Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose we have a train moving. When the origin of train's frame coincides with the origin of observers frame; the the time is set to zero. At that very instant, a photon is emitted from train towards the direction train is moving. After time $t$ measured by observer at rest the photon will be at a distance $ct$ and the train at a distance $vt$; but the photon is at a distance $ ct-vt$ from the train, now the time that the passenger on train measures for the photon to reach that point is the distance divided by the velocity of light ( which of course is $c$) so

time measured by observer on train is $t'=\frac{ct-vt}{c}= (1-\frac{v}{c})t$ . where $t$ is time measured by observer at rest.

Where is the mistake in this reasoning?

share|cite|improve this question

Your mistake is assuming that the distance measured by the two observers will be the same. In special relativity there is both a length contraction and a time dilation. The observer on the train will not agree with the observer on the ground that the length was $ct-vt$. He will think the clock on the ground that measured time t was running slowly. In fact each will think the other clock is running slowly by the same factor of $\sqrt{ 1 - v^2/c^2 }$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for your answer. But, Why wouldn't the observer on the train not agree that the distance between him and the photon is $ct-vt$? – Prakash Gautam Oct 31 '12 at 11:33
Because t is the ground observers time which he sees as running slow. – FrankH Oct 31 '12 at 12:31
@PrakashGautam, the events (1) photon at $ct$ and (2) train at $vt$, while simultaneous in the observer's frame, occur at different times in the train's frame (they are not simultaneous in the train's frame). Look up "relativity of simultaneity". – Alfred Centauri Oct 31 '12 at 12:52

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.