# Length Contraction in Relativity [closed]

Let's suppose we have a one dimensional rod made of elementary point particles, in contact with each other placed along the x-axis.If the rod is moving along x-axis then we know (because of relativity) that its length will reduce.

But how is this possible? Since the rod is made of elementary particles which are in contact with one another, and elementary particles can't be deformed, wouldn't this mean they can't come any closer?

Where am I wrong?

## closed as off-topic by stafusa, Jon Custer, Kyle Kanos, Gert, JMacDec 27 '17 at 19:03

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – stafusa, Jon Custer, JMac
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Possible duplicates : What is the real meaning of length contraction? physics.stackexchange.com/q/95618 "Reality" of length contraction in SR physics.stackexchange.com/q/148216 – sammy gerbil Jul 25 '16 at 12:31
• To the OP: What does "in contact with one another" mean? – WillO Jul 25 '16 at 13:54
• @WillO : I disagree. The question is asking how the idea of a rigid rod can be compatible with the prediction of SR that observers in relative motion measure different lengths for the rod. ie Does the rod really deform? This is the same as asking, What does length contraction mean? – sammy gerbil Jul 25 '16 at 14:30
• Elementary particles have zero dimension so you rod would have zero length. – Peter R Jul 25 '16 at 16:24
• @sammygerbil: I heartily disagree with you. If someone designs a machine that appears to demonstrate perpetual motion, you can, depending on how much time you've got to spare, either ignore him or try to figure out what's wrong with it. There is a potentially a lot to be learned from the second option. Learning opportunities should not be lightly discarded. – WillO Jul 25 '16 at 19:36