This is how this concept should be taught to everyone! 🤯 I've spent ages going through videos trying to understand, specifically how time dilation plays a role. This video nails it! 🙌 Thank you so much. I liked and subscribed. 👍
Indeed should have more traffic, this video made things so much more clearer connecting all thress aspects of length contraction, simultaneity and initial reference frames.
@@soulphysics Many instantaneous fields are known: nearfield gravity, electric field, magnetic field, nearfield light, and quantum entanglement, and they are completely incompatible with Relativity, which says nothing travels faster than light. The main problem is that it invalidates the Relativity of Simultaneity argument. This is because instantaneous fields propagate instantaneously to all inertial reference frames, thereby preserving simultaneity in all the frames. If you look at the Lorentz transforms and make c=infinity, then gamma equals one, and the Lorentz transforms becomes the Galilean transform, where space and time are independent and absolute, and space and time are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity. According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion. For more information see my post at the top.
I like how you open your eyes to the fullest extent all the time, It looks funny. Also good video, very intuitive, entertaining and easy to understand.
Simultaneity isn't about observers experiencing two separate events at different times depending on the velocity of both observers. Simultaneity is about recieving information about those two events not about the events themselves. A light signal from both events isn't the events themselves, it's only information about the events. So yes, two observers can receive information about the two events at two separate times.
Thanks for your kind words! I use Adobe: draw the images in Illustrator, then animate them in After Effects, then assemble everything in Premier Pro. I do edit them all myself.
Is it me or the animation at 3:25 is wrong? The light rays reach the character in the middle at the same time even when the platform is moving, so he's going to see the events at the same time. In the usual example, the person moving on the train sees one light first, and then the other because he hits one of the wave fronts first.
_"In the usual example, the person moving on the train sees one light first..."_ - He is describing a different scenario here, where the London kiss and the Paris kiss don't happen at the same time in the Earth's frame, but at the same time in the moving frame.
The time experienced is different but not the time of event. Obviously light will take more time to travel greater distance but how can we say that the events didn't occur simultaneously. For ex: two apples fall from tree , while your friend catches one of the apples 1 second before than you by jumping and you waited and took it 1 sec later then how can you say that both the events didn't occur simultaneously. Please elaborate this
In relativity, it's not the events themselves that are affected, but the way information about the events is perceived by different observers. The events themselves, in terms of their occurrence, are absolute (they happen in space and time), but how we interpret their timing, location, and order depends on our frame of reference. Key Points: 1. Events Are Absolute (They Happen) An event is something that occurs at a specific location and time in spacetime (e.g., an apple falling from a tree). The event itself-its occurrence-is independent of the observer. It happens at a specific point in spacetime. 2. What Relativity Affects: Perception of Timing and Location: Different observers (moving at different speeds relative to the event) will measure the time and location of the event differently. This is a result of the relativity of simultaneity, which tells us that events that appear simultaneous in one frame of reference may not appear simultaneous in another frame moving relative to the first. Speed of Information: The speed of light (information) is constant and the same for all observers, regardless of motion. This is a cornerstone of special relativity. What changes is how long it takes for the information about the event (the light or signals carrying information about the event) to reach the observer. The distance light must travel to reach the observer changes depending on the relative motion. For example, if an observer is moving towards the event, they’ll receive the information faster (because the distance the light has to travel decreases), and if they’re moving away, they’ll receive it slower (because the distance increases). 3. Relativity of Simultaneity: In relativity, the order of events can be perceived differently by observers moving relative to each other. For example, one observer might think Event A happens before Event B, while another observer might think Event B happens before Event A. This is because the information about when and where the events occur (like the light reaching the observer) takes different amounts of time for different observers due to their relative motion. Even though the events themselves are absolute (they occur at a specific time and place), the order and simultaneity of those events can seem different depending on the observer’s motion.
