2

I asked this question earlier today:

Does Special Relativity Imply Multiple Realities?

And I'm still confused about the answers. However, I now have another scenario (which is definitely yet another scenario formulated by me incorrectly interpreting special relativity once again), but I think if this confusion is cleared up, I'll be one step closer to understanding everything!

Say we have Alice and Bob. Alice is in her space-suit in space, and Bob is whizzing by on a rocket ship past her at a velocity of $v$. Right now, they're right next to one another.

Additionally, there's a point $D$ a distance of $L$ away from Alice, that's stationary relative to her. From her point of view, Bob is traveling directly towards it.

Say that Alice measures that it takes a time of $t$ for Bob to reach the point $D$. That is, she measures that it takes a time of $t$ for Bob to travel the distance $L$.

She would admit that on Bob's clock, only $t\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$ would've passed.

Additionally, she concludes that since less time passed on Bob's clock, he must've seen the space between her and point $D$ contract. She concludes that he must've measured that he traveled a distance of $L\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$.

Now, we go to Bob. From his point of view, $D$ is moving towards him at a velocity of $V$.

(From this point on is where my interpretation changes from the linked question, and I'm not sure if the things I say from here on are correct...)

Lets say he actually DOES measure the length he travels to be $L\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$, where $L$ is the length Alice measured. Additionally, he actually DOES measure the time he travelled for to be $t\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$, where $t$ is the time Alice measured. (And again, I started this part with "lets say" because I'm not sure if he actually does).

So far, they agree on everything.

However, from Bob's point of view, Alice was travelling at a velocity of $v$ away from him. Which means that for whatever time he measured that passed $t'$, he must've measured that $t'\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$ passed for Alice...

Which means that he would've measured $t\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}=t(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2})$ passed for Alice...

....I know this is wrong, but I'm not sure exactly where...

As I said in my other question, this is my first day learning about relativity, so the more thorough the explanation the better.

Thanks!

