- #36
Mike_Fontenot
- 249
- 17
Austin0 said:I have had a second take on the scenario.
[...]
What does CADO predict?? :-)
I'm sorry, I wasn't able to follow your statement of the new problem.
Austin0 said:I have had a second take on the scenario.
[...]
What does CADO predict?? :-)
If "comoving" suggests that velocities have some absolute significance, then "stationary" suggests that velcocity 0 has some absolute significance. It's also weird to describe the coordinate system as "stationary", because it suggests that something about the coordinate system is stationary in a coordinate system. What coordinate system would that be? The MSIRF itself? Then you seem to be saying that the MSIRF is the coordinate system that's "stationary in itself", but you can describe any coordinate system that way.Mike_Fontenot said:Most people call that inertial frame the "co-moving inertial frame". I don't like that term...it perpetuates the mistaken idea that velocities have some kind of absolute significance. I call it the MSIRF, for "momentarily-stationary inertial reference frame". In general, the MSIRF is not the same inertial frame from one moment of John's life to the next.
But is isn't possible to prove that, because it isn't true. The comoving inertial frame is conventional and convenient, nothing more.Mike_Fontenot said:John's result is a "realtime" simultaneity assertion in the sense that he can determine Jane's current age without needing to know anything about what either of them will do in the future. He doesn't have to wait for the historians of the future to tell him what Jane's age was when he received her message.
...
All of the above assumed that Jane and John were inertial. But it is possible for John to determine Jane's current age when he isn't inertial. That extension basically requires proving that, at any instant in John's life, regardless of how he's accelerating, that John MUST adopt the conclusions of the inertial frame that is momentarily stationary with respect to him at that instant.
This is not correct. There is no way for an observer to ascertain the simultaneity of events outside his past light cone. In the case of this specific example, suppose that John and Jane are born at the same time 40 light years apart and at rest wrt each other. When John turns 40 he would receive the news that Jane was born and would conclude that she is now 40. However, suppose that when Jane turned 10 she suddenly accelerated to .6c, then in John's frame she is actually 34 years old when he is 40, but John will not even see her acceleration for another 10 years. You simply cannot determine the simultaneity of events outside your past light cone. In fact, you cannot even know that such events happen.Mike_Fontenot said:The simultaneity result that my CADO equation produces is the SAME simultaneity result that the Lorentz equations produce. ... John's result is a "realtime" simultaneity assertion in the sense that he can determine Jane's current age without needing to know anything about what either of them will do in the future. He doesn't have to wait for the historians of the future to tell him what Jane's age was when he received her message.
Fredrik said:If "comoving" suggests that velocities have some absolute significance, then "stationary" suggests that velcocity 0 has some absolute significance.
But is isn't possible to prove that, because it isn't true.
Mike_Fontenot said:The MSIRF is momentarily stationary with respect to John...their relative velocity is momentarily zero.
I prove it in my paper.
Mike Fontenot
DaleSpam said:In the case of this specific example, suppose that John and Jane are born at the same time 40 light years apart and at rest wrt each other. When John turns 40 he would receive the news that Jane was born and would conclude that she is now 40. However, suppose that when Jane turned 10 she suddenly accelerated to .6c, [...]
stevmg said:Where is the CADO paper?
That's what "momentarily comoving" means.Mike_Fontenot said:...their relative velocity is momentarily zero.
Not possible. It's a convention, not a necessity.Mike_Fontenot said:I prove it in my paper.
stevmg said:I can't even think of how, but I do know that with the Einstein train paradigm and the simultaneous front and back lightning flashes that are simultaneous from the ground observer can one "flip" the order of which event the observer on the train itself can see the events. Of course their original simultaneity does make them spacelike.
Yes, if A and B are spacelike separated events, there's an inertial frame in which A is earlier than B and another in which B is earlier than A. This is really easy to see in a spacetime diagram, if you understand that the simultaneity line of an object moving with speed v is a straight line in the diagram with slope v.stevmg said:Again, while you folks were in the next galaxy, was what I wrote correct?