Wow, it's really kind a miracle, Can someones point of view, the French rebellion and the moon landing of apollo are actually happening simultaneosly? Or in maxiumum two events that happened 2 years apart at 2 light years distance, could be simultaneously for a observer if it moves at light speed.(which means there is a timespace limit for relativity of simultaneity)
Thanks for this! From your second comment I see you've understood the deal - it really is remarkable. On the first comment: it takes about 1 second for light to go from Paris to the moon, so the French revolution and the Apollo landing are too far separated for anyone to judge them to be simultaneous. They are "timelike separated events", in the language of the spacetime video th-cam.com/video/Ts7XLZC2sS8/w-d-xo.html
Hi Bryan, I have a question. (a different version of Bell's paradox) Imagine two planets tied with a rope, the two planets are stationary with respect to each other and the rope breaks if one of the two planets accelerates. In all other frames the length of the rope has a different value (because the speed of the two planets is the same in each frame), and obviously in the frame of the two planets the length of the rope is the maximum length. (in this frame the two planets and the rope are stationary) Now imagin a traveling astronaut. In the frame of the spaceship the two planets have the same speed and, if the spaceship accelerates in the frame of the two planets , the two planets also accelerate simultaneously in the spaceship frame. I consider the two events A and B, A: the leading planet accelerates B: the second planet accelerates From the planet's point of view, they don't care about what the astronaut is doing. (The distance of the other planet and the tension on the rope won't change at all, the rope does not break) Also from the astronaut's point of view the two planets accelerate simultaneously and the rope does not break. (all points of the rope accelerate simultaneously). But according to the Theory of Relativity the two events A and B are simultaneous only in one frame, while in some frames the rope must break. (if in these frames event A occurs before event B) And this situation seems paradoxical to me, that's all!
_"if the spaceship accelerates in the frame of the two planets , the two planets also accelerate simultaneously in the spaceship frame."_ - they don't appear to accelerate simultaneously. The planet that the ship is accelerating towards appears to accelerate more than the one it is accelerating away from. _"I consider the two events A and B, A: the leading planet accelerates, B: the second planet accelerates"_ - those are not physical events in your scenario. They are apparent effects only visible to the accelerating spaceship. Nothing happens on either planet.
@@massimilianodellaguzzo8571 _"t' = gamma * (t - vx/c^2)"_ - yes, for all events. Let's add some events to your scenario, so we can actually talk about them. Suppose the spaceship starts at the leading planet with zero speed. The distance between the planets is L. He switches on his engine at time t = t' = 0. That is event A. He accelerates all the way to the second planet, and there he switches off his engine. That is event B. Their relative speed is v at that moment. The time the journey took is Δt' = t'_B - t'_A = t'_B. The distance to the second planet was L at event A, and is zero at event B, so its apparent acceleration has been a_2 = 2 * L/(Δt')². That is based on the formula for constant acceleration x = 1/2 a t². The distance to the first planet was zero at event A, and is L/γ at event B (due to length contraction), so its apparent acceleration has been a_1 = 2 * L/(γ * (Δt')²). The two planets had different apparent acceleration during the journey.
the speed of light is so fast, no one could possibly see a chronological order in respect to wich of the two lightbeams reaches the observer inside and in the middle of the train, from an outsider viewpoint (observer on a platform). Doesnt this observation then have much more to do with the 'strechting of the moment' in stead of the difference in distance that the lightbeams have to travel? ow well, these two are the same thing, right...
Thanks! You're right that this is just a thought experiment. But, real experiments are also possible using interference patterns! Instead of a single photon, what is generally emitted is a light wave, or sequence of pulses, which interfere in different ways determined by the relativity of simultaneity. ⚡️
It might seem wrong, but it is correct according to Einstein's (plausible )definition of simultaneity. You seem to be suggesting that you have a different definition of simultaneity. But, I fear there are not very many reasonable alternatives!
1:35 Using this scenario of simultaneous light flashes... Put an explosive in the middle. It will be triggered only by simultaneous receiving of the light flashes. In the stationary frame, it will always explode. A MOVING simultaneous-triggered explosive will never measure simultaneous flash and conclude the flashes are never simultaneous... BUT, the stationary frame always explodes. Einstein said that we cannot attach any ABSOLUTE signification to the concept of simultaneity. What did he mean by that? Sure, they have different viewpoints on the simultaneity of the light flashes, but nature ALWAYS explodes the stationary system. Both answers are NOT correct, which is what the Principle Of Relativity states -- ""all frames of reference are valid for which the equations of mechanics hold good." Again, the frames do NOT agree on simultaneity AND only 1 answer is correct, instead of both answers correct.
