Relativity and shrinkage

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Celpha Fiael, Aug 24, 2007.

  1. Celpha Fiael within reason, I am superman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    I read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos a while back and am trying to reacquiant myself with physics principles he talks of in there. The one I am specifically thinking of is how relativity explains how/why things would visually "shrink" as they approach the speed of light. Anybody care to help out (I'm too lazy right now to go back and search for the particular section

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )? 'preciate it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Hi Celpha,
    Relativity says that time and space are much the same thing, considered from different perspectives (or 'reference frames').

    If you and I move past each other at high speeds, then we have different perspectives of things. For example, if two event happen at the same time from my perspective, they don't necessarily happen at the same time from your perspective. If two events happen at the same time for me, then for you it depends on how far apart they are in our direction of travel.

    Let's say we want to measure each others cars as we pass. I set up cameras all along my car, pointing to the side, and I'll set them all off at the same time as you pass. You do the same with cameras on your car.

    When my cameras fire, they flash all at the same time from my perspective, but not from your perspective. From your perspective, the camera at the back of my car fires first, then each one in turn with the front camera firing last. This means that my cameras will "measure" your car as being shorter than my car.

    The same thing happens in reverse for your cameras. They flash at the same time from your perspective, but not from my perspective, so you measure my car as being shorter than yours.


    Now... be careful. This isn't about what we see. I don't see my cameras all flash at the same time, because the light from each flash takes a short time to reach me. If I'm in the middle of the car, I'll see the middle flash first, and the front & back flashes together a little later. If I want to check that they fired all together, I'll have to allow for the time it took for the light to reach me first.


    This also means that you don't necessarily see the length contraction visually.
    What you see is more complicated! You can read more here if you like: Can You See the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    I thought it had something to do with being immersed in cold water.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Jerry: Do women know about shrinkage?
    Elaine: What do you mean like laundry?
    Jerry: No, like when a man goes swimming afterwards.
    Elaine: It shrinks?
    Jerry: Like a frightened turtle!
    Elaine: Why does it shrink?
    George Costanza: It just does.
    Elaine: I don't know how you guys walk around with those things.
     
  8. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    I did not understand your description of the perception of length shrinkage.

    Please describe in greater detail what a distant and stationary observer sees as a moving object approaches, passes, and leaves the stationary observer.
     
  9. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    Lorentz contraction, time dilation, relativity of simutaneity.... These are about what actually is, in the understanding of a particular observer. Now for a long time it was erroneously thought that these gave an accurate picture of what was visually seen. It wasn't untill the 1950's that a researcher (don't recall his name atm) pointed out that since visual appearance depends on the photons that arrive at the eye at a particular instant and not the photons that were all emmited at a particular instant, the visual appearance is quite different.

    >>edit I should have just read the link. It explains better than I do. And it was two researchers, Penrose and Terrell.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2007
  10. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    At the risk of being doubly redundant, I requesrst that Pete please describe in greater detail what a distant and stationary observer sees as a moving object approaches, passes, and leaves the stationary observer.

    Perhaps Pete has (conveniently) left the building?
     
  11. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Patience, CANGAS. You've been away for almost 3 months, surely you can wait a couple of hours for a reply.

    Relativistic optics at the ANU
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2007
  12. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Maybe it just gets colder...
     
  13. Klippymitch Thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    699
    It doesn't shrink it spreads but doesn't grow. It occupies more space while containing the same amount of mass of the original area.

    Well actually that is shrinking in a way

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But the value is still the same.
     
  14. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    eteP, your link was no help at all. Cangas thanks you for trying the best you know how to clearly explain a baffling matter.

    Did I write your name backwards just then? Maybe I have aixelsyd. CANGAS says sorry.

    I think it would be best if you would explain in your own words, step by step, in exact detail how travel time of photons from an observed object to an observers eye results in the apparition of length contraction. Imagine that I am a small child with no physics education. Imagine that you are trying to explain to my little baby head this baffling thing. Assuming that you actually do understand it yourself, as you seem to claim, it may be wonderfully simple to my little baby head once a real exprt has clearly explained it.

    And please be sure to comprehensively explain how the photon travel time causes the visual illusion when the moving object is approaching, is directly in front of the observer, and then is going away.

    I trust that you have long ago carefully and accurately drawn diagrams of these things and have precisely determined the relationship between the actual condition of the moving object versus the visual recognition observed.

