Relativity of simultaneity and the balance of the systems

[Sisoeff]

Hi everybody,
Glad to be with you, in the most popular physics forums on the Internet.
First of all, I'm not a physicist and the problem I hope to get the answer from you, is part of the work I'm writing in another field.
To cut it short, I don't quite understand how the relativity of simultaneity works without braking the laws of physics.
My understanding is that one system must be in balance in all frames of reference, meaning that the chain of cause and the effect cannot be broken in any of the reference frames.
Do I make sense

I'll give an example with the ladder paradox.
Mentioning the balance word, let us balance the garage on a triangle, and it will go out of balance in the ladder reference frame, which will make it impossible for the ladder to go through.

If you think, we can create many such cases (not only with balanced on triangle garages), where the cause and effect chain will brake in the frames of reference where the simultaneity is not seen. The funniest of all such cases would be the flight of a bird

Please help me with this.

 

[andrewkirk]

it will go out of balance in the ladder reference frame

Why do you think that will happen? Are you imagining the ladder contacting the floor of the garage as it slides through, and applying a downwards force? If so then the overbalancing is basic physics and doesn't have anything to do with relativity.

 

[PeterDonis]

Mentioning the balance word, let us balance the garage on a triangle, and it will go out of balance in the ladder reference frame

It will also go out of balance in the garage frame, because the ladder's center of mass is not directly over the balance point at all times.

 

[Dale]

the cause and effect chain will brake in the frames of reference where the simultaneity is not seen

The cause and effect chain is limited to c. So causes always preceed effects in all reference frames.

 

[Sisoeff]

Thank you for your answers, guys.
The garage will go out of balance in the ladder reference frame, because the doors are not moving simultaneously thus moving the center of gravity left and right.
Or if we imagine how the flight of a bird will be seen, it will be against laws of physics.
Or perhaps you could imagine that simultaneous events from one frame are sending signals to another in order to keep it in motion.
If that events are the simultaneously closing garage doors, the ladder shouldn't move, according to its own pint of reference.

 

[PeterDonis]

The garage will go out of balance in the ladder reference frame, because the doors are not moving simultaneously thus moving the center of gravity left and right.

Just to be clear: you are assuming that the ladder never actually touches the garage floor? So the ladder itself will not throw the garage out of balance in the garage frame?

Assuming that's the case, then a correct SR analysis would have to take into account that the garage is not moving inertially, so what we have been calling the "garage frame" is not an inertial frame. Neither is the "ladder frame". Non-inertial frames don't work the same as inertial frames, so your reasoning, which assumes that the "ladder frame" is an inertial frame and that the transformation between the "garage frame" and the "ladder frame" is a Lorentz transformation, is not correct.

 

[Sisoeff]

Yes, Peter,
I'm assuming that the ladder does not touch the garage, and will not throw it of of balance.
It is the doors that will do it, because they don't open simultaneously to keep the center of gravity in one point.
And with your answer you left me completely confused.
Are you saying that two moving airplanes are not inertial frames?
Would you explain, please, why the garage wouldn't be inertial frame if the ladder doesn't touch it?

 

[A.T.]

I'm assuming that the ladder does not touch the garage, and will not throw it of of balance.
It is the doors that will do it, because they don't open simultaneously to keep the center of gravity in one point.

Seems like the ladder is completely irrelevant to your question, and just makes it confusing. Can we boil down your scenario to the relevant bit:

An object is in a unstable balance under gravity, and extends symmetrically in both directions, simultaneously as measured in it's initial center of mass rest frame.

Would you explain, please, why the garage wouldn't be inertial frame if the ladder doesn't touch it?

The object is not in free fall, so it's not inertial in the relativistic sense. An neither is a frame moving horizontally relative to it. So you have to consider two non inertial-frames, and the mechanical signal propagation delays within the object.

 

[Sisoeff]

If I consider the garage and the ladder as two non inertial frames, how would the ladder go through the garage?
And if the garage-ladder does not make sense in connection to my question, I'll give another example. One can think of countless examples.
We have a train moving with fast speed on a track. It only moves on the tracks because on the side of the tracks simultaneously opening and closing doors are keeping the rails inline (or producing power for the train, or sending signals to keep the engine running .e.t.c.)
These simultaneity is not present in the train. Should it move?

