On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 12:26 AM Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 10:11:19 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 11:55 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 9:11:38 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 9:42 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 5:02:00 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 5:45 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:29 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 1:51:26 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 3:09 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Two points: I don't see what this has to do with the question on THIS > thread, and I can't read your reference since it's way too small. AG\ > > > It has to do with your question "what's the justification for plotting a > single object moving wrt different frames on the same spacetime grid?" The > justification is that, as I said, each observer can certainly *measure* all > the objects involved, it's not like different frames are parallel universes > that each can only see objects at rest in that frame. They are just > different ways of assigning coordinates to the same set of local physical > facts about the same objects, like the firecracker exploding or the edge of > one object passing next to the edge of another. > > > I don't follow your meaning. I see each frame making independent > measurements when the observers are juxtaposed, and reach different > conclusions about fitting and not fitting. AG > > > Sure, they disagree about fitting, but each has a grid of coordinates > covering the same region of spacetime, which is used to plot the paths of > both the car and the garage in that region. Is that what you meant by > "plotting a single object ... on the same spacetime grid", or did you mean > something different? > > > As for the text, did you try clicking on the images to expand them? > > > I tried that. It didn't work. AG > > > If you are looking at the site using a mouse or trackpad, try > right-clicking on the images, and then when a menu pops up click an option > like "open image in new window". If you're using a touch screen you can try > just pressing down on an image with your finger until a menu like this pops > up. > > > > Anyway the reference was just to back up what I said in the paragraph > above about each observer assigning coordinates with their own ruler/clock > system, if you understood that part and have no objections then there's > probably no need to read the textbook images. > > > > Here's my problem with the alleged solution to the Car Parking Paradox; > diagreement about simultaneity means, IIUC, that the car can't fit and not > fit AT THE SAME TIME. > > > Not if "at the same time" means both frame agreeing on a common notion of > a single moment in time but disagreeing about what is happening at that > moment (as you say they don't have a common notion of a single moment in > time). But if John Clark did say that (I'd like to see the post to read his > exact words), he might have meant something else like "there is at least > one moment in the garage frame where the car is entirely inside the garage, > but at no single moment in the car frame is the car wholly inside the > garage", which doesn't require that they have a common definition of what > events happen in a "single moment". > > > This is how Clark defined the paradox. Well, since every frame in SR has > its own synchronized clocks, the concept of "at the same time" is > meaningless when it is applied to two frames in SR, and the lack of > simultaneity is a formal way of proving this. Now if the center of the > garage has an observer situated there, and there's an observer in the car, > the spacetime coordinates of the frames can be totally different in x and t > when the observers are juxtaposed, yet from the pov of car observer, the > car doesn't fit since it never does given the initial conditions of the > paradox. OTOH, from the pov of garage observer the car always fits. So, > when the car is at the center point of garage, the two observers are > juxtaposed with different coordinates. but the observers have diametrically > opposite conclusions. It doesn't matter that x and t, disagree with x' and > t'. So, IMO, the paradox is alive and well. AG > > > Does your statement "the paradox is alive and well" depend on that one > phrase about fitting/not fitting "at the same time"? > > > No. I stated that when juxtaposed, x, t and x', t' need not be identical. > The disagreement about simultaneity just applies to the time coordinate, > and it doen't matter if they are not identical when the observers are > juxtaposed, which is the only thing the simutaneity argument shows. AG > > > By "juxtaposed" do you mean when they assign coordinates to the same > event, like the event of the back of the car passing the entrance of the > garage, or the event of the front of the car passing the exit of the garage? > > > I mean when juxtaposed they do any measurements necessary, to show car > fitting in garage frame, but not car frame. For me this is a paradox. > Presumably you disagree. AG > > > If so, I'd agree the x, t assigned to each event by one observer will in > general be different from the x', t' assigned to each event