_"A MOVING simultaneous-triggered explosive will never measure simultaneous flash and conclude the flashes are never simultaneous"_ - if the two flashes arrive at the explosive at the same time, the explosive will explode. Also in the moving frame. In the moving frame, the light flash that is generated first has a longer way to go. _"What did he mean by that? "_ - he meant what is explained in the video. Whether two (separated) events are judged to be simultaneous is relative: it depends on the observer. _"the frames do NOT agree on simultaneity"_ - they do not agree that the flashes are generated at the same time. They DO agree that they arrive at the explosive at the same time. _"only 1 answer is correct, instead of both answers correct"_ - both answers are correct, because they both describe the physical events correctly: the light pulses arrive at the bomb at the same time, and it explodes.
Many instantaneous fields are known: nearfield gravity, electric field, magnetic field, nearfield light, and quantum entanglement, and they are completely incompatible with Relativity, which says nothing travels faster than light. The main problem is that it invalidates the Relativity of Simultaneity argument. This is because instantaneous fields propagate instantaneously to all inertial reference frames, thereby preserving simultaneity in all the frames. If you look at the Lorentz transforms and make c=infinity, then gamma equals one, and the Lorentz transforms becomes the Galilean transform, where space and time are independent and absolute, and space and time are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity. According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion. This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics. *TH-cam presentation of above argument: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html *Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
Relativity of simultaneity is a myth. The only thing that matters is the position of the source of light relative to the point where it is observed at the time the light is emitted. If frame of reference S' is in motion relative to frame of reference S, and light is emitted ahead of and behind an observer in S' at equal distances, simultaneously in frame of reference S, then the light is observed in S' as being simultaneous also. The reason for this is because light travels to an observer from the point where it is emitted, regardless of the motion of the source of light relative to the observer. All we need to do is consider the problem from the frame of reference of the observer in S'. Einstein says that light from the source in front of the observer will reach the observer before the light from the source behind the observer because the observer is moving toward that source of light and away from the other. This is a fallacy that relates to Isaac Newton's idea of absolute time. As seen from the position of the observer in S', the sources of light in S are moving relative to him. If the lights are turned on simultaneously in S, they are seen in S' at the same time because the first light emitted from each source is at an equal distance from the observer in S'. While the light from the source in front of the train may be brighter, it will reach the observer at the same time as the light from behind the observer because the distance in S' is the same at the time the first light is emitted in S'. The distance to the observer from the point where light was emitted in his frame of reference does not change just because the source of light is moving relative to his frame of reference. The first photon from the light in front of the observer reaches the observer at the same time as the first photon from the light behind the observer because the distance was the same when the photons were emitted, and they are both traveling at c = 186,000 miles per second in frame of reference S'. So the observer does not see the photon from in front of him first, as "Einstein concludes. He sees the flashes of light at the same time, but the one from in front of him is brighter.
3:31 - "Who fell in love first?" 🤣 When TH-cam has a physicists who is also a comedian. Excllent explanation with the "car and garage" connecting length contraction with simultaneity and particular observer, everyone else talking about a ladder going through a barn made no sense to me 🤣7:58 - 🤣
This series about SR is really exceptionally well designed. You should have continued with the GR part, too bad!
This is how this concept should be taught to everyone! 🤯 I've spent ages going through videos trying to understand, specifically how time dilation plays a role. This video nails it! 🙌 Thank you so much. I liked and subscribed. 👍
Brilliant video, thanks. It made it so clear. You should have many more subscribers.
Indeed should have more traffic, this video made things so much more clearer connecting all thress aspects of length contraction, simultaneity and initial reference frames.
I was not understanding this by reading textbooks, you helped me so much, thank you.
My pleasure!
@@soulphysics Many instantaneous fields are known: nearfield gravity, electric field, magnetic field, nearfield light, and quantum entanglement, and they are completely incompatible with Relativity, which says nothing travels faster than light. The main problem is that it invalidates the Relativity of Simultaneity argument. This is because instantaneous fields propagate instantaneously to all inertial reference frames, thereby preserving simultaneity in all the frames. If you look at the Lorentz transforms and make c=infinity, then gamma equals one, and the Lorentz transforms becomes the Galilean transform, where space and time are independent and absolute, and space and time are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity.
