Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

Jose Rodriguez
Jose Rodriguez

March 4th, 2011, 4:12 pm #1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relativity of simultaneity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

See link for the next picture.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer.

The author is misinforming again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer with respect to the events, when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes.


The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

In real life there is no plane of simultaneity. Each of us live in the present. Events close to us happen in the present. Events which we see being further away happened further into the past. Events happening now on the sun are 8 minutes into our future as far as light is concerned, further into the future as far as the effects of a CME. The 8 minute delay is not caused by motion, it is caused by distance from the Sun

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer and a stationary observer are at the event at the same time, they will both see the event happen at the same time!


According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time, they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single placefor example, a car crashall observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects by means of a Train Gedanken: For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!


A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

1. The principle of relativitythe equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. The constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, [is](sic) independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 6th, 2011, 7:55 pm #2

everyone has to sacrifice at the altar of stupidity from time to time
Quote
Share

nakayama
nakayama

December 27th, 2014, 12:21 am #3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relativity of simultaneity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

See link for the next picture.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer.

The author is misinforming again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer with respect to the events, when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes.


The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

In real life there is no plane of simultaneity. Each of us live in the present. Events close to us happen in the present. Events which we see being further away happened further into the past. Events happening now on the sun are 8 minutes into our future as far as light is concerned, further into the future as far as the effects of a CME. The 8 minute delay is not caused by motion, it is caused by distance from the Sun

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer and a stationary observer are at the event at the same time, they will both see the event happen at the same time!


According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time, they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single placefor example, a car crashall observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects by means of a Train Gedanken: For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!


A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

1. The principle of relativitythe equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. The constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, [is](sic) independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?
“Relativity of simultaneity” seems to be unacceptable. See two pictures, please.

Picture 1 : Many books show a picture of a passenger car. At the center of it, there is a light source and the flash reach the front and rear inner walls. Now, on the both walls, luminous bodies are fixed and these also flash when flashes reach. Both flashes are visible from the outside. The passenger car is moving in a tunnel. On the side wall of the tunnel, a long linear sensor is laid. To the sensor, both flashes will be at the same time.

Picture 2 : A passenger car is moving in a tunnel. The whole of outer side wall of this car is made of luminous plate and is sending plane waves of light (frequency is constant). Plane waves will reach side wall of the tunnel as plane.
Quote
Share

nakayama
nakayama

December 30th, 2014, 12:08 am #4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relativity of simultaneity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

See link for the next picture.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer.

The author is misinforming again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer with respect to the events, when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes.


The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

In real life there is no plane of simultaneity. Each of us live in the present. Events close to us happen in the present. Events which we see being further away happened further into the past. Events happening now on the sun are 8 minutes into our future as far as light is concerned, further into the future as far as the effects of a CME. The 8 minute delay is not caused by motion, it is caused by distance from the Sun

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer and a stationary observer are at the event at the same time, they will both see the event happen at the same time!


According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time, they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single placefor example, a car crashall observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects by means of a Train Gedanken: For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!


A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

1. The principle of relativitythe equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. The constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, [is](sic) independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?
This is a version of the picture 1 (shown in the above post : 26 Dec). Now, two light flashes emitted from the source (set at the center of the roof) reach the bottom end of the front and rear walls (of the passenger car). So, two traces and floor form an isosceles triangle. How does relativity of simultaneity explain ? And how about the length contraction of the passenger car ? It’s impossible to imagine.
Quote
Share

Joined: March 30th, 2013, 7:19 am

December 30th, 2014, 2:06 pm #5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relativity of simultaneity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

See link for the next picture.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer.

The author is misinforming again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer with respect to the events, when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes.


The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

In real life there is no plane of simultaneity. Each of us live in the present. Events close to us happen in the present. Events which we see being further away happened further into the past. Events happening now on the sun are 8 minutes into our future as far as light is concerned, further into the future as far as the effects of a CME. The 8 minute delay is not caused by motion, it is caused by distance from the Sun

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer and a stationary observer are at the event at the same time, they will both see the event happen at the same time!


