- #71
A.T.
Science Advisor
- 12,308
- 3,492
Geocentricist said:But what about the opposite currents scenario?
DrGreg's diagramm could help here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...agnetism-with-relativity.932270/#post-5886984
Geocentricist said:But what about the opposite currents scenario?
Geocentricist said:I wasn't sure how to use your formula so I did my analysis without it. I wonder if you can confirm whether the magnetic repulsion between a proton moving left at 87% c and an electron moving left at double that speed is 1.5 times the magnetic attraction between two electrons moving left at 87% c?
A.T. said:DrGreg's diagramm could help here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...agnetism-with-relativity.932270/#post-5886984
jartsa said:I can only calculate magnetic attractions between charges moving side by side at the same velocity. Because that is very simple.
There's one thing I should mention: All your pictures are kind of unrealistic, as the two electrons are always perfectly lined up. It's not unphysical, it's just not correct for electrons in wires. I mean, according to an electron the other electrons should disappear into the distance as the current increases. That effect seems to be missing in all of the calculations - I just noticed that.
There is also an easy way to calculate these things. That involves going into electron's frame, calculating electric forces on the electron there, there are no magnetic forces, which was the point of the frame change. And then that force can be easily transformed to any frame, by using relativity's force transformation formulas.
Hey, why don't I use my wonderful easy calculation method myself.Geocentricist said:Okay, I hope someone else can help me out here then.
jartsa said:(Not the actual correct result because of the wrong length contraction)
Because they are accelerating, and their notion of distance is changing as this happens.Geocentricist said:Why should the separation between electrons increase?
Philosophical point: if you can't do the maths, do you really understand it? You will always need someone to tell you what the maths says.Geocentricist said:I prefer doing it this way, in the way I can understand.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...sm-with-relativity.932270/page-3#post-5888171Geocentricist said:But why should the electron spacing increase in their own frame?
A.T. said:
Actually it doesn’t say that. What it says is subtly different.Geocentricist said:The Wikipedia article says spaceships A and B disagree they both accelerated at the same time.
Dale said:Actually it doesn’t say that. What it says is subtly different.
In the article neither S nor S’ represent A or B’s perspective. S and S’ are inertial frames and the article is talking about their perspective, not the perspective of A or B which would be non inertial. A and B are only momentarily at rest in S or S’.
Think about this. In S you have two separated simultaneous events: A started accelerating, B started accelerating. S’ is moving relative to S. It is then impossible for these acceleration events to be simulataneous in S’. Two relatively moving frames can never agree on simultaneity of events separated in the direction of relative motion.Geocentricist said:Okay, but I still don't see why A and B should disagree they accelerated at the same time, since they always share the same frame and therefore, time.
It isn’t a disagreement between A and B. It is a disagreement between S and S’Geocentricist said:Okay, but I still don't see why A and B should disagree they accelerated at the same time, since they always share the same frame and therefore, time.
Dale said:It isn’t a disagreement between A and B. It is a disagreement between S and S’
PAllen said:Consider a related question. In some S’, there is an event when A is stationary and an event when B is stationary. These necessarily correspond to events described in S as A has speed v and B has speed v. These events are simultaneous by construction in S. Thus the corresponding events in S’ are not simultaneous. Thus, once acceleration has begun, there are no inertial frames where A and B are simultaneously at rest.
S’ is a reference frame, not an observer, so equidistant is a nonsequiter. There is no reference frame in which A and B are both at rest at the same time except the original reference frame for the times before acceleration starts. If you can’t see this, then you need to review the basics of relativity of simultaneity. You are making statements comparable to 1 + 1 = 3 and insisting they are right.Geocentricist said:Any S' equidistant to A and B will consider the events simultaneous. So I don't see how a possible disagreement between S and some hypothetical S' proves A and B will move relative to one another.
PAllen said:S’ is a reference frame, not an observer, so equidistant is a nonsequiter. There is no reference frame in which A and B are both at rest at the same time except the original reference frame for the times before acceleration starts. If you can’t see this, then you need to review the basics of relativity of simultaneity. You are making statements comparable to 1 + 1 = 3 and insisting they are right.
Do you understand that in any frame S’, moving with respect to S, in which A is momentarily at rest at some time t, then B will not be at rest at that time t; and further, A and B will have started accelerating at different times in this frame?Geocentricist said:I didn't say A and B were both at rest in S' and I'm not aware anyone else did either. I thought everyone said S' is a frame moving inertially relative to S, which would of course mean A and B are moving inertially relative to S' when they are at rest in S.
I still maintain it seems A and B share a frame at all times and this means they also agree on what is simultaneous. What part of this sentence is wrong?
PAllen said:Do you understand that in any frame S’, moving with respect to S, in which A is momentarily at rest at some time t, then B will not be at rest at that time t; and further, A and B will have started accelerating at different times in this frame?