According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.
Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.
For more information see my post at the top.
Amazing content with fantastic explanation. You deserve even more subscribers and viewers.
Thanks for creating so helpful content.
Thanks for watching!
@@soulphysics My Pleasure!
I like how you open your eyes to the fullest extent all the time, It looks funny. Also good video, very intuitive, entertaining and easy to understand.
😳Thanks, I think!
This has been a very difficult concept for me to understand. Thankfully, this is one of the better videos out there.
Thanks for your support! Hoping to do another round of videos this summer.
Fun to watch and easy to understand, thank you!!☺
I’m not clear on why the further door actuated first. Can you explain that please?
Simultaneity isn't about observers experiencing two separate events at different times depending on the velocity of both observers. Simultaneity is about recieving information about those two events not about the events themselves. A light signal from both events isn't the events themselves, it's only information about the events. So yes, two observers can receive information about the two events at two separate times.
Incredible!! You're so underrated
excellent work !. Which software do you use to make these videos ? Do you edit the videos yourself ?
Thanks for your kind words! I use Adobe: draw the images in Illustrator, then animate them in After Effects, then assemble everything in Premier Pro. I do edit them all myself.
wow why this video hasn't blown yet
Good, simple explanation 👍👍
Is it me or the animation at 3:25 is wrong? The light rays reach the character in the middle at the same time even when the platform is moving, so he's going to see the events at the same time. In the usual example, the person moving on the train sees one light first, and then the other because he hits one of the wave fronts first.
_"In the usual example, the person moving on the train sees one light first..."_ - He is describing a different scenario here, where the London kiss and the Paris kiss don't happen at the same time in the Earth's frame, but at the same time in the moving frame.
The time experienced is different but not the time of event. Obviously light will take more time to travel greater distance but how can we say that the events didn't occur simultaneously. For ex: two apples fall from tree , while your friend catches one of the apples 1 second before than you by jumping and you waited and took it 1 sec later then how can you say that both the events didn't occur simultaneously. Please elaborate this
In relativity, it's not the events themselves that are affected, but the way information about the events is perceived by different observers. The events themselves, in terms of their occurrence, are absolute (they happen in space and time), but how we interpret their timing, location, and order depends on our frame of reference.
Key Points:
1. Events Are Absolute (They Happen)
An event is something that occurs at a specific location and time in spacetime (e.g., an apple falling from a tree).
The event itself-its occurrence-is independent of the observer. It happens at a specific point in spacetime.
2. What Relativity Affects:
Perception of Timing and Location:
Different observers (moving at different speeds relative to the event) will measure the time and location of the event differently.
This is a result of the relativity of simultaneity, which tells us that events that appear simultaneous in one frame of reference may not appear simultaneous in another frame moving relative to the first.
Speed of Information:
The speed of light (information) is constant and the same for all observers, regardless of motion. This is a cornerstone of special relativity.
What changes is how long it takes for the information about the event (the light or signals carrying information about the event) to reach the observer.
The distance light must travel to reach the observer changes depending on the relative motion. For example, if an observer is moving towards the event, they’ll receive the information faster (because the distance the light has to travel decreases), and if they’re moving away, they’ll receive it slower (because the distance increases).
3. Relativity of Simultaneity:
In relativity, the order of events can be perceived differently by observers moving relative to each other.
For example, one observer might think Event A happens before Event B, while another observer might think Event B happens before Event A.
This is because the information about when and where the events occur (like the light reaching the observer) takes different amounts of time for different observers due to their relative motion.
Even though the events themselves are absolute (they occur at a specific time and place), the order and simultaneity of those events can seem different depending on the observer’s motion.
@yuvrajgill485 Exactly. Perceiving the events would be different.
why did you choose (root3 / 2)c as the speed? Just curios . . nice math workout?
