On Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 11:54:26 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 11:25:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/25/2025 10:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 9:06:18 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/25/2025 6:34 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 6:47:22 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 8:07 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2024 at 2:01:28 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker
wrote:
>
> Nothing odd about dilation and contraction when you know its cause.
> But what is odd is the fact that each frame sees the result
> differently -- that the car fits in one frame, but not in the other --
> and you see nothing odd about that, that there's no objective reality
> despite the symmetry. AG
The facts are events in spacetime. There's an event F at which the
front of the car is even with the exit of the garage and there's an
event R at which the rear of the car is even with the entrance to the
garage. If R is before F we say the car fitted in the garage. If R is
after F we say the car did not fit. But if F and R are spacelike, then
there is no fact of the matter about their time order. The time order
will depend on the state of motion.
Brent
Jesse; it's the last two of Brent's sentences that I find ambiguous. What
does he mean?
What about them do you find ambiguous?
He's just saying that if there's a spacelike separation between the events
F and R (as there was in his numerical example), then you can find a frame
where R happens after F (as is true in the car frame where the car doesn't
fit), and another frame where F happens after R (as is true in the garage
frame where the car does fit).
*What does he mean by "But if F and R are spacelike, then there is no fact
of the matter about their time order."? (What you wrote above?) *
Brent writes > Yes. Just what Jesse wrote above. It means the two events
were so close together in time and distant in space that something would
have to travel faster than light to be at both of them.
*More important I just realized that in the frame of car fitting, the
events F and R aren't simultaneous, so how does one apply disagreement on
simultaneity when one starts with two events which are NOT simultaneous? AG*
Brent writes > That's why you should talk about events being
spacelike...the relativistic analogue of simultaneous.
*I'd like to do that. BUT if the Parking Paradox is allegedly solved by
star**ting in the garage frame where the car fits, the pair of events which
define fitting are not spacelike since they occur at different times! *
You didn't read the definition of "spacelike" that I wrote above. You want
everything fed to you in tiny bites of knowledge which you forget eight
lines later, so the questions start all over again.
Brent
*I read it, but didn't like it. Big difference. Maybe you should stop
trying to read my intentions. You may be smart, but reading my intentions
is way above your pay grade. How could two events with the same time
coordinate be referred as "so close together". Moreover, in all discussions
of solutions to the paradox, events that are simultaneous in one frame, are
shown not simultaneous in another frame. This being the case, the two
events of the car fitting in garage frame are simply NOT simultaneous!
Also, Jesse seems to be referring to different events than the ones you
refer to. So there's a muddle IMO. As a teacher, your preferred method is
to intimidate students. Grade now D+. AG *
*I know how spacelike separation is defined; there's no causal connection
between two events since the distance separation is greater than light can
travel between them. But my question is how to use this to solve the
paradox if starting from the car fitting in garage frame is defined by
events which are NOT spacelike separated. Instead of dumping shit on me,
why don't you be a decent teacher (not great, just decent) and try to
understand the question? AG*
*Which pair of events shall we use to allegedly solve the paradox? AG*
Spacelike is an *invariant* concept. It *does not* depend the reference
frame. If it's true in one frame, it's true in all. But the time order of
two spacelike events is frame dependent. So the same two spacelike events
F and R can be both simultaneous and not simultaneous. Changing from one
state of motion to another can reverse their time order. They can be in
the order F before R and also R before F. There will be some intermediate
state of motion that makes the two spacelike events simultaneous in that
particular reference frame. The car/garage paradox doesn't depend on that.
Brent
I also wonder what happens when we transform in the reverse direction from
the pov of simultaneity, from the car frame to the
garage frame? TY, AG
Brent didn't mention a direction in which the transformation is being
taken, but regardless of whether you start with the coordinates of F and R
in the garage frame and transform to the car frame, or start with the
coordinates of F and R in the car frame and transform to the garage frame,
you get the same answers about what the coordinates of these F and R are in
each frame. For instance if you start with the coordinates x,t of F in the
garage frame and apply the LT
*But don't you have to start with two events which are simultaneous in one
frame, to get a disagreement in simultaneity in a second frame, but F and R
are not simultaneous in car fitting frame? AG*
to get the coordinates x',t' of F in the car frame, then apply the LT to
x',t' (this time using a velocity of -0.8c rather than +0.8c since the
garage frame is moving in the -x direction as seen in the car frame) you
will get back the original coordinates x,t for the garage frame.
Jesse
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/430c81e2-0ee9-4456-a0af-a6d3429b9122n%40googlegroups.com.