 

[andrewkirk]

If the scenario has doors that open and close - which I note are not present in the drawing - then there are crucial details missing from the problem specification. When and how do the doors open?

 

[Sisoeff]

Hi Andrew,

The scenario is presented in Wikipedia, and I gave the link to it in the OP.
Here it is again. You can find there graphics of the way the doors open.
It's well known problem of a long ladder going through short garage which is solved with relativity of simultaneity.
And my question is how that relativity of simultaneity works, if the system is going out of balance in one of the reference frames.

 

[A.T.]

It's well known problem of a long ladder going through short garage which is solved with relativity of simultaneity.

Yes, but usually the frames are assumed to be free falling and thus inertial. You are introducing gravity or non-inertiality, but also the dynamics of an extended deforming object.

 

[andrewkirk]

This problem is similar to the 'Gravity on Einstein's Train' thread from a few months back, for which Peter did lots of interesting calculations. The key point is that both reference frames are non-inertial, so none of the usual SR expectations are valid.

The frame that matters for the question of whether the garage is balanced is the garage's own frame - as we would expect. If the doors open simultaneously in that frame then it remains balanced and doesn't topple. The garage is analogous to the rocket in the older thread.

In the frame of the ladder (which is analogous to the train) the doors may or may not open simultaneously. The calculations are complex so we can't easily assume either as we would in SR. However another effect of the gravity/speed combo is that, in the ladder's frame, the garage is tilted (not horizontal). That may offset issues involving the garage doors, as regards balance.

 

[jartsa]

I am sure the garage does not tilt.

Why does it not tilt? I guess the doors weigh different amounts during the opening process, in that frame where the doors do not open simultaneously.

 

[Sisoeff]

The key point is that both reference frames are non-inertial, so none of the usual SR expectations are valid.

Guys, as I already mentioned I'm not a physicist and my knowledge in that field is limited.
The "ladder paradox" in Wikipedia starts with the statement: "The ladder paradox (or barn-pole paradox) is a thought experiment in special relativity."
If the ladder paradox is explained with special relativity, why do you say that "none of the usual SR expectations are valid".
My question concerns the simultaneity which gives the solution of the ladder paradox.
I already gave another example. Here it is again. Does it make any difference to the ladder example?

We have a train moving with fast speed on a track. It only moves on the tracks because on the side of the tracks simultaneously opening and closing doors are keeping the rails inline (or producing power for the train, or sending signals to keep the engine running .e.t.c.)
These simultaneity is not present in the train. Should it move?

Please help me understand it, as I need the right understanding for my work.

 

[andrewkirk]

Guys, as I already mentioned I'm not a physicist and my knowledge in that field is limited.
The "ladder paradox" in Wikipedia starts with the statement: "The ladder paradox (or barn-pole paradox) is a thought experiment in special relativity."
If the ladder paradox is explained with special relativity, why do you say that "none of the usual SR expectations are valid".

Because in the situation that you are describing, the garage is stationary in a gravitational field. In the ladder paradox scenario, as described in the page you linked, there is no gravitational field. The situation you are envisaging is completely different from the ladder paradox.
Your other example is insufficiently specified to allow any analysis. We don't know what shape the track is, what the velocity of the train is, what's happening to the sides of the tracks etc etc. Thought experiments need to be very simple in order to be amenable to analysis. That one does not sound simple at all.

 

[Sisoeff]

Because in the situation that you are describing, the garage is stationary in a gravitational field. In the ladder paradox scenario, as described in the page you linked, there is no gravitational field.

Thank you Andrew.
Now I understand
I didn't know that the gravity defines a frame as non inertial.
If we put back the garage in an inertial frame and set the simultaneously closing and opening doors to send signals to the ladder/rocket in order to keep it moving, should I also provide all the information about the speed of the ladder, the speed of the doors and so on. Or the information in the initial thought experiment should be sufficient for your answer?

 

[A.T.]

send signals to the ladder/rocket in order to keep it moving

If the ladder doesn't always move at constant speed it's non-inertial as well. And different parts of the ladder will be moving at different speeds in some frames.

 

[jartsa]

How about this version of the thought experiment:

There are two counter rotating flywheels at opposite ends of a space station. The flywheels are stopped simultaneously in the space station frame, this operation does not tilt the space station in the space station frame. Does the space station tilt in a frame where the stopping of the flywheels was not simultaneous?