Wow, it's really kind a miracle, Can someones point of view, the French rebellion and the moon landing of apollo are actually happening simultaneosly? Or in maxiumum two events that happened 2 years apart at 2 light years distance, could be simultaneously for a observer if it moves at light speed.(which means there is a timespace limit for relativity of simultaneity)
Thanks for this! From your second comment I see you've understood the deal - it really is remarkable. On the first comment: it takes about 1 second for light to go from Paris to the moon, so the French revolution and the Apollo landing are too far separated for anyone to judge them to be simultaneous. They are "timelike separated events", in the language of the spacetime video th-cam.com/video/Ts7XLZC2sS8/w-d-xo.html
Hi Bryan, I have a question. (a different version of Bell's paradox)
Imagine two planets tied with a rope, the two planets are stationary with respect to each other and the rope breaks if one of the two planets accelerates.
In all other frames the length of the rope has a different value (because the speed of the two planets is the same in each frame), and obviously in the frame of the two planets the length of the rope is the maximum length. (in this frame the two planets and the rope are stationary)
Now imagin a traveling astronaut.
In the frame of the spaceship the two planets have the same speed and, if the spaceship accelerates in the frame of the two planets , the two planets also accelerate simultaneously in the spaceship frame.
I consider the two events A and B,
A: the leading planet accelerates
B: the second planet accelerates
From the planet's point of view, they don't care about what the astronaut is doing. (The distance of the other planet and the tension on the rope won't change at all, the rope does not break) Also from the astronaut's point of view the two planets accelerate simultaneously and the rope does not break. (all points of the rope accelerate simultaneously).
But according to the Theory of Relativity the two events A and B are simultaneous only in one frame, while in some frames the rope must break. (if in these frames event A occurs before event B)
And this situation seems paradoxical to me, that's all!
_"if the spaceship accelerates in the frame of the two planets , the two planets also accelerate simultaneously in the spaceship frame."_ - they don't appear to accelerate simultaneously. The planet that the ship is accelerating towards appears to accelerate more than the one it is accelerating away from.
_"I consider the two events A and B, A: the leading planet accelerates, B: the second planet accelerates"_ - those are not physical events in your scenario. They are apparent effects only visible to the accelerating spaceship. Nothing happens on either planet.
@@renedekker9806 Ok, t' = gamma * (t - vx/c^2) ! We talked about it ...
@@massimilianodellaguzzo8571 _"t' = gamma * (t - vx/c^2)"_ - yes, for all events.
Let's add some events to your scenario, so we can actually talk about them. Suppose the spaceship starts at the leading planet with zero speed. The distance between the planets is L. He switches on his engine at time t = t' = 0. That is event A. He accelerates all the way to the second planet, and there he switches off his engine. That is event B. Their relative speed is v at that moment. The time the journey took is Δt' = t'_B - t'_A = t'_B.
The distance to the second planet was L at event A, and is zero at event B, so its apparent acceleration has been a_2 = 2 * L/(Δt')². That is based on the formula for constant acceleration x = 1/2 a t².
The distance to the first planet was zero at event A, and is L/γ at event B (due to length contraction), so its apparent acceleration has been a_1 = 2 * L/(γ * (Δt')²).
The two planets had different apparent acceleration during the journey.
This keeps me awake at night
What experiment can be used to actually measure relativity of simultaneity? Google doesn't seem to have an answer.
the speed of light is so fast, no one could possibly see a chronological order in respect to wich of the two lightbeams reaches the observer inside and in the middle of the train, from an outsider viewpoint (observer on a platform). Doesnt this observation then have much more to do with the 'strechting of the moment' in stead of the difference in distance that the lightbeams have to travel? ow well, these two are the same thing, right...
Thanks! You're right that this is just a thought experiment. But, real experiments are also possible using interference patterns! Instead of a single photon, what is generally emitted is a light wave, or sequence of pulses, which interfere in different ways determined by the relativity of simultaneity. ⚡️
Einstein was Time Magazine's person of the century.
Einstein was really stupid because he came up with this schizophrenic theory.
But time is relative soooo... I guess whether or not he was the person of the century depends on whom you ask :p
@@Daymjo Time is not relative at all. That was an Einstein's great mistake.
@@Mnemonic-X so what is it? so you believes that time is absolute?
@@Mnemonic-X_"Time is not relative at all"_ - so, how do YOU explain the constant speed of light?
amazing explanation wow
Das ist falsch der Beobachter in der Mitte müsste sich bewegen damit er eine andere Wahrnehmung davon bekommt
It might seem wrong, but it is correct according to Einstein's (plausible )definition of simultaneity. You seem to be suggesting that you have a different definition of simultaneity. But, I fear there are not very many reasonable alternatives!
