[u]|(->                          (o)              <-)|[/u]
[u]|(->                             (o)           <-)|[/u]

Two trains side by side (4 clocks now, wheee!). both containing the exact same set up. in the first train, the whole train moves forward at 5ft/s. it starts moving the instant the photons are released. at the same moment on the other train, the platform is stationary and the OBSERVER runs ahead at 5ft/s.

who receives the photon from the right emitter first? who receives the photon from the left first? if they both receive photons at the SAME time, how can you justify previous responses that observer 2 on his own would receive photons NOT simultaneously but observer 1 WOULD.

some re-explaining (not changing the problem any), in train 1 the observer has his feet welded to the floor of the train. in train 2, the train has its wheels welded to the tracks. I'm dead serious :D.

okay that being said train 1 moves at 5ft/s to the right
and on TOP of train 2, observer 2 moves at 5ft/s to the right.
 
  • #90
Case#4:eek:bserver1 is not the same experiment as case#2. Because now there is acceleration involved. In case#2, we assumed the platform was inertial. I will think on this and post my reply.

we can ditch the acceleration and say train 1 was running along the track at 5ft/s the whole time and when it hit the point where both trains were aligned nose-to-nose, THEN the experiment begins

(it changes the outcome for my relativity but i don't think it does for yours (sr))
 
  • #91
ram1024 said:
we can ditch the acceleration and say train 1 was running along the track at 5ft/s the whole time and when it hit the point where both trains were aligned nose-to-nose, THEN the experiment begins

No, you can't do that. Because, there is length contraction. The ends of two trains will not meet at the same time, each one will see the other contracted. (If you make one of the trains longer, still no, becaue length contraction is mutual)

I have to admit I may not be able to answer your question if it involves acceleration. I don't know much GR. Maybe this is a good time for me to start GR.
 
  • #92
damn, bummer then

teach me while you're at it, wespe. contractions perplex me
 
  • #93
As has already come up, #4 has not been formulated in a way consistent with SR.

In other words, you're assuming the answer before you "do" the experiment.


If you accelerate the train, you run into the problem of no rigid bodies, and if both trains had been moving with different constant velocitys (possibly zero), then it cannot be the case that the two setups are identical (particularly the same proper length) and that the endpoints can coincide simultaneously in either of their two rest frames.


Furthermore, yet again I can only assume that when you say "simultaneous" you mean in the frame you draw pictures (which I'll now call the "picture frame")


Anyways, if I assume you do something like accept there's a rigid body problem, or allow one train to be longer than the other, or something or other, I deduce that both observers will observe the right photon before the left photon. If you can get the two observers along the same worldline, then they will detect the right photon simultaneously, and similarly for the left photon.


This is consistent with my previous answers where, in both case #2 and #3 (under the assumption that "simultaneously" was measured in the picture frame), I stated that the observer would not detect both photons simultaneously.
 
  • #94
ram1024 said:
damn, bummer then
teach me while you're at it, wespe. contractions perplex me

However, if you consider that after the acceleration is over, train1 will be inertial again, and length contraction must have already occured. (you can't reject length contraction at this point. If you do, you have to also reject the given SR answers). That would explain some things. Anyway, if expert people here consider your question worthy, you will get your answer quickly. My answer will be delayed since acceleration is involved.

Take care.
 
  • #95
ram1024 said:
Mark it on your calendars, people. Let us begin.
Case #1:
Code:
[u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]

man standing on a movable platform bed. at the EXACT center between two photon emitters. SR concludes that the simultaneously emitted photons from the two emitters will be detected by the observer at the same exact time.

ADDENDUM:the photon emitters are tied to precise atomic clocks

these clocks are perfectly aligned and synchronized and in all cases they move within the same inertial frame so they can stay calibrated.

(True / False) ?

Case #2:
Code:
[u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
   [u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
      [u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]
         [u]|(->                    (o)                    <-)|[/u]

Platform is moving. SR concludes the photons (still emitted simultaneously) will be detected by the observer at the exact same time.

(True / False) ?

Case #3:
Code:
[u]|(->                    (o)                 <-)|[/u]
[u]|(->                       (o)              <-)|[/u]
[u]|(->                          (o)           <-)|[/u]
[u]|(->                             (o)        <-)|[/u]

Man is moving on platform towards an emitter. SR concludes that photons are NOT detected at the exact same time.

(True / False) ?

once we square these we'll move on to stage 2.
!. True, the photon detected simultaneously.
2. False. The photons are detected sequentially. Light is measured at c in all inertial frames. The fact that the photon source is moving or not is irelevant. The observer is moving to the right toward a photon moving to the left. The left moving photon has a shorter distance to travel than does the left photon, therefore the times of flight of both photons is different. SR should predict sequential detection and that the photons were not emitted simulaneously in both stationary and moving frames.
3. same as 2). The photons will move at the speed of light. The left and right moving photons move at the same speed (from whatever frame measured). As the photon moving left has a shorter disance to cover befor meeting the observer moving right this photon will be detected first.

In both 2 and 3 SR will predict the photons were not emitted simultaneoulsy in the moving frame.
 