 

[A.T.]

How about this version of the thought experiment:

There are two counter rotating flywheels at opposite ends of a space station.

I don't think bringing in rotation makes it easier to analyze.

The flywheels are stopped simultaneously in the space station frame, this operation does not tilt the space station in the space station frame.

But it will twist the space station. The propagation of that twist through the structure will be different for different frames. The final orientation will be the same.

 

[jartsa]

A new version of my previous thought experiment:

There are two robotic arms at opposite ends of a space station. The arms are extended simultaneously in the space station frame, this operation does not displace the space station in the space station frame. Is the space station displaced in a frame where the extending of the arms is not simultaneous?

"Displaced" means displaced relative to another space station that is parked next to the space station.

 

[jartsa]

Hey now I think I have a nice thought experiment, not too different to OP's original one:

There are two folded solar panels at opposite ends of a space station. The panels are unfolded simultaneously in the space station frame, this operation does not cause sun light to apply any net torque on the space station in the space station frame.

Does sun light exert net torque on the space station in a frame where the unfolding of the panels is not simultaneous?

 

[Sisoeff]

Hey now I think I have a nice thought experiment, not too different to OP's original one:

There are two folded solar panels at opposite ends of a space station. The panels are unfolded simultaneously in the space station frame, this operation does not cause sun light to apply any net torque on the space station in the space station frame.

Does sun light exert net torque on the space station in a frame where the unfolding of the panels is not simultaneous?

Haha
I enjoy your enthusiasm and hope that your ideas help to solve the problem.
As I already said, there are countless examples (at leas to my understanding of the problem) that can be used.
Let's focus on only one
I'm sure that the masters in physics can think of all the inconsistencies and correct the experiment to the extent of explaining it or not having an answer.
I doubt it would be the late. We cannot be genius enough to refute Einstein ideas

 

[Sisoeff]

I'm writing a work about how we observe and how we perceive our surrounding, and I wanted to include some of the Special and General Relativity beauty in that regard. I have very basic knowledge about it, but I'm still amazed by Einstein's beautiful mind.
So, I had to do some reading to be able to include it in my work.
When I came to the relativity of simultaneity, I was confused by the fact, that Special Relativity allows the events to be missing, not accounting for the output.
It is my understanding that an event cannot go missing in another frame of reference. It could exist in later time, in another way, but falling tree must fall in all reference frames. Since simultaneity is an event, it should be existent in all reference frames.
Am I correct?

 

[PeterDonis]

simultaneity is an event

No, it isn't. "Simultaneity" means that two different events happen at the same time in a particular frame.

 

[Sisoeff]

No, it isn't. "Simultaneity" means that two different events happen at the same time in a particular frame.

Well this is more of a semantics than physics, but paying attention to semantics helps even in physics.
It depends how you look at it. It is true that we say "simultaneous events" but again, it is a way of expression.
All events correlate with the surrounding and have their effect on it.
A group of people jumping at the same time is one event, not thousands of events, because the output of group of people jumping at once is different from the output of all this people jumping separately. Think about the energy produced and the way it is distributed.
Therefore it is my understanding that simultaneous events should be treated as one event.
Well, this is how I see it, but I'm here to learn, not to teach

 

[Ibix]

The resolution to this one is fairly simple, I think. The barn cannot be perfectly rigid because if it were it would have an infinite speed of sound. What happens when the door closes is that the barn starts to sag from that end. A mechanical wave starts to propagate along the barn, with the bits behind the wave starting to sag and the bits ahead of the wave not yet sagging.

Of course, the same thing happens from the other end when that door closes. The two waves meet at the fulcrum. This is true in any frame.

One way of looking at this is that the barn starts to tip in every frame. It's just that it doesn't do it as a rigid body, and it starts to tip in opposite directions from opposite ends. If one of the doors fails to operate there will be no opposite mechanical wave and the whole shebang will be genuinely tipping from the moment the wave passes the fulcrum.

The same applies to jartsa's other examples - there is always mechanical distortion of the station propagating at finite speed (there is no way round this even in theory), and the distortion waves will always meet in the middle. Parts of the station recoil, but the whole thing never does.