According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time, they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single placefor example, a car crashall observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects by means of a Train Gedanken: For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!


A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

1. The principle of relativitythe equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. The constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, [is](sic) independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?
Hi Jose & Nakayama,

.... And hoping everyone on the forum has had a wonderful Christmas, and wishing all a great New Year

Hmmm, now about Relativity of Simultaneity ....
First, let's clarify what RoS is .... and what it is not !
<blockquote> Wiki: Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.
Jose: The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A.
</blockquote>
Jose, you seem to be regarding RoS (and presumably SR) as literally only about what light rays an observer "sees". Not so; let's take an example to describe what's happening :

Say I happen to be with my telescope in my garden at 5pm one day, when both the moon and the sun are visible in opposite sides of the sky. Looking at the moon (1 light second away) I see an asteroid strike it. Some time later (actually at 5:07:59) I'm looking at the sun (8 light minutes away) when I see a solar flare erupt. So I "saw" the asteroid strike BEFORE the solar flare - but that is NOT what RoS is about.

Rather, I reckon that both the asteroid strike and the solar flare occurred at 4:59:59 - in other words, in my frame, they occurred at the same time - ie. they were "simultaneous". Note that bit "in my frame" - EVERYBODY in my frame will ascribe the same "time" value to both those events, and will therefore also regard them as "simultaneous" REGARDLESS of how far away they are from the sun or the moon. RoS is NOT just about "when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes"; Rather, it is about spatially separate events being deemed "simultaneous" if their "t" coordinates are the same within a given frame.

by RoS, another frame may regard the asteroid strike and the solar flare as non-simultaneous (eg, the asteroid strike at 4:58:00 and the flare at 5:00:00 within that frame's coordinate system) - again, regardless of where any individual in that frame happens to be physically located when they receive the light from those events.

There is no inconsistency nor violation of Cause/Effect resulting from this (and, to ward off another common misconception, no frame ever regards anything in any other frame as going "backwards" in time); Each frame maintains a perfectly self-consistent view of every event and every law of physics within its coordinate system.
That means you cannot simply declare "RoS is not true" (or "both flashes will be at the same time." - RoS means they will not be in the sensor's frame). Since RoS is a direct consequence of the two postulates, such statements do not prove anything except your rejection of the postulates - but I think we already guessed that
Quote
Like
Share

nakayama
nakayama

December 31st, 2014, 2:00 am #6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relativity of simultaneity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

See link for the next picture.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer.

The author is misinforming again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer with respect to the events, when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes.


The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

In real life there is no plane of simultaneity. Each of us live in the present. Events close to us happen in the present. Events which we see being further away happened further into the past. Events happening now on the sun are 8 minutes into our future as far as light is concerned, further into the future as far as the effects of a CME. The 8 minute delay is not caused by motion, it is caused by distance from the Sun

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer and a stationary observer are at the event at the same time, they will both see the event happen at the same time!


According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time, they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single placefor example, a car crashall observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects by means of a Train Gedanken: For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!


A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

1. The principle of relativitythe equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. The constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, [is](sic) independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?
To Ufonaut99, Jose and all, "Have a Happy New Year !!"

”Relativity of simultaneity” seems to be unacceptable.

From a laser source set at the center of a passenger car, laser beams are sent to the front and rear walls. On the both walls, mirrors are fixed and reflect laser beams. Paths of four beams form rectangular lozenge. Yes, two reflected beams are crossing and interference fringe is visible. This interference fringe will be the same to all including the one who is moving in a relative motion.
Quote
Share

Joined: March 30th, 2013, 7:19 am

December 31st, 2014, 10:58 pm #7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relativity of simultaneity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

See link for the next picture.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer.

The author is misinforming again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer with respect to the events, when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes.


The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

In real life there is no plane of simultaneity. Each of us live in the present. Events close to us happen in the present. Events which we see being further away happened further into the past. Events happening now on the sun are 8 minutes into our future as far as light is concerned, further into the future as far as the effects of a CME. The 8 minute delay is not caused by motion, it is caused by distance from the Sun

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer and a stationary observer are at the event at the same time, they will both see the event happen at the same time!