As to your second question, all of it is wrong. That is what I am trying to get you to see by statements about S’. What do you think sharing a frame means? It isn’t standard usage, but I am guessing you think it means there is a frame in which they are both at rest at some given time. There is no such frame after acceleration begins.
There is no frame (inertial or non-inertial) where all the rockets remain at rest, throughout the acceleration.Geocentricist said:since they always share the same frame
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think that's right. There is a series of frames in which one or other of the rockets is always at rest, but the other one is always moving. That's why (or, at least, one way of conceptualising why) the distance is changing.A.T. said:There is a series of inertial frames, where all the rockets are instantaneously at rest, but along that series the distances between the rockets are increasing.
I conceptualize as each inertial frame in that series seeing a different distance.Ibix said:Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think that's right. There is a series of frames in which one or other of the rockets is always at rest, but the other one is always moving. That's why (or, at least, one way of conceptualising why) the distance is changing.
A.T. said:But either way, even if you construct a single frame where one rocket remains at rest during the acceleration, the other rocket does not remain at rest in that frame. And if you insist to know why they increase separation according to that frame, you have to take the position dependent time dilation in that frame into account.
I think this is wrong. Consider the events A has speed .7c, B has speed .7c as described in the original rest frame. These events are simultaneous in this frame. Consider ther frame moving at .7c relative to the original rest frame. These events are not simultaneous in this frame. Thus, when A is at rest in this frame, B is moving, and when B is at rest in this frame, A is moving.A.T. said:I conceptualize as each inertial frame in that series seeing a different distance.
But either way, even if you construct a single frame where one rocket remains at rest during the acceleration, the other rocket does not remain at rest in that frame. And if you insist to know why they increase separation according to that frame, you have to take the position dependent time dilation in that frame into account.
I told you why in #89. They are the same distance apart in S because in that frame they are always traveling at the same speed at the same time. But no other frame has the same definition of "at the same time", so in any other frame the rockets are traveling at different speeds at the same time (by their definition of "the same time") so are always changing their separation.Geocentricist said:I still don't see why the rockets aren't at rest with respect to each other throughout the acceleration. Everyone keeps repeating they aren't without really explaining the cause.
Yes, you and Ibix are right. There are no other inertial frames, where they are both at rest, even instantaneously.PAllen said:I think this is wrong. Consider the events A has speed .7c, B has speed .7c as described in the original rest frame. These events are simultaneous in this frame. Consider ther frame moving at .7c relative to the original rest frame. These events are not simultaneous in this frame. Thus, when A is at rest in this frame, B is moving, and when B is at rest in this frame, A is moving.
The OP want's to know what happens in the frame of a rocket throughout acceleration. That frame is non-inertial and has position dependent time dilation.PAllen said:We are not dealing here with any non inertial frames.
A.T. said:The OP want's to know what happens in the frame of a rocket throughout acceleration. That frame is non-inertial and has position dependent time dilation.
Let me jump in and ask if m getting the point correctly. Since there is no size requirement on what constitutes a valid reference frame, that's defined by velocity, so distance separated events along the direction of relative motion within one reference frame, S, can be seen as non simultaneous in another frame, S', even if they are always moving at the same velocity within frame S?A.T. said:Yes, you and Ibix are right. There are no other inertial frames, where they are both at rest, even instantaneously.The OP want's to know what happens in the frame of a rocket throughout acceleration. That frame is non-inertial and has position dependent time dilation.
Correct.bob012345 said:Let me jump in and ask if m getting the point correctly. Since there is no size requirement on what constitutes a valid reference frame, that's defined by velocity, so distance separated events along the direction of relative motion within one reference frame, S, can be seen as non simultaneous in another frame, S', even if they are always moving at the same velocity within frame S?
Thanks. So if the only separation were 90 degrees to the direction of motion, simultaneous events in S could be simultaneous in S'?PAllen said:Correct.
Correct.bob012345 said:Thanks. So if the only separation were 90 degrees to the direction of motion, simultaneous events in S could be simultaneous in S'?
Geocentricist said:I still don't see why the rockets aren't at rest with respect to each other throughout the acceleration. Everyone keeps repeating they aren't without really explaining the cause.
It was explained to you pages ago for the electrons:Geocentricist said:I still don't see why the rockets aren't at rest with respect to each other throughout the acceleration. Everyone keeps repeating they aren't without really explaining the cause.
A.T. said:If you actually attach a frame to an electron, during it's acceleration, you have time running at different rates along the wire in that frame. This effectively delays the electrons in the back, and speeds up the electrons in the front, so their distances increase.
A.T. said:Yes, you and Ibix are right. There are no other inertial frames, where they are both at rest, even instantaneously.The OP want's to know what happens in the frame of a rocket throughout acceleration. That frame is non-inertial and has position dependent time dilation.