  • #96
Hurkyl said:
(under the assumption that "simultaneously" was measured in the picture frame)

I was under the impression that "simultaneously" was measured in the platform/emitters frame. (from post #14). Maybe ram1024 would like to make that clear.
 
  • #97
Correct

ram1024 said:
actually if they're giving me a hard time it's probably because i deserve it :D

but I'm ridiculously patient and not really functioning under a deadline so meh, it doesn't matter :D

you have pointed out something interesting though with



that. say a man standing on a platform halfway to halfway (crap i better make a picture)
Code:
[u]|(->            (o)            (o)                        <-)|[/u]
                   observer1       observer2

at the time of emission, observer 2 is at the exact center. but at the exact moment the photons are emitted he starts running left and ends up at the position where observer one is. according to what you said he gets hit by photons from both sides simultaneously. but observer 1 just standing there doesn't. he gets hit by photon to the left first and then by photon to the right.

This is correct. Let's say that I'm 10 miles from somebody who then runs directly towards me at a speed always relative to me at 5 m.p.h. No matter what I do after he starts running towards me, he will reach me in 2 hours. If I start moving away at 20 m.p.h. relative to the earth, he will then be moving towards me at 25 m.p.h. relative to the earth, so that he maintains his constant speed of 5 m.p.h. relative to me. If light always moves towards us at the same constant speed relative to us, then the time it takes for light to reach us depends on the distance at the time of emission.
 
  • #98
O Great One said:
If light always moves towards us at the same constant speed relative to us, then the time it takes for light to reach us depends on the distance at the time of emission.

Yes, light always moves towards us at the same constant speed relative to us. And the distance is the same when lights were emitted. So the time it takes for light to reach us are the same. BUT, according to the moving observer, they were not emitted at the same time, so he detects them at different times. [or you can say: since he detects them at different times, they were not emitted at the same time according to him] That's the whole point of relative simultaneity.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
wespe said:
Do you realize you wasted people's time by not specifying this in the first place? OK, in that case, #1 and #2 are true.

But, as Janus says, #3 is still unclear: where is the man when he detects the photons?
Number 3. is as clear as the rest. Once tghe photons have been emitted, whether from a moving platform or not, the motion of the sources is irelevant. The moving source may measure the speed of light, or he can simply look at his photon detectors. He is moving tot he right towarda photon moving tot he left. The time of flight of both photons is different.The left moving photon meet the observer before the right moving photon.

AS long as some v > 0 is specified the moving observer will always detect the photons in sequence. The measured delta t between measurements will surely differ from those measured by a stationary observer, and the distance traveled by the photons will be measured differently between the two observers, but this does not change the reality that the time of flight of both photons is different. The distance from L to Midpont is the same as R to the midpoint in both frames, though the frame to frame measurement number comparison may differ.

SR does not say that the right moving photon will move faster than the left moving photon in any of the cases. This would have to be the conclusion if the observer ever saw the detected photons simultaneously in 2 and 3. SR merely says the photons were not emitted simultaneously in both frames.

As long as some v > 0 is specified the moving observer will always detect the photons in sequence. It seems we have an absolute frame implied. In Grounded's examples, the measured photons are emasured against a stationary source, as the speed of light is invariant with the speed of the source, correct? Therefore meassuring the observers velocity wrt the wave lengths ppasing through the observers position, the observers speed wrt the photon source speed = 0 can be determined.
 
  • #100
wespe said:
Yes, light always moves towards us at the same constant speed relative to us. And the distance is the same when lights were emitted. So the time it takes for light to reach us are the same. BUT, according to the moving observer, they were not emitted at the same time, so he detects them at different times. [or you can say: since he detects them at different times, they were not emitted at the same time according to him] That's the whole point of relative simultaneity.

OK. So the guy moving to the left concludes that the light on the left was emitted before the light on the right. Let's say that there was a guy running to the right then he would have to conclude that the light on the right was emitted before the light on the left. BOTH CAN'T BE TRUE.
 
  • #101
enigma said:
:rolleyes:

You are aware that GPS receivers use SR to determine their exact location relative to the satellites? That's why you need to have 4 sat's in view. You triangulate your position with three, but you need the fourth to solve for the SR clock bias.
Now that, I did not know. Thanks.

And hey, don't throw out the reciever quite yet - I'm sure SR will be replaced with another theory that is mathematically exactly the same, if any of the anti-relativity guys ever get around to working out the math. :smile:
 
  • #102
EEK :surprise:

was trying to stay on target and only get opinions using SR in this thread... i guess that's all out the window now
 
  • #103
ram1024 said:
that's an assumption. I'll elaborate when we get to the second stage. need hurkyl russ or tom to confirm (True, True, True) on the first 3 cases.
Sorry - today was Father's Day, which meant I was having lunch with my parents/grandparents, then playing golf with my dad. I'm not quite at my computer 24/7.
 
  • #104
oh crap today was father's day?
 
  • #105
OK. So the guy moving to the left concludes that the light on the left was emitted before the light on the right. Let's say that there was a guy running to the right then he would have to conclude that the light on the right was emitted before the light on the left. BOTH CAN'T BE TRUE.

hehe yeh it's things like this that make me a skeptic :D

good work spotting it though, Great One. apparently it's not easy to spot :|
 
Back
Top