0
$\begingroup$

I am trying to construct a special relativity animated simulation, and am unclear about some aspects, please.

The animation is as follows:

enter image description here

From the simulation coordinate system's point of view, Einstein is stationary. Curie and Newton is onboard a train moving 1 unit/frame to the right. While on the train, Curie throws out a light moving also at 1 unit/frame to the right.

Then, we animate the situation simultaneously using 3 different "frames of reference". The top frame is from Einstein's viewpoint. The second is from Curie's viewpoint. The third if from Newton's viewpoint.

Please help correct any wrong concepts I might be harboring from this point on:

The central tenet for special relativity in this situation is that, in the case above, the speed of light seen by Einstein in this case is 2 units/frame to the right. The speed of light seen by Curie is 1 unit/frame to the right. The speed of light seen by Newton in -1 unit/frame as it is moving towards him.

The central problem in the above picture is that we do not want to allow the speed of light from Einstein's frame to be any number other than 1. Is this correct? The speed of light is calculated here by having the previous position of light stored in the "notebook" of each participant, then compared to the new position of light. Eg, for Einstein, on previous frame light is located at [2,0], and at the next frame it is located at [4,0], so the speed is calculated as 2 units/frame to the right.

Fine, we might say. If we would like the speed of light seen by Einstein to be 1 in this case, we can "contract the universe by half" along the x-axis, so the same measurement by Einstein in the new contracted coordinate be [1,0] on the earlier frame and [2,0] on the next frame, which gives the calculation we desired of speed of light = 1 unit/frame to the right, as follows:

enter image description here

Is this the essential thought process of special relativity in this case?

I realize that to get to a rigorous definition of this we might have to be more careful and consider the different boundary cases etc. But the essential intuition is that, we contract or expand the coordinate system/axis by the different participants in order to guarantee the result of speed of light = 1 for all parties, Einstein, Curie and Newton in this case. Is this correct?

If not, please explain the numerical derivation for how the computer (which runs the simulation) might come up algorithmically with the answer "Speed of light seen by Einstein = 1 unit/frame" in this case, without resorting to our (the simulator's) divine intervention?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Don't. Do not attempt to teach something until you understand it yourself. $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 10:17
  • $\begingroup$ @m4r35n357 I am trying to simulate precisely so that i understand it. $\endgroup$
    – user315366
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 10:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Understood, and I have been where you are. Simulations are great for learning when they represent a physical situation, so do not give up. The problem with these "toy" problems is they are not really set up right to learn anything useful, and do not represent anything physical (try superimposing actual paths of light onto the diagrams and you will hopefully see what I mean). If you find that out by doing then you will still learn something, so that is useful at least! $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 11:03

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

First, you need to describe things completely in one frame. The best way to do that is to use the parametric equation of a worldline. So, for example I will use coordinates $(t,x)$ in units where $c=1$. So the worldline for Einstein would be $r_{ein}=(t,0)$ while the worldline for Curie would be $r_{cur}=(t,vt)$ and the worldline for Newton would be $r_{new}=(t,vt+x_0)$ and the worldline for the light would be $r_{lig}=(t,ct)=(t,t)$

So now you have expressions for the location of every object in the scenario as a function of time in Einstein's frame. Now, notice that you can write all of those in the form $r=(t,\alpha t + \beta)$ where for Einstein $\alpha = 0$ and $\beta = 0$ but for Newton $\alpha = v$ and $\beta = x_0$, etc.

So all that you have to do is to transform $r$ into another frame (the primed frame) and then substitute in the appropriate $\alpha$ and $\beta$. You can simply substitute in the Lorentz transform for a velocity $u$ to obtain $$r'=(t',x')=\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{1-u^2}}-\frac{u (\beta +\alpha t)}{\sqrt{1-u^2}},\frac{\beta +\alpha t}{\sqrt{1-u^2}}-\frac{t u}{\sqrt{1-u^2}}\right)$$

Now, notice that this form is still expressed in terms of $t$, the time coordinate in Einstein's frame. But we can take the first component in $r'$ and write $$t'=\frac{t}{\sqrt{1-u^2}}-\frac{u (\beta +\alpha t)}{\sqrt{1-u^2}}$$ and then solve for $t$. We can then substitute that expression back into the formula for $r'$ to get $$r'=\left(t',\frac{t' (u-\alpha )-\beta \sqrt{1-u^2}}{\alpha u-1}\right)$$