There is nothing special in that. If motion is assumed then both CADO and D&G can be realtime or even predictive, but only insofar as the assumed motion is correct which can only be verified for events in the past light cone.Mike_Fontenot said:The CADO equation assumes that the distant object (Jane, in this case), whose current age is being determined by the observer (John, in this case), is perpetually unaccelerated (perpetually inertial). I stated in my last posting that Jane and John are both inertial.
Fredrik said:Yes, if A and B are spacelike separated events, there's an inertial frame in which A is earlier than B and another in which B is earlier than A. This is really easy to see in a spacetime diagram, if you understand that the simultaneity line of an object moving with speed v is a straight line in the diagram with slope v.
Mike_Fontenot said:You are right. Immediately after Tom's instantaneous speed change, Sue is -4.6 years old (according to Tom)...i.e., Sue's mother-to-be will age another 4.6 years before she gives birth to Sue.
Fredrik said:. Also, I think Mike meant that 0 time has elapsed on Tom's clock at the event we're supposed to consider.
I don't feel like doing any calculations right now, but in the diagram I'm drawing in my head, I can see that Sue would be much younger than 30 in Tom's comoving inertial frame (after the boost), because its simultaneity lines have slope v in the diagram, so the boost event is simultaneous with an "early" event on Sue's world line.
.
Mike_Fontenot said:Suppose two people (say, Tom and Sue) are stationary with respect to one another, when they are both 30 years old, and that they are 40 lightyears apart.
Then suppose that Tom instantaneously changes his speed so that he is moving away from Sue at 0.866c.
Austin0 said:.
Prior to Tom's acceleration his frame mate Bob is vacationing at rest 26 ly towards earth.
As Tom initiates acceleration Bob is rudely awaken only to get a last fleeting glimpse of the Earth rushing towards him due to the Earth frame's contraction.
Not only terminating Bob but incidently nailing Sue's mom on the way to the library.
My question is this : ...Does Tom simultaneously lose all memory of Sue or does he wait until the information regardiung her prenatal demise (i.e. history) reachs him at c ?
What does CADO predict?? :-)
Fredrik said:Did you really? In which one of his frames? The comoving inertial frame before the boost? The comoving inertial frame after the boost? The radar frame? Why would Bob wake up because someone 26 light-years away is accelerating rapidly? Why would that Lorentz contract the Earth and make him teleport to Earth, nail Sue's mom, teleport back and die? Like I said, your description makes no sense.
Mike_Fontenot said:[...]
The simultaneity result obtained by both the CADO equation and the Lorentz equations can also be obtained by an inertial observer using only his own elementary measurements and elementary calculations. Here's the gist of how it's done:
Suppose Jane and John are far apart. Both are inertial. They are moving at a constant relative velocity.
[...]
[...]
All of the above assumed that Jane and John were inertial. But it is possible for John to determine Jane's current age when he isn't inertial. That extension basically requires proving that, at any instant in John's life, regardless of how he's accelerating, that John MUST adopt the conclusions of the inertial frame that is momentarily stationary with respect to him at that instant.
[...]
DaleSpam said:You just don't seem to get the idea that simultaneity is purely a matter of convention and any convention is acceptable. Your convention is no better nor worse than any other.
Yes, it is trivially obvious that different simultaneity conventions disagree on which events are simultaneous. Otherwise they wouldn't be different.Mike_Fontenot said:The fact that Sam will eventually change his velocity means that he must reject the result that he and John calculate every week, because Dolby & Gull require that he use a different value for Jane's current age.
No measurement is contradicted. Your method makes an assumption about unobserved motion and that assumption is simply not made with D&G. Their approach is perfectly consistent with their actual (unassumed) measurements and elementary calculations.Mike_Fontenot said:THAT is what I mean when I say that alternative definitions of simultaneity (other than Lorentz simultaneity) will contradict Sam's own elementary measurements and first-principle calculations.