joshuaronis
  • 3,055
  • 7
    Good questions! You are falling into the trap that, actually, the majority of people coming to us with special relativity questions have. You've learned about length contraction and time dilation (which are very easy to glean off the internet), but you haven't learned about loss of simultaneity (which is more subtle, but just as important). Without additionally accounting for loss of simultaneity, you will run into all kinds of paradoxes and contradictions. – knzhou Dec 20 '19 at 02:13
  • 1
    Besides linking to the hundreds of previous questions along these lines, all I can say is, find any good book (absolutely not anything popular and internet-based, these are all oversimplified, and they generally make less sense the smarter you are). I promise they will explain literally everything about all the questions you have asked so far; you are going down a very well-trodden road. – knzhou Dec 20 '19 at 02:14
  • 2
    Examples of good books include Spacetime Physics, Special Relativity: For the Enthusiastic Beginner, and _ An Illustrated Guide to Relativity_. Actually, just about any book is good, as long as it's a real book. – knzhou Dec 20 '19 at 02:16
  • @knzhou thank you for the advice. I'll let you know how it goes! – joshuaronis Dec 20 '19 at 02:28
  • Try reading story in the link below. It describes a fictitious world where the speed of light is only 10 km/hr. The story was written by George Gamow - a prominent 20th century theoretical physicist. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/durkin.2/phys1201/MrTompkinshort.pdf – hermit Dec 20 '19 at 02:25
  • @knzhou so I took your advice started reading an illustrated guide to relativity...and I'm pretty confused. I'm on page 96...(in case you have the book)...where we have a space time diagram from the point of view of a tree, and a car moving past the tree. I understand that slanted lines parallel to the car's world-line in the tree diagram are in the same place from the car's point of view, since they correspond to points that are all the same distance away from the car at any point in time. Additionally, I understand that slanted lines, slanted in such a way that two photons shot from the... – joshuaronis Dec 25 '19 at 01:49
  • ...origin when the car passed the tree are the same distance away from the car at any point in time, correspond to points that are all happening at the same time for the car. So, events that are moving to the right as time passes for the tree, are staying in the same location for the car, and events that are happening later in time for the tree that are in the direction the car is moving, are already happening for the car. – joshuaronis Dec 25 '19 at 01:51
  • @knzhou (and I'm putting this in a separate comment because this is the heart of my question) I understand that when we switch into the car's diagram, lines at the same time for the car must become horizontal, and lines at the same place must become vertical. But why is it that when we switch into the car's diagram, we need to do so in such a way that the areas stay the same? Thanks! – joshuaronis Dec 25 '19 at 01:52
  • @JoshuaRonis What do you mean, "areas stay the same"? The area of what? – knzhou Dec 25 '19 at 02:27
  • @knzhou In the tree's frame,the area enclosed by the parallelogram made by two parallel lines slanted lines, each signifying events at the same place for the car, and two other parallel slanted lines, each signifying events at the same time for the car, stays the same when we make those lines vertical and horizontal respectively (when we switch into the car's space time diagram). – joshuaronis Dec 25 '19 at 02:39
  • Just sit tight and keep reading! There are multiple ways to set up special relativity, i.e. multiple postulates that you can start with to get to the same result. "Same area" is one of them, "constancy of speed of light" is another. You have to ultimately take something to start with, because if you don't make any assumptions, then you can't make any deductions from those assumptions. Ultimately all of these things will be neatly unified in the geometric picture of special relativity, but that will only make sense after reading more. – knzhou Dec 25 '19 at 03:34
  • @knzhou Thanks, I will! I gave up with the illustrated guide though :( ....I got too confused...I'm going through Morin's now, I really like his lively style. I didn't really like SpaceTIme Physics, because his approach was wayyy too convoluted (almost like he needs props to explain things...I don't know why the author brings in so many external references. Do you have any other recommendations? Thanks! – joshuaronis Dec 25 '19 at 03:51
  • Yeah, a lot of young people seem to like Morin. Another one I liked was the later chapters of Kleppner and Kolenkow (1st edition). There are lots of options, and after finishing one good one, all the other ones will become pretty easy to read. – knzhou Dec 25 '19 at 04:37
  • Also, this probably goes without saying, but it will take time! It took a lot of physicists in Einstein's day years to get to grips with relativity, you should give it at least weeks, for a good understanding. – knzhou Dec 25 '19 at 04:37
  • @knzhou holy shish kebabs I just had a breakthrough in understanding. Okay, so Alice is shooting past Bob in her space-ship at a velocity of $v$. She's going to travel a distance of $L_p$ according to Bob, and a distance of $\frac{L_p}{\gamma}$ according to her. The time it will take for her to travel that distance is $\frac{L_p}{v}$ according to Bob, and $\frac{L_p}{v\gamma}$ according to her. Alright, so far so good...however, what was confusing me was how it was possible that from her point of view, if $\frac{L_p}{v\gamma}$ seconds passed according to her, $\frac{L_p}{v\gamma^2}$ seconds... – joshuaronis Dec 30 '19 at 01:35
  • ...must've passed for Bob, while at the same time it was possible for Bob to conclude that if $\frac{L_p}{v}$ seconds happened for him, $\frac{L_p}{v\gamma}$ seconds passed for her? How can it be that Bob thinks more time passed for him than for her, and Alice thinks more time passed for her than for him? AND NOW I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD! When Alice was first passing past Bob, events happening for her NOW a distance of $\frac{L_P}{\gamma}$ away (from her point of view) and a distance of $L_P$ away (from Bob's point of view) were still in Bob's future! Bob still had to wait $\frac{L_Pv}{c^2}$... – joshuaronis Dec 30 '19 at 01:39
  • ...for those events to happen! Since she was travelling towards a location where, in her NOW was still in Bob's future, its entirely possible that she concludes more time passes for her than passes for Bob, while Bob concludes that more time passed for him, because as she moved away from him, she was literally moving into locations that were in Bob's future but her now! Its like when Alice flies past Bob, she's not only moving away from him in time, she's also moving towards his future! What the heck?!! Relativity is so cool! – joshuaronis Dec 30 '19 at 01:43
  • 1
    Yup, that's the right way to see it! That's the first big "jump" people always have to make when learning relativity. Now you, too, can answer a thousand special relativity questions on this site. – knzhou Dec 30 '19 at 02:30
  • Just ask another normal question, that's how this site is meant to work! – knzhou Dec 30 '19 at 06:02
  • @knzhou awesome! Thank you for helping me thus far! I want to just ask these last questions to make sure I'm getting everything correct...(I'd start a chat, since I know we're not supposed to have such long comments, but I don't know how, and its also just not a normal question...I just want to see if I have things right):

    Alice flies past Bob, as described in the situation in the comments above, at a velocity of $V$, and travels a distance (as measured by Bob) of $L_p$ away from him.

