What Are the Relativistic Implications for Beacon Synchronization?

  • B
  • Thread starter dom_quixote
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Kinematics
In summary, the relativistic implications for beacon synchronization involve the effects of time dilation and the finite speed of light on the synchronization of signals between moving observers. As observers travel at significant fractions of the speed of light, discrepancies in perceived time and signal reception can occur, leading to challenges in accurately timing beacons in a relativistic framework. Understanding these implications is crucial for applications in astrophysics, navigation systems, and communication technologies that rely on precise timing.
  • #1
dom_quixote
50
9
I propose to you a kinematics problem described by classical physics.

graflampj.JPG


Three space beacons A, B and C are 300,000,000 m (approximately one light second) apart.

Beacon A emits a bright flash every three seconds. Beacons B and C respond instantly to the flash of Beacon A by emitting "synchronized" flashes.

In Beacons A, B and C there is an observer in each of them. There is also an observer at an Passive Watch Post D, which is equally 300,000,000 m away from Beacons A, B and C.

Below the figure of the observation system there is a time chart in which the flashes apparently observed in Beacons A, B and an Passive Watch Post C are graphically recorded.

It is known through the Theory of Relativity that there is no absolute simultaneity, this depends on the frame of reference.

I would like to know what the implications are when the problem is analyzed by relativistic physics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What do you mean, what are the implications? The beacons flash according to the rules you've set up. Different frames won't get the same timings you've shown, which appear to be shown in the mutual rest frame of the four observers, but that doesn't really change anything.

Since you've got the x, y, z, and t coordinates of all relevant events already listed, just plug them into the Lorentz transforms to get the coordinates in any other frame.
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote
  • #3
Your Observer D seems wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote
  • #4
The diagram taken without context is ambiguous, and that kind of threw me.

It could represent a 2D arrangement, with A, B and C arranged radially round D.
It could represent a 3D arrangement, with A, B and C along orthogonal paths from D.

But the text belies these possibilities:

"...A, B and C are 300,000,000 m (approximately one light second) apart..."
"...Watch Post D, which is equally 300,000,000 m away from Beacons A, B and C..."

It's a tetrahedron, with A, B C and D all being equidistant from each other.

Also, it's not entirely clear what your colours represent. At first, I thought they were a purple, orange and brown light for clarity, but no.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote, Nugatory and Dale
  • #5
As Dale says, D is wrong. If all beacons are equidistant, then the flash from any beacon must reach all other beacons at the same time.
 
  • #6
1705348233423.png
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote, Nugatory, Dale and 1 other person
  • #7
dom_quixote said:
I would like to know what the implications are when the problem is analyzed by relativistic physics.
What does this mean?
 
  • #8
Orodruin said:
As Dale says, D is wrong. If all beacons are equidistant, then the flash from any beacon must reach all other beacons at the same time.
Thanks, Orodruin!

You are right and I am wrong. I should have said that beacons B and C are only sensitive to the light pulse from beacon A.
 
  • #9
Ibix said:
What do you mean, what are the implications? The beacons flash according to the rules you've set up. Different frames won't get the same timings you've shown, which appear to be shown in the mutual rest frame of the four observers, but that doesn't really change anything.

Since you've got the x, y, z, and t coordinates of all relevant events already listed, just plug them into the Lorentz transforms to get the coordinates in any other frame.
Thanks, Ibix!
I think I found a particular situation in which it is possible to determine the simultaneity of two events, that is: beacons B and C flashing at the same time.
 
  • Wow
Likes Vanadium 50 and PeroK
  • #10
dom_quixote said:
the simultaneity of two events
Will depend on which frame you choose. As you've defined the problem, it looks like all of the beacons are at rest relative to each other, and B and C are both separated from A by the same distance in the frame in which all of the beacons are at rest, so in that frame B and C will both flash at the same time.
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote
  • #11
dom_quixote said:
Thanks, Ibix!
I think I found a particular situation in which it is possible to determine the simultaneity of two events, that is: beacons B and C flashing at the same time.
I think you might be confused as what "frame of reference" means in Relativity. In SR it generally means an inertial frame of reference. And it isn't the same as "point of view". The defining characteristic for differentiating different frames of reference are their relative motion with respect to each other, not physical separation. Since all your beacons are at rest with respect to each other, they are "in" the same reference frame.
The fact that all the beacons can agree on simultaneity events is not contrary to Relativity.
What Relativity says is that inertial frames in motion with respect to each other will not agree on simultaneity. Thus if you duplicated this setup and had the second setup in motion with respect to the first, then you'd have situation where the two setups would not agree on simultaneity. Each set up would say its beacons flashed simultaneously, while the beacons in the other setup did not.
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote and FactChecker
  • #12
dom_quixote said:
it is possible to determine the simultaneity of two events, that is: beacons B and C flashing at the same time.
Then there is no need for D. If you find that you need to add extraneous elements, its a sign you are misthinking things.

Further, if your whole system is moving, B and C may no longer be simultaneous.
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote
  • #13
dom_quixote said:
I think I found a particular situation in which it is possible to determine the simultaneity of two events, that is: beacons B and C flashing at the same time.
Of course it's possible to determine that, given a definition of a simultaneity convention. Your apparatus relies on Einstein's synchronisation convention, (in fact, it's just a needlessly complicated version of the Einstein's Train thought experiment) and other frames will not agree that B and C flashed simultaneously. You can calculate how the motion of the beacons cancels out with the lack of synchronisation so that pulses arrive simultaneously at D without leaving B and C simultaneously by using the Lorentz transforms, as I suggested in #2.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote and Dale
  • #14
Vanadium 50 said:
Further, if your whole system is moving, B and C may no longer be simultaneous.
Wait, what? Moving relative to what?