    I am eagerly and thankfully awaiting patiently for your description in your own words of the Einstein Special Relativity length contraction.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    CANGAS:

    You seem to be conflating two separate effects: the measured length on a moving object and the way that object appears to an observer receiving light from it.

    Which effect do you wish to know about? And what are your points of confusion?
     
  16. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    James r: When the Pete can't answer the question, you come to the rescue?

    My previous post(s) amply covered my dilema after the inadequacy of eteP's ( oops, I did it again; my aixelsyd self is really sorry!).

    Read my previous posts and then please try to adequately answer my previously stated questions. (Hopefully assuming that you can. ).

    Thanks to your generous self ever so much in advance.
     
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Sorry CANGAS, I have no idea what you're confused about. Can you explain a little more clearly what the problem is?
    And please, spell my name properly.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I posted before Pete even attempted to answer the question.

    This is the great thing about sciforums: it's democratic. Anybody capable of answering a question can contribute.

    If you prefer to talk to just one person, try sending them a personal message, instead of posting in the public forums.

    Ok. It looks like you're conflating two separate issues, as I said in my previous post. So, now you need to provide me with more information about your understanding, so I can better assist you.

    So...?
     
  19. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Can I clear this up?

    Objects don't "shrink" when they're travelling very fast. Yes, length contraction will be observed, but it doesn't actually occur. There's a subtle but important difference. The best way I can illustrate this is through a little thought experiment:

    Imagine yourself flashing head-first past the earth at .99c. We use √(1-v²/c²) to work out that you experience a sevenfold length contraction - multiply .99 by itself to get .98 and subtract this from one to get a fiftieth, which is roughly a seventh multiplied by a seventh. So when I look at you, you look less than a foot tall. But when you look at me, I look less than a foot tall too. Moreover, when you look at the earth, it looks flattened, something like a frisbee. But that just how it looks to you, not how it is. The earth didn't flatten into a frisbee because you flashed by.

    The best way to think of all this is that the length contraction is a "trick of perspective". If you and I are separated by distance, we each look small to one another. But we don't go round thinking that we are smaller. We know it's a trick of perspective. Length contraction is a similar trick of perspective, that applies when we are separated by velocity.

    If I can add this: in the end, your observations are the only reality you've got. But that's not to say that your observations are giving you a faithful picture of reality. Things can get somewhat distorted, but that's Relativity for you.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2007
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Hi Farsight,
    You are welcome to your opinion of things, of course. But you aren't welcome to present yourself as an authority on reality.

    Actually, SR says that you would not directly observe length contraction.
    A highway scene like this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Would look this this to something passing by at 0.76c:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You can see a lot of things in that picture, but length contraction doesn't jump out.

    What length contraction means in SR is best described by the barn and pole.
    If a long rod passes through a short barn at high enough speed, then both doors of the barn (front and rear) can close simultaneously while the pole is inside and open again without touching the pole. Relativity FAQ

    Or try it like this: as I pass you, you measure my speed and the time it takes for me to go past. From those measurements, you can figure out my length.
    SR says that the length you figure will be contracted from my proper length.

    SR says The Earth doesn't change because something passes by.
    SR says that the Earth is always a flattened frisbee shape in that frame of reference (right know, the Earth is a flattened frisbee shape), just as it is always (close to) spherical in its own frame of reference. The presence or otherwise of some object or observer in a given frame of reference is irrelevant.

    Length and shape are frame dependent, just as position is. Your length is always two feet in some reference frame, just as your position is always (0,0,0) in some reference frame.
     
  21. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    The tragedy of the crossed eye cop . . .

    CANGAS,
    Perhaps you are familiar with the tragic story of the dyslexic policeman who spent his entire law enforcement career looking for IUDs.:shrug:
     
  22. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Thanks to you all for murkying up this issue almost insurmountably.

    In a serious physics forum ( or this one ), we would hope to read serious comments and not Petes or Jame Rs jokes.

    Is the Special Relativity length contraction a real thing or merely a visual illusion?

    The representatives of this physics forum ( Pete ( spelled properly?) and James R ) have been formidably oblique.

    We are prompted to conclude that either they do not know or that they deathly afraid to say what they believe.
     
  23. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    The success of Special Relativity was based upon the alledged failure of MM 1880s and the alledged success of the Einstein Special Relativity length contraction of the arm of the interferometer.

    If the length contraction is merely a visual illusion, MM1880s is not satisfactorily explained.
     

Share This Page