According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time, they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single placefor example, a car crashall observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects by means of a Train Gedanken: For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!


A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

1. The principle of relativitythe equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. The constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, [is](sic) independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?
Nakayama : This interference fringe will be the same to all including the one who is moving in a relative motion.
Correct. This is what we would expect from RoS and SR, given the First Postulate that they are based on.

The first postulate is summed up by (and dates all the way back to) "Galileo's Ship" - In a sealed cabin, all laws of physics still hold, so you cannot tell (ie. there is no experiment you could possibly perform) if you are "stationary" or "moving at uniform velocity". This means anybody who is "moving at uniform velocity" relative to somebody/something else can perfectly validly consider themselves as being "stationary" and the other as "moving".

So, given RoS and SR are fundamentally based on this, then naturally they predict that experiments between a "stationary" car and one in "relative motion" would produce the same results (ie. the fringe will be the same), since the one in "relative motion" IS "stationary" in their frame.

That sounds perfectly acceptable to me
Quote
Like
Share

Jose Rodriguez
Jose Rodriguez

January 1st, 2015, 6:33 am #8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relativity of simultaneity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

See link for the next picture.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer.

The author is misinforming again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer with respect to the events, when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes.


The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

In real life there is no plane of simultaneity. Each of us live in the present. Events close to us happen in the present. Events which we see being further away happened further into the past. Events happening now on the sun are 8 minutes into our future as far as light is concerned, further into the future as far as the effects of a CME. The 8 minute delay is not caused by motion, it is caused by distance from the Sun

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer and a stationary observer are at the event at the same time, they will both see the event happen at the same time!


According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time, they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single placefor example, a car crashall observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects by means of a Train Gedanken: For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!


A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

1. The principle of relativitythe equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. The constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, [is](sic) independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?
(UFO)This means anybody who is "moving at uniform velocity" relative to somebody/something else can perfectly validly consider themselves as being "stationary" and the other as "moving".
I have pointed out numerous time that the terms "stationary" and "moving" are ambiguous, confusing statements. We're discussing relativity, so just use the term "the relative distance is changing between reference frames," or between source and observers. If the distance is not changing, source and observer are in the same reference frame. Remember: unreflected Light travels away from the source. You cannot ignore the source in these discussions.
(UFO)Jose, you seem to be regarding RoS (and presumably SR) as literally only about what light rays an observer "sees". Not so; let's take an example to describe what's happening:
Sorry my friend, nothing (as far as we know) travels faster than the speed of light. So all of your lecturing is baseless fantasy. Light rays, or better yet, a strong short pulse of light, and the accompanying wave front is all that can really be physically investigated. You cannot admit that RoS exists within the the reference frame of the source, or sources, where distance is not changing among them and their observers. Sure, Einstein never mentioned that, but it would ruin his fantasy.

Understand this: The GPS system "space segment" satellites all broadcast the same identical series of bits simultaneously, wherever they are in their orbits. The end user, "rover" receives the bits at a given time "simultaneously" but the bits are no longer in order, because each "space segment" satellite is a different distance from the rover's location. The varying distances change the latency of the signal from each satellite. GPS does not need Einstein's RoS.

Have some more eggnog with me.
Quote
Share

nakayama
nakayama

January 2nd, 2015, 12:48 am #9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relativity of simultaneity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

See link for the next picture.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer.

The author is misinforming again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer with respect to the events, when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes.


The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

In real life there is no plane of simultaneity. Each of us live in the present. Events close to us happen in the present. Events which we see being further away happened further into the past. Events happening now on the sun are 8 minutes into our future as far as light is concerned, further into the future as far as the effects of a CME. The 8 minute delay is not caused by motion, it is caused by distance from the Sun

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer and a stationary observer are at the event at the same time, they will both see the event happen at the same time!


According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time, they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single placefor example, a car crashall observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects by means of a Train Gedanken: For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!