by the other > observer, if that's all you're saying. > > > > That isn't the usual way of formulating the paradox, you can just say they > disagree about whether the car ever fits wholly inside the garage without > any words like "at the same time", > > > I was following Clark's definition of the paradox. I'm sure I'm not > misrepresenting what he meant, which was the paradox is based on a > misconception that the frames share the time coordinate value. AG > > > so if you are getting hung up on those words I'd recommend you just write > them off as a confusing and non-standard way of describing the problem. As > I always say, it's usually made clear explicitly or implicitly that the > "paradox" is about the danger that the disagreement about fitting would > lead to a disagreement about local physical facts like whether the closing > garage door hits the car, and the fact that the two frames don't agree on > simultaneity (or don't agree on the ordering of non-simultaneous events > with a spacelike separation) is the way to show how that danger is avoided, > and both frames can be in complete agreement about all local physical facts > despite the disagreement about whether the car ever fits. > > Jesse > > > You can set up your clocks and rulers any way you want in both frames, and > you'll find the car observer observes the car not filling and the garage > observer observes it fitting, when the observers are juxtaposed, and x, t, > need not be identical to x',t'. > > > Sure, if by "juxtaposed" you mean what I said above. > > > This is why I say the paradox is alive and well. Any objections? > > > I'd object to that because the mere fact that observers assign different > coordinates doesn't seem like a "paradox" to me. > > > That's not my claim. I am saying disagreement about simultaneity doesn't > resolve the paradox because when juxtaposed, the times can be different, > while the car fits in one frame and not in the other. AG > > > > So for you, the "paradox" is purely the idea that it fits in one frame but > doesn't fit in another? > > > > Do you think it's a paradox that different observers assign a different > velocity v and v' to the same object? > > > No; I think from any frame, the object in that frame will be at rest, > uncontracted, and will be in relative motion wrt the other frame. AG > > > But *why* do you say it's non-paradoxical for different frames to disagree > about velocity, but it is paradoxical for them to disagree about fitting? > Is it just an intuitive reaction to the second that's different from your > reaction to the first? To me they both seem like cases of "some statements > about physical objects are frame-dependent, so different frames can > disagree about them." > > > I accept the fact that different frames can make different measurements, > and the situation with v and v' might be an example of that, just like > measurements of E and B fields differ in different frames due to the > relative motion. What I don't accept is the argument using disagreement > about simultaneity resolves the paradox. > > > But WHAT IS "THE PARADOX"? Is it just that it fits in one frame and > doesn't in another, with no additional argument about why anyone else but > you should consider this fact alone to be a "paradox"? > > > I have been ridiculed for taking that position, but ISTM that showing such > a disagreement, just shows what we already knew; that clocks in different > frames do not necessarily agree on the time something occurs. In my model, > there's no reason to expect x and t to equal x' and t', > > > The x and t associated with any specific *localized* event (i.e. an event > occurring at a single point in spacetime) are not the same as the x' and t' > associated with that same event, for the most part (except for the event at > x=0, t=0), so in that sense I agree there's no reason to expect x and t to > equal x' and t' for any specific localized event. But the car fitting or > not fitting is not a specific localized event, it's a statement about a > multiple different localized events that are considered simultaneous in a > given frame (for example if there is a moment in a frame when the back of > the car is at a localized point x1 inside the garage at the same > t-coordinate as the front of the car being at a different localized point > x2 inside the garage, then the car is considered to fit according to that > frame). > > > > and yet with enough clocks and observers, the car will fit and not fit > depending on which observer / frame is doing the measuring. So what has the > disagreement about simultaneity yielded in resolving the paradox? Nothing! > Moreover, IMO, the disagreement about fitting IS the parodox. If not, what > do you think it is? AG > > > OK, what if someone said "the disagreement about speed IS the paradox", > but didn't have any additional argument about WHY they thought it was > paradoxical for different frames to judge speeds of objects differently? > Would you say they had any rational basis for their view that there was a > paradox there? > > > No, because I could point to relative velocity as the cause of the > disagreement, > > > "Relative velocity" is pretty much synonymous with different frames > disagreeing in their velocity/speed measurements, so it seems circular to > use the former to rebut the