1:35 Using this scenario of simultaneous light flashes... Put an explosive in the middle. It will be triggered only by simultaneous receiving of the light flashes. In the stationary frame, it will always explode. A MOVING simultaneous-triggered explosive will never measure simultaneous flash and conclude the flashes are never simultaneous... BUT, the stationary frame always explodes. Einstein said that we cannot attach any ABSOLUTE signification to the concept of simultaneity. What did he mean by that? Sure, they have different viewpoints on the simultaneity of the light flashes, but nature ALWAYS explodes the stationary system. Both answers are NOT correct, which is what the Principle Of Relativity states -- ""all frames of reference are valid for which the equations of mechanics hold good." Again, the frames do NOT agree on simultaneity AND only 1 answer is correct, instead of both answers correct.
_"A MOVING simultaneous-triggered explosive will never measure simultaneous flash and conclude the flashes are never simultaneous"_ - if the two flashes arrive at the explosive at the same time, the explosive will explode. Also in the moving frame. In the moving frame, the light flash that is generated first has a longer way to go.
_"What did he mean by that? "_ - he meant what is explained in the video. Whether two (separated) events are judged to be simultaneous is relative: it depends on the observer.
_"the frames do NOT agree on simultaneity"_ - they do not agree that the flashes are generated at the same time. They DO agree that they arrive at the explosive at the same time.
_"only 1 answer is correct, instead of both answers correct"_ - both answers are correct, because they both describe the physical events correctly: the light pulses arrive at the bomb at the same time, and it explodes.
Many instantaneous fields are known: nearfield gravity, electric field, magnetic field, nearfield light, and quantum entanglement, and they are completely incompatible with Relativity, which says nothing travels faster than light. The main problem is that it invalidates the Relativity of Simultaneity argument. This is because instantaneous fields propagate instantaneously to all inertial reference frames, thereby preserving simultaneity in all the frames. If you look at the Lorentz transforms and make c=infinity, then gamma equals one, and the Lorentz transforms becomes the Galilean transform, where space and time are independent and absolute, and space and time are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity.
According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.
Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.
This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO.
Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.
The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics.
*TH-cam presentation of above argument:
th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
Relativity of simultaneity is a myth. The only thing that matters is the position of the source of light relative to the point where it is observed at the time the light is emitted. If frame of reference S' is in motion relative to frame of reference S, and light is emitted ahead of and behind an observer in S' at equal distances, simultaneously in frame of reference S, then the light is observed in S' as being simultaneous also. The reason for this is because light travels to an observer from the point where it is emitted, regardless of the motion of the source of light relative to the observer. All we need to do is consider the problem from the frame of reference of the observer in S'. Einstein says that light from the source in front of the observer will reach the observer before the light from the source behind the observer because the observer is moving toward that source of light and away from the other. This is a fallacy that relates to Isaac Newton's idea of absolute time. As seen from the position of the observer in S', the sources of light in S are moving relative to him. If the lights are turned on simultaneously in S, they are seen in S' at the same time because the first light emitted from each source is at an equal distance from the observer in S'. While the light from the source in front of the train may be brighter, it will reach the observer at the same time as the light from behind the observer because the distance in S' is the same at the time the first light is emitted in S'. The distance to the observer from the point where light was emitted in his frame of reference does not change just because the source of light is moving relative to his frame of reference. The first photon from the light in front of the observer reaches the observer at the same time as the first photon from the light behind the observer because the distance was the same when the photons were emitted, and they are both traveling at c = 186,000 miles per second in frame of reference S'. So the observer does not see the photon from in front of him first, as "Einstein concludes. He sees the flashes of light at the same time, but the one from in front of him is brighter.
Fascinating take, may I ask you physics background while I contemplate your argument.
Wtf
3:31 - "Who fell in love first?" 🤣 When TH-cam has a physicists who is also a comedian. Excllent explanation with the "car and garage" connecting length contraction with simultaneity and particular observer, everyone else talking about a ladder going through a barn made no sense to me 🤣7:58 - 🤣