I agree completely. If you had phrased your earlier statement in terms of a personal preference or a matter of practicality I would have left it at that. But you instead claimed in post 12 that one couldn't even do physics with other simultaneity conventions, that your convention was more than a convention but a physics necessity. That is simply wrong.Mike_Fontenot said:But just because we CAN use a certain coordinate system doesn't mean that we SHOULD, or that all choices are equally good from a practical standpoint.
Hi Fredrik I like you but in some ways you are a hard nut to crack. When I try to be serious you find my logic amusing, worth a chuckle but when I try to be amusing you take it too seriously and don't get it.Fredrik said:Austin0, regarding the Sue, Tom and Bob scenario. I now take it that Bob's velocity is given the exact same boost as Tom's, at the exact same time in Sue's frame, or equivalently, in a frame that's comoving with either Tom or Bob before the boost. In order to talk about how Tom or Bob would describe these events, we need to specify which coordinate system we have chosen to represent a person's "point of view". Let's use the comoving inertial frame (because it's simple enough for me to do these things in my head). In Tom's comoving inertial frame immediately after the boost, Tom's boost event is simultaneous with a much earlier event on Bob's world line than Bob's boost event. So Bob still won't be given a boost for several years. You're right that distances will be have changed due to Lorentz contraction, but I don't know why you think this will put Bob on the other side of Earth. It won't.
Mike_Fontenot said:I recognize that there are some benefits that have come from some of the post-Einstein changes that have been introduced in the way SR is formulated and taught. But I also think there is sometimes a cost to that.
Part of what made Einstein so productive and innovative, I think, was that he always maintained his insistence that the variables used in any equation be clearly defined at the outset, including spelling out exactly how they could be measured (at least in principle), and what they MEANT. I think some of the modern abstractions have moved us away from that view.
Most of us have heard the famous quote by Niels Bohr: "Those who are not shocked by quantum mechanics, have not understood it." I think that quote also applies to special relativity. And I think some of the modernizers of SR put a lot of effort into trying to disguise those shocks, or get them out of sight. It seems to me that's what Dolby & Gull are trying to do, with those embarrassing sudden changes in Lorentz simultaneity caused by accelerations.
Mike Fontenot
It's hard to take the claim that Tom is closer to Earth than to Bob as a joke. I'm still not sure if you're taking that part seriously.Austin0 said:When I try to be serious you find my logic amusing, worth a chuckle but when I try to be amusing you take it too seriously and don't get it.
There's no need to, since you specified the events where they were both given a boost.Austin0 said:As I mentioned earlier I didn't bother specifying details of Born rigid acceleration
So you do understand that the information you provided implies that Bob "moves closer" to Tom by the exact same factor (gamma) that Sue does?Austin0 said:I also just did the math in my head but Sue's distance from Tom is 40 ly's
Bob's distance from Tom is 26 ly's. ...Looking at v=.866c I ballparked a gamma figure of .56 ?? Definitely less than .6 , so Earths and Sues instantaneous relocation relative to Bob and Tom would be somewhere less than 24 ly's from Tom. I.e. in between Bob and Tom
I will reiterate. I was not proposing a serious paradox.
Austin0 said:Sue's distance from Tom is 40 ly's
Bob's distance from Tom is 26 ly's.
a gamma figure of .56 ?? Definitely less than .6 ,
so Earths and Sue's mom instantaneous relocation relative to Bob and Tom
would be somewhere less than 24 ly's from Tom. I.e. in between Bob and Tom
.
Fredrik said:It's hard to take the claim that Tom is closer to Earth than to Bob as a joke. I'm still not sure if you're taking that part seriously.
Fredrik said:So you do understand that the information you provided implies that Bob "moves closer" to Tom by the exact same factor (gamma) that Sue does?