From: *Jason Resch* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:24 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:59 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bruce Kellett
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

            On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch
            <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

                On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker
                <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
                wrote:

                    On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
                    >
                    > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid
                    structure, the front and rear
                    > clocks accelerate at the same rate.

                    First, there are no rigid objects in relativity
                    theory.  Otherwise they
                    could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there
                    is no simultaneity at
                    different places, like the front and rear of the
                    rocket.  So it is frame
                    dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin
                    to accelerate at the
                    same time.


                The level of clock desynchronization is proportional
                to the speed and the length of the rocket.   That it
                is one rocket doesn't even matter, it could be two
                rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same
                time given by a signal initiated from immediately
                between them. This is just showing that length
                contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The
                length through space time is constant, but when moving
                through space, an object's length will partially
                extend through space and partially extend through
                time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts
                you will see a corresponding increase in the reach
                through time. (this is unrelated to acceleration
                effects, or rigidness).

                If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would
                disappear with the two separate rockets, but it
                doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to acceleration
                rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be
                unrelated to the distance separating the clocks but
                it's not.  Here is an example of what I am talking
                about, just to be clear.

                If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it
                will length contract to 60 meters, but will also
                extend 80 meters through the dimension of time.  The
                total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
                However, clocks that were initially synchronized
                between the fore and aft parts of the rocket are
                separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds. If
                you take the clock from the front to the back you will
                see it speed up and resynchronize with the clock in
                the back when brought into proximity with the clock in
                the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the
                rear towards the front it will slow until it
                resynchronizes with the clock in the front by the time
                it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
                carrying the clock through the time dimension as you
                move it towards the front or back of the ship.


            I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at
            the same velocity there is no difference in clock rate
            between them. That's why I thought you were talking about
            the acceleration phase -- clock rates can differ then, but
            if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving
            inertially, and at rest wrt each other, then their rates
            are the same, regardless of the distance apart.


        As seen by someone who perceives the rocket to be length
        contracted, the clocks will not appear to be in sync.


    That is factually wrong. The special relativistic apparent change
    in clock rates depends only on the relative motion, so from the
    point of view of someone at rest on the ground, the clocks at the
    front and rear of the coasting rocket will be travelling at the
    same velocity relative to him. So they will both appear to  be
    going either faster or slower at exactly the same rate, depending
    on the direction of the relative motion.


Then what is the meaning of this problem on page 42: https://www.relativity.li/uploads/pdf/English/Epstein_en.pdf

    Two rockets fly past each other at 0.6 • c. A measures the length
    of the other rocket B to be 40 m. What is the rest length of the
    rocket B, and how much are the clocks at the tip and at the end of
    rocket B for A desynchronized, given that they are synchronized
    for B? And which of the two clocks is running fast for A?


More details: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/synchronizing.html

I have not read Epstein. I know that some people think highly of this book as a teaching aid, but Epstein's diagrammatic methods are good only in so far as they agree with the correct Lorentz transformations. For your example of clocks as the front and rear of the rocket, the Lorentz formulae for time dilation depend only on the relative velocity of clock and observer, not on the distance to the clock So the clocks at the front and rear of the rocket run at the same rate relative to the ground observer -- both run more slowly if the rocket is receding. The problem posed in the example you give relates to the desynchronization of the clocks as seen from the ground when they are synchronized on the moving rocket. The clocks will always run (and appear to run) at the same rate, but their synchronization will depend on the method used.


So, to go back to your earlier point, from the point of view inside the rocket, the clocks will not appear to slow down or speed up as they are brought together -- they will always keep the same rate. If they are synchronized by a signal from the centre of the moving rocket, they will remain synchronized as they are brought together. However, from the point of view of the ground based observer, they were never synchronized, even though they run at the same rate. To bring them together requires moving the clocks at greater (or less) than the velocity of the rocket, and that will induce a differential clock rate, so they ultimately agree when together.

Your second reference explains this quite well.

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to