Technically, the whole system is moving right now (relative to, say, Barnards Star). And they still appear simultaneous.
 
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
Moving relative to what?
Whatever reference frame you use to analyse it.

It's just Einstein's train with bells on. B and C only flash simultaneously in one frame, the one where the apparatus is at rest, just like the lightning bolts in the normal version.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote
  • #16
Ibix said:
Whatever reference frame you use to analyse it.
OK. That was a bit ambiguous and needed clarifying.
 
  • #17
Ibix said:
It's just Einstein's train with bells on. B and C only flash simultaneously in one frame
Considering this is a 3D setup, they flash simultaneously in any frame where their separation is orthogonal to the frame’s velocity relative to the rest frame.
 
  • #18
Orodruin said:
Considering this is a 3D setup, they flash simultaneously in any frame where their separation is orthogonal to the frame’s velocity relative to the rest frame.
I was actually meaning to come back and correct myself on that point but I didn't get round to it - thanks.
 
  • #19
dom_quixote said:
I think I found a particular situation in which it is possible to determine the simultaneity of two events, that is: beacons B and C flashing at the same time.
You did determine that they are simultaneous in their rest frame. You did not determine that they are simultaneous in any other frame.
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote and Vanadium 50
  • #20
Thank you all. Regarding the adoption of a specific frame of reference, what would happen to the proposed system if I adopted the entire universe as a frame of reference?
 
  • #21
dom_quixote said:
Thank you all. Regarding the adoption of a specific frame of reference, what would happen to the proposed system if I adopted the entire universe as a frame of reference?
The question makes no sense. The universe is not a frame of reference.
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote and Vanadium 50
  • #22
dom_quixote said:
Thank you all. Regarding the adoption of a specific frame of reference, what would happen to the proposed system if I adopted the entire universe as a frame of reference?
You're going to have to place a (stationary) observer somewhere in your FoR; they can't be everywhere. And they can't be simultaneously moving at different velocities (although you can have as many observers - each moving at their own peculair velocity - as you want).
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote
  • #23
dom_quixote said:
Thank you all. Regarding the adoption of a specific frame of reference, what would happen to the proposed system if I adopted the entire universe as a frame of reference?
A frame of reference is a convention for assigning coordinates (position x,y,z at time t) to events (for example beacon A was here when it flashed). It’s not clear what “adopting the entire universe as a frame of reference” would mean.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and dom_quixote
  • #24
DaveC426913 said:
You're going to have to place a (stationary) observer somewhere in your FoR; they can't be everywhere. And they can't be simultaneously moving at different velocities (although you can have as many observers - each moving at their own peculair velocity - as you want).
Thanks, Dave!
To see the entire universe as a single frame of reference, the observer would need to have superpowers, for example being everywhere at once.
 
  • Sad
  • Skeptical
Likes Dale, Vanadium 50, Motore and 1 other person
  • #25
dom_quixote said:
To see the entire universe as a single frame of reference, the observer would need to have superpowers, for example being everywhere at once.
This hypothetical superpower (faster than light measurement) is problematic. It either violates the postulates on which special relativity is based or it allows for causality violation. For this reason, that particular superpower is not considered physically reasonable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone
 
  • Like
Likes dom_quixote
  • #26
dom_quixote said:
To see the entire universe as a single frame of reference, the observer would need to have superpowers, for example being everywhere at once.
This is getting into personal speculation, which is off limits here. Since the OP has been sufficiently discussed, this thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and Ibix

FAQ: What Are the Relativistic Implications for Beacon Synchronization?

What Are the Relativistic Effects on Beacon Synchronization?

Relativistic effects, such as time dilation and length contraction, can significantly impact the synchronization of beacons, especially when they are moving at high velocities relative to each other. Time dilation causes clocks on fast-moving beacons to run slower compared to those at rest, leading to desynchronization if not properly accounted for.

How Does Special Relativity Affect Beacon Synchronization?

Special relativity introduces the concept that time and space are not absolute but relative to the observer's frame of reference. For beacon synchronization, this means that two beacons moving relative to each other will experience time differently, necessitating adjustments to ensure they remain synchronized.

What Role Does General Relativity Play in Beacon Synchronization?

General relativity, which deals with the effects of gravity on time and space, also impacts beacon synchronization. Beacons in varying gravitational fields will experience different rates of time passage. For instance, a beacon closer to a massive object will experience time more slowly compared to one farther away, requiring corrections for accurate synchronization.

How Can Beacon Synchronization Be Achieved in a Relativistic Context?

To achieve synchronization in a relativistic context, one must account for both special and general relativistic effects. This involves using the Lorentz transformation equations to correct for time dilation and incorporating gravitational time dilation effects as described by general relativity. Advanced algorithms and precise measurements of relative velocities and gravitational potentials are essential for accurate synchronization.

What Practical Applications Require Consideration of Relativistic Implications for Beacon Synchronization?

Practical applications that require consideration of relativistic implications include global positioning systems (GPS), deep-space communication networks, and satellite-based timekeeping systems. In these applications, high precision is crucial, and relativistic effects can lead to significant errors if not properly accounted for. Synchronizing beacons accurately ensures the reliability and accuracy of these systems.

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
98
Views
5K
Replies
51
Views
3K
Replies
58
Views
5K
Replies
52
Views
4K
Back
Top