Thus, we now have an expression to transform any of these worldlines into any frame simply by setting the appropriate values for $u$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$ and we can do so using either $t$ or $t'$ to parameterize it.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ @ Dale Thank you, the answer is very clear. I am doing the animation anew using traditional t versus x diagrams and getting some correct results. Using the Lorentz transform xnew = gamma * (x - vt) i can manage to get the vertical axis to align with any character's point of view. Except for the light object, which blows up because gamma is infinite as v=c (!) How do we transform the light object in the case velocity=c in order to get its xnew coordinate in a different reference frame? Thank you. $\endgroup$
    – user315366
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 16:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @James You've discovered that it doesn't work if you try to give light an inertial frame. So don't do that. ;) You just need to ensure that if a light beam travels from event A to event B then every observer measures that the light's worldline is a 45° line in their spacetime diagram. $\endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @ Dale Thank you very much. I think I have managed to implemente the Lorentz transform fully now! I have just one more question, being that in the result of the Lorentz transform from Einstein to Curie's point of view, the time axis position over time of the different objects are not "evenly" horizontal, and how is this to be interpreted? I have started a new question on this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/671471/… $\endgroup$
    – user315366
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 19:00
  • $\begingroup$ @James said “How do we transform the light object in the case velocity=c in order to get its xnew coordinate in a different reference frame?” You cannot have an inertial reference frame at c. So in the above formulas you must have $-1<u<1$. It is perfectly fine to have $\alpha =1$, so you can describe light in any frame. $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 19:14
1
$\begingroup$

The speed of light is the same to all observers- you are making a fundamental mistake if you assume that the speed of light from Einstein's perspective is double the speed from Curie's.

If Curie throws out the beam at the moment she passes Einstein, then the front of the beam moves down the carriage towards Newton at a fixed speed relative to all three observers.

The crucial point is that at any given moment Curie and Einstein agree on where the front of the beam is- what they disagree about is what time it is at that location.

For example, when the beam is halfway down the carriage, from Curie's perspective the distance the beam has travelled is half the length of the carriage. From Einstein's perspective the beam has travelled further- it has travelled half the length of the carriage plus the distance from him to the rear of the carriage. Given that the distance travelled by light differs for each observer, the time the light has taken to arrive at the centre of the carriage must differ for each observer. So a clock on the carriage adjacent to the front of the beam at the middle of the carriage will show one time, while a clock on the trackside adjacent to the middle of the carriage will show a later time.

I think the conceptual difficulty with what you are trying to do is that you are linking the passage of time with the updating of the picture frame. Since time varies for Einstein and Curie, you cannot associate both of their times with a single sequence of frames- you will need to have something else on the screen to shown time explicitly.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ @ Marco thanks for answering! So, for the simple numerical example above, what formula can we use (Lorentz transform or otherwise) to get to the right number speed of light = 1 for Einstein's frame? Word arguments sometimes make sense but encounters subtle unexpected ambiguities when we try to implement them $\endgroup$
    – user315366
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 9:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @James "length contraction" is an effect, not a cause. Also, it is not something that you can "see" directly, as none of the light beams in your diagrams ever enter anyone's eyes. Hope this doesn't come across as too negative, but you are going to need to learn to visualize light on a spacetime diagram to get anywhere. Lumping a simulation/visualization on top of this learning is not going to help, it will just obscure the physics. Hint: the physics is easier than the programming, if you do it the right way! $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 10:32
  • $\begingroup$ @m4r35n356 thanks for answering! I have seen the light in spacetime diagram videos, light is portrayed as 45 degree angles in this system. But, since we have the ability with computer graphics to animate time (which Einstein did not in 1905), by drawing the frames one at a time successively, it seemed like a clearer way to portray things, while being equivalent system to the 45 degree ct vs x diagram, or are these two systems different? Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – user315366
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 10:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are suffering from what I call the "Mr. Tompkins" effect, and it is everyone's fault but yours ;) The word "see" is the most grievously misused term in the whole of Special Relativity. If you want to really understand this I would recommend a fresh piece of paper. The wikipedia page is minimal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_aberration, but a better article is here: mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm. Look about half way down to the paragraph beginning: "Meanwhile, Einstein's 1905 paper . . ." $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 11:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ James, firstly, are you using the word frame to refer to two different things, namely a frame of reference and a frame of the animation? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13, 2021 at 11:11

Your Answer

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