    $\frac{L_p}{v}$ - The time which Bob measures passes.

    $\frac{L_p}{v\gamma}$ - The time which...

    – joshuaronis Dec 30 '19 at 06:05
  • ...Alice measures passes for her. $\frac{L_p}{v\gamma^2}$ - The time which Alice measures passes at the location $L_P$ away from Bob. $\frac{L_pV}{c^2}$ - the amount by which Alice's now is in Bob's future (or he is in her past, same thing) at a distance of $L_P$ (according to Bob) in the direction in which Alice is travelling as she passes him, and correspondingly the amount by which Alice is in Bob's past (or he is in her future, same thing) as she gets to that distance away from him, at his position. Am I missing anything, or is that all? Thanks again @knzhou !!!!!!!!! – joshuaronis Dec 30 '19 at 06:09
  • Sounds fine! Test your understanding with more of the practice problems from Morin, which are elaborations of this idea, and which come with solutions. – knzhou Dec 30 '19 at 06:28

2 Answers2

2

Bob's perspective:

  1. I've reached point D.
  2. At the point in time that I consider to be "now", I calculate that Alice thinks I actually have not reached point D yet.

This discrepancy comes from the fact that "now" does not have a frame-independent definition unless it is paired with a location. To reason about this properly, we need points not in space or in time, but in spacetime - the combination of both location and time considered together.

So, Bob reaches location D. The time that this happens, at the location that this happens, is spacetime point X. Now, "now" may not have a frame-independent definition separate from location, but if we do specify a frame then we get an objective definition after all.

The time Bob reaches location D, in Bob's frame, but at Alice's location, is spacetime point Y.

The time of spacetime point Y, in Alice's frame, but at location D, is spacetime point Z.

Spacetime points X and Z are both at spatial location D, but they are not the same point - they have different times. More specifically, Z is before X. Considering point Y from each person's reference frame:

Alice's frame: At spacetime point Y, the current time of location D is at point Z. Bob has not reached it yet. Bob's frame: At spacetime point Y, the current time of location D is at point X. He is right that moment at location D.

When Bob, at point X, considers Alice's viewpoint, he can calculate that in her frame she'd be seeing point Z instead.

This discrepancy does not cause any issues because the combination of location and time - a spacetime coordinate - is an absolute frame-independent point. If two people, or one person and a message from another, meet, then the process of each of them arriving at the meeting's spacetime coordinate will involve a combination of frame changes and travel time that resolves any such discrepancies.

Douglas
  • 594
  • Thanks a lot! I think I understood it - I wrote a comment under the original question...hopefully it makes sense! – joshuaronis Dec 30 '19 at 01:45
2

Consider the following events

1 Bob passes Alice, Bob starts his clock and Alice starts hers. (These events are absolutely simultaneous as they occur at the same time and place.)

2 Bob passes point D and stops his clock. (Again these events are absolutely simultaneous as they occur at the same time and place.)

3 Alice stops her clock.

In Alice's frame, event 3 is simultaneous with event 2 - she stops her clock at the same instant that Bob stops his. But crucially these events are not co-located, which means that in Bob's frame they are not simultaneous. According to Bob, Alice doesn't stop her clock until some time after he reaches point D.

Explicitly:

In Alice's frame

  • 1 occurs at time $0$ (Bob's clock also reads $0$)
  • 2 & 3 occurs at time $t$ (Bob's clock reads $t/\gamma$)

In Bob's frame

  • 1 occurs at time $0$ (Alice's clock also reads $0$)
  • 2 occurs at time $t/\gamma$ (Alice's clock reads $t/\gamma^2$)
  • 3 occurs at time $t\gamma$ (Alice's clock reads $t$)

$\gamma$ is $1/\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$

  • Got you Simon. Thanks! Can you read my comment under the original question and verify that I understood it correctly? – joshuaronis Dec 30 '19 at 01:44
  • @JoshuaRonis, it sounds like you've got it, but don't be surprised if you go through several more cycles of confusion followed by clarity before it really sinks in :-) – Simon Woods Dec 30 '19 at 22:28
  • That's exactly whats happening to me right now Simon! Thank you! – joshuaronis Dec 30 '19 at 23:33