 

[Ibix]

A group of people jumping at the same time is one event, not thousands of events, because the output of group of people jumping at once is different from the output of all this people jumping separately. Think about the energy produced and the way it is distributed.
Therefore it is my understanding that simultaneous events should be treated as on event.

No. Because those thousands of people are only jumping simultaneously in one frame. In any other it's like the barn doors - they jump at different times. Coloquially something like a crowd doing something is an event, but that is not correct physics terminology and you will get horribly confused if you try to use casual language in relativity.

 

[Sisoeff]

And because in my previous comment I mentioned "energy", I think that the easiest way to present the idea is:
Simultaneous events in one inertial frame are producing energy.
The simultaneity is not present in another inertial frame.
Where does the energy go?

 

[Ibix]

If they "produce energy" in one frame they produce energy in all. Unless you have a detailed countexample in mind...?

 

[PeterDonis]

this is more of a semantics than physics

If you think that, you need to really take a step back and review your physics.

A group of people jumping at the same time is one event

No, it isn't. An "event" is a point in spacetime. Each individual person's jump takes place at a different point in spacetime. Therefore they are different events.

This is not just "semantics" because the separation in spacetime between different events has physical implications: it means that there cannot be any direct "connection" between them. Any "connection" between different points in spacetime can only propagate causally, i.e., at the speed of light. That means that two events that are spacelike separated--which any pair of events which are simultaneous in any frame must be--cannot be causally connected.

Your entire analysis ignores this critical limitation. Ibix's responses are valid and you should really take some time to read and understand them.

Think about the energy produced and the way it is distributed.

Exactly: think about how the energy produced at one event (one individual person jumping) will propagate through spacetime. It must do so no faster than the speed of light. Again, take some time to read and understand Ibix's analysis; he is doing exactly what you describe, but he is doing it correctly, taking into account the separation in spacetime between different events.

 

[Nugatory]

Therefore it is my understanding that simultaneous events should be treated as one event.
Well, this is how I see it, but I'm here to learn, not to teach

An event is defined as a single point in spacetime. Thus, if two things happen at the same place and time that counts as one event. However, if they happen in different places that's always going to be two events; if the two events happen at different places but have the same time coordinate in some frame then we say that they are simultaneous in that frame.

 

[Sisoeff]

Thanks for the time taken to answer, Peter.
I'm not going to argue whether simultaneity is one or more events.
I just gave my understanding about it, and I apologize if my comment appeared like I was trying to teach you or enforce my opinion on you.
Lets focus on my question, and if you can help me, I'll be gone for the next few years

Would you tell me what do you think about this:
Simultaneous events in one inertial frame are producing energy.
The simultaneity is not present in another inertial frame.
Where does the energy go?

Ibix answer was:

If they "produce energy" in one frame they produce energy in all. Unless you have a detailed countexample in mind...?

It is a bit vague answer, but if understand it correct, then simultaneity is present in all frames. It is just seen differently. Which makes the relativity of simultaneity false.
Is that what are you guys saying?

 

[PeterDonis]

Would you tell me what do you think about this:

I think just what I said before: you are misunderstanding the physics because you are not taking into account the spacetime separation between events.

if understand it correct, then simultaneity is present in all frames. It is just seen differently. Which makes the relativity of simultaneity false.
Is that what are you guys saying?

No. We are saying that there is not one "energy" being produced by all the different people jumping at different events. If there are N people jumping, then there are N "packets" of energy being produced, each one at a different event in spacetime. Those N packets of energy are separate and you can't think of them as one thing; they aren't. The fact that the jumps are all simultaneous in one particular frame is irrelevant; they are still N separate things.

 

[Sisoeff]

Well, let me put it in a simple way, as I understand it, and then you tell me where am I wrong.
I see energy as information.
Different amount of energy transferred in certain time holds different information.
If in inertial frame A two simultaneous events release 2 joules of energy, and they are transferred to another inertial frame B in 1 second, that information would reveal part of the properties of frame A. That property would be: Inertial frame A releases 2 joules of energy per second.
Note that if frame B receives 1 joule per second because simultaneity does not exist in this frame, that information would be different and won't be part of the property of frame A.
If the simultaneous events in frame A do not exist in frame B, but frame B still gets the same information (2 joules per second), that would mean, that simultaneity exist, but is not seen in as such.
Hope that this make sense, and you'll have an easy way to guide me to better understanding.