opinion of someone who thinks the latter is a > “paradox”. It's a bit like saying "relative length is the cause of the > disagreement about fitting". > > Any comment on the above? If someone finds it to be a "paradox" that different frames disagree about velocities, then pretty much by definition wouldn't they also find the idea of "relative velocity" to be paradoxical because this is the same idea in different words, so explaining the former in terms of the latter is circular? Similarly, since you find the idea of "the car fits in one frame but not another" to be paradoxical, presumably you find the idea of "relative length" (eg idea that different frames can disagree on which of two objects is longer) to be equally paradoxical, so explaining the fitting conflict by appealing to "relative length" would be a circular non-explanation for you. In short it seems like there's complete symmetry between how you would respond to any given attempt to say the frames' disagreement about fitting is non-paradoxical vs. how the hypothetical person I imagine above would respond to any attempt to say the frames' disagreement about velocity is non-paradoxical. I'm not seeing that you have any well-defined criteria that demand that one be seen as paradoxical while the other isn't, it just seems to be a matter of your personal intuitions. > > ultimately on the invariance of the SoL, AG > > > What does SoL stand for? > > > Speed of Light. AG > How would the *agreement* on different frames about the speed of light be an "explanation" for the person who thinks it's paradoxical that they disagree about sublight speeds? > > > > As to what *I* think the paradox is, this is something I have told you a > million times including earlier on the other thread and I even repeated it > earlier on this one, do you really not remember? > > > Sure; it's when there are contradictory results at some local event. In > the context of the alleged paradox, I don't see that the disagreement about > simultaneity proves anything, > > > Are you saying it doesn't prove anything about *your* version of the > paradox, or mine? > > > My version. AG > > > If the latter, I would say that disagreement about simultaneity (combined > with disagreement about order of spacelike separated events that are not > simultaneous in either frame) is crucial to understanding how they can > avoid contradictory predictions about some local event. > > > That might be true, but I don't understand it. AG > Don't understand how it answers your version of the paradox, or my version? If the latter, consider the scenario where the garage doors briefly close and open again, "at the same moment" when the car's midpoint is in the middle of the garage as defined by the garage frame's definition of simultaneity. In this case, do you understand the basic idea that the car frame says the back door closed and re-opened before the front door, and that this can explain why the car frame agrees about the local fact that neither door hits the car, despite the car being too big to fit fully inside the garage at any given moment? > > > since, if proven, it just tells us what we already knew; that fitting and > not fillting don't occur at the same time. OTOH, if the observers observe > different results when they're juxtaposed, it's a paradox IMO for the same > reason as if Clark's definition for a paradox was manifested; different > results at the same time. > > > But they aren't seeing different results at an agreed-upon "same time" > because they don't agree on which events at different locations happen at > the same time. > > > I never claimed that in my model they see different results because they > are simultaneous. I have been quite clear, I thought, that when the > observers are juxtaposed, they do NOT generally agree that t = t'. Why > should that be the case, when the frames have different coordinates? AG > Still not clear what you mean by "juxtaposed" or what you mean by t = t' ...did your last response to Brent where you realized that his two diagrams should technically be expressed with different coordinates clear up this specific issue? If this issue hasn't been resolved and the word "juxtaposed" is still important, since you said earlier that being juxtaposed just had to do with the sum total of measurements each observer makes to reach the conclusion "the car fit inside" or "the car didn't fit", does it actually matter if the measurements of the car observer share *any* events in common with the measurements of the garage observer, or could they be measurements on two different surfaces of simultaneity which don't intersect at any point along the body of the car or garage? Jesse > > > As for your last post on the other thread, I am still working on it. It > will take some time before I respond, but I will. AG > > > Sounds good--I hope you try the experiment of plugging in particular > combinations of x and t coordinates (or x' and t' coordinates) into the LT > equations as input to verify what I said about the resulting output. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c202270c-b1f4-4f38-8a74-9b79a721530bn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c202270c-b1f4-4f38-8a74-9b79a721530bn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3JF3PzE5cfhQEx0VcYst67ZimdP0LnevoYgUUvQ06VY_Q%40mail.gmail.com.