A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

1. The principle of relativitythe equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. The constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, [is](sic) independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?
At the center of a passenger car, imagine letter L. Two light sources are set at the two ends of L. Is breakdown of simultaneity in two ways ? And when light is switched off, is simultaneity restored ?

To Ufonaut99,
Thank you so much for your replay. However, in the castle of relativity, a sign of any changes is not seen at all. Relativity will rule us hereafter.
Quote
Share

Joined: March 30th, 2013, 7:19 am

January 2nd, 2015, 5:37 am #10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relativity of simultaneity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

See link for the next picture.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer.

The author is misinforming again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer with respect to the events, when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes.


The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

In real life there is no plane of simultaneity. Each of us live in the present. Events close to us happen in the present. Events which we see being further away happened further into the past. Events happening now on the sun are 8 minutes into our future as far as light is concerned, further into the future as far as the effects of a CME. The 8 minute delay is not caused by motion, it is caused by distance from the Sun

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer and a stationary observer are at the event at the same time, they will both see the event happen at the same time!


According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time, they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single placefor example, a car crashall observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects by means of a Train Gedanken: For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!


A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

1. The principle of relativitythe equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. The constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, [is](sic) independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?
Jose : Have some more eggnog with me.
Any time Must admit, we hit the bubbles for 2015, though.
Jose : I have pointed out numerous time that the terms "stationary" and "moving" are ambiguous, confusing statements. We're discussing relativity, so just use the term "the relative distance is changing between reference frames," or between source and observers.
Well, it's been 400 years since Galileo came up with his Ship - people should have had enough time to get to grips with it by now !

Seriously, though, what is confusing or ambiguous about saying that a passenger sitting on a train considers himself "stationary", regardless of whether the train itself is moving or not? Everybody can relate to that common everyday situation. The trouble is, if you leave the term "stationary" out, then people will start factoring in the observer's "velocity" into the measurements he makes, and so treating the other frame as the "special" or "real" one - just as Nakayama did above (and, of course, Pentcho does on a regular basis, every time he posts about the Doppler Shift)

How about we compromise, and just say that an observer making a measurement always considers himself to be stationary.
Jose : Sorry my friend, nothing (as far as we know) travels faster than the speed of light. So all of your lecturing is baseless fantasy. Light rays, or better yet, a strong short pulse of light, and the accompanying wave front is all that can really be physically investigated.
And sorry myself, but ..... Errrr, where did anything I wrote above require anything faster-than-light ?

For example, I said I saw a solar flare at 5:07:59 (ie, that's when the wavefronts from the flare met my eyes), and so since the sun is 8 light minutes away, I said that the flare must have happened 8 minutes previously - ie. at 4:59:59. Yes, we can only physically investigate the light - but that doesn't rule out that I knew before yesterday (from previous investigations) that the sun was, and is, 8 light minutes away from me.

Nothing there (nor in RoS, nor SR) requiring Faster-Than-Light. I didn't know before the light-speed signal reached me at 5:07:59 that a flare had gone off, for example.
Jose : You cannot admit that RoS exists within the the reference frame of the source, or sources, where distance is not changing among them and their observers. Sure, Einstein never mentioned that, but it would ruin his fantasy.
I repeat what I said above, EVERYBODY in my frame will ascribe the same "time" value to both those events, and will therefore also regard them as "simultaneous" REGARDLESS of how far away they are from [the events]. RoS is NOT just about "when the wave fronts from the events simultaneously meet the observer's eyes"; Rather, it is about spatially separate events being deemed "simultaneous" if their "t" coordinates are the same within a given frame.

Different observers will "see" (ie. the wavefronts will hit their eyes) at different times. Doesn't matter - they will each measure the distances from themselves to the events and subtract light travel time - exactly as I described I did for the asteroid strike and the solar flare above. The end result of those observers doing that is that they will also determine that both the asteroid strike and the solar flare occurred at 4:59:59 within our frame - that's the result EVERY observer in the frame will determine, regardless of their physical location, or the order that the wavefronts hit their eyes.
Quote
Like
Share