3
$\begingroup$

I'm lay about relativity and I want to understand how does $c$ does not change between frames of reference.

Imagine a train of length $L_0$ at a relativistic speed and a light beam inside it. For an inside frame, the time taken for light to travel across the train would be $\Delta t_0 = \frac{L_0}{c}$.

Now imagine an outside still frame of reference. To him, both time and length should receive a Lorentz transformation, thus $\Delta t_R = \gamma \Delta t_0$ and $L_R = \frac{L_0}{\gamma}$. As velocity is $\frac{\Delta s}{\Delta t}$, the velocity to him would be

$$\frac{L_R}{\Delta t_R} = \frac{L_0}{\gamma^2 \Delta t_0} = \frac{c}{\gamma^2} \neq c$$

Where is the mistake?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ See @Dale's answer. What you are doing is what I call "gamma slinging" and is much loved by newbie amateurs and particle physicists alike. Unfortunately it usually leads to the wrong conclusions, unless you really know what you are doing. $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Nov 16, 2023 at 16:42
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "Gamma slinging" I like that term. Never heard it before, but it is very catchy $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Nov 16, 2023 at 17:09
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You misunderstand. The idea that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference is an axiom of relativity, not a theorem. It was Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation that suggested that the speed of light was the same in every frame. Einstein's theory is a fusion of various ideas from various other physicists about how to make sense of Maxwell's theory in a broader context. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 16, 2023 at 17:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Dale Just shorthand for your more explicit first paragraph really. It is supposed to sound vaguely disparaging, as it should because what it means is taking the Lorentz Transform, throwing away the matrix part (simultaneity), and keeping just the scalar multiplier. Naughty! $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Nov 16, 2023 at 17:53
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, turns out the math is wrong, but I don't know if seeing the correct way to do it by itself helps bring some intuition. Instead, consider this (a bit more exciting) scenario: Suppose that there are explosive charges between the train carriages (say there are 4 or more carriages), and that in the moving frame, they all set off at the same time (treat them as instantaneous events). Try figuring out what's observed in the stationary frame, in terms of the timings of the explosions. Then consider that each explosion is a single point (event) in spacetime - that both observers inhabit. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2023 at 12:30

3 Answers 3

18
$\begingroup$

You identified the mistake in your own question. You correctly stated "both time and length should receive a Lorentz transformation", but the mathematical operations that you performed were not a Lorentz transformation. Instead of doing the actual Lorentz transformation you simply multiplied or divided by the Lorentz factor. This is not a Lorentz transform.

The Lorentz transform is derived based on the postulate that the speed of light is invariant. So when used in its correct form you will always get $c$ being invariant. The Lorentz transform is given by:$$t'=\gamma \left(t-\frac{vx}{c^2}\right)$$$$x'=\gamma (x-vt)$$$$y'=y$$$$z'=z$$where$$\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$

The equation of a pulse of light going out from the origin in the primed frame is $$ c^2 t'^2= x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2$$ This is a sphere whose radius is $ct'$, meaning that it expands at a speed of $c$. This equation is often called the light cone. By substituting the transformation equations into the light cone equation and simplifying we get $$ c^2 t^2= x^2 + y^2 + z^2$$which shows that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ This method implicitly contains the postulate of invariance of the speed of light in $\mathcal {R}$ and $\mathcal {R'}$, i.e.that the space-time intervals are equal $S^{2}=S'^{2}=0$ with the four-vector $S=(ct,\vec{r})$..., we can replace $ct'$ by $c't'$ if there is no introduction of the postulate.... $\endgroup$
    – The Tiler
    Commented Nov 17, 2023 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ "At this moment the signal arrives at the point $x_{2}= ct$ of the frame $K$. The arrival of the signal at the point $x_{2}$ at the moment $t$ represents the event with the coordinates $(x_{2}, t)$ in the frame $K$. In the frame $K’ $ the same event will have the coordinates $(x'_{2}, t'_{2})$, with $x'_{2}= ct'_{2}$ according to the second postulate." archive.org/details/SpecialTheoryOfRelativityByUgarov/page/53/… $\endgroup$
    – The Tiler
    Commented Nov 17, 2023 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ @TheTiler said "This method implicitly contains the postulate of invariance of the speed of light". Thanks for the suggestion, I have edited the answer to make it explicit instead of implicit. $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Nov 17, 2023 at 14:50
  • $\begingroup$ The demonstration shows the invariance of the space-time interval, it is the same thing to start with the wave equation and insert the Lorentz transformations to demonstrate its covariance. $\endgroup$
    – The Tiler
    Commented Nov 17, 2023 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, it is the same thing indeed. I don't think there is any need to do it both ways, so I won't make that one explicit, but thanks for the suggestion. $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Nov 17, 2023 at 15:24
5
$\begingroup$

The mistake is that you have assumed that in the stationary frame the light has travelled a distance equal to the contracted length of the train in that frame, which is not the case at all. The actual distance depends on the direction in which the light travels relative to the motion of the train in the stationary frame. In other words, it depends on whether the light is travelling towards or away from the front of the train. Let's assume the former case.

Suppose the rear of the train is just passing the western end of the platform when the light flash is emitted. By the time the light flash reaches the front of the train, the train has moved further down the platform, so according to the observer on the platform, the light has travelled a distance greater than the length of the train.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Your Lorentz transform of the time supposes $x = 0$. That means: Alice in one of the wagons (supposed the origin in the frame of the train) is comparing her clock with synchronized clocks of the outside frame of reference passing by her. She can not compare with clocks before or after her position, because $x \neq 0$ in this case.

For example, she compares her clock with two synchronized clocks passing by in the outside frame. After time interval $\Delta t_0$ she observes a time interval between that 2 outside clocks of $\Delta t_R = \gamma \Delta t_0$.

The length that she measures between these 2 clocks is $L_R = \frac{L}{\gamma}$, where $L$ is the same length measured by Bob in the outside frame. Note that $L$ is not the length of the train $L_0$, it is the length between the clocks. And:

$$\frac{L}{\Delta t_R} = \frac{L_R}{\Delta t_0}$$ showing the same relative speed in both frames.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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