Relativity of SIMULTANEITY How People get it WRONG!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มิ.ย. 2024
- This video demonstrates famous Einstein's thought experiment with the train and two lightning strikes where he concluded that simultaneity can't be absolute and must be relative. This demonstration very nicely shows how logical thinking should be conducted in physics.
video from the girl: • Video
credit for vector graphics used in this video goes to:
www.freepik.com/vectors/flat-...
Flat tree vector created by freepik - www.freepik.com
www.freepik.com/vectors/chara...
Character pack vector created by pikisuperstar - www.freepik.com
www.freepik.com/vectors/grass...
Grass illustration vector created by pch.vector - www.freepik.com
If you enjoyed this video you can buy me a coffee here www.buymeacoffee.com/pprobnsol Much appreciated :)
What if there was a detector in the middle that explodes if the lights were not simultaneous and doesn't explode if it was simultaneous, wouldn't the train be destroyed and not destroyed in different perspectives? how does GR deal with this?
Great question... (you put us on the trap)
But wait the signals from the ends of the train to the detector is governed by the speed of light & the time dilation & the disturbed hairstyle einstein will find the way to get out of this trap
Well, if the detector is on the train, it will definitely go off. If instead it's stationary, it won't go off. The detector will measure things from its own reference frame
Very good question. To answer it, it would be necessary to specify in which of the reference systems the detector is at rest.
If we shift the frames, the train is not moving. The observer is on the ground is.
This is difficult.
You have any comments of what Float Head Physics says about it?
So to preserve the postulates you reject object permanence? Object permanence is on of the first physical lessons an infant learns… an object that exists will continue to exist even when unobserved. On this principle you can know an object might have existed before you became aware of it too.
The lightning on the left either existed before, during OR after the lightning existed on the right (or perhaps there was overlap). But this idea of “things are what they are” is thrown out to keep the postulates because their consequences is that the lightning on the left exists before, during, AND after the lightning on the right. And I don’t mean the whole time or anything involving overlap; I mean each is true exclusively from the others being true. To put this in negative terms makes it more clear what I mean: the lightning on the left didn’t exist before (because it existed during or after), didn’t exist during (because it existed before or after), and didn’t exist after (because it existed before and during) the lighting on the right.
I can understand that the nature of light makes it impossible to determine if the left existed before during, or after the right, but to state all three are true is to abandon logic (the machine used to determine the consequences of the postulates) and reason.
This is what puts Universal Specificity and other theories that accept light is only constant in all directions in a single inertial frame on better footing… it makes sense of why you can’t determine before, during, or after in this case without abandoning logic.
Relativity isn’t the only option here, but it is clearly an illogical option.
start with your assumptions and see where it goes.
I start with the postulates of special relativity
Had to watch it 3 times in conjunction with the prev video before getting it
if anything is still unclear just ask :)
This is my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong. At 2:18 you say that light travels the same speed in both directions, but light is not instantaneous, it's 300KKPS, as you said. If you are moving towards the source of one of those lights, no matter your speed, it will have to reach you first. You are not moving faster than the other source, it will reach you very soon but at the same time you are moving towards a light source that is moving towards you and thus reducing time of collision. Just like a car travelling at 100kmh vs another at the same speed towards it. They are both travelling at the same speed but they will collide sooner than if one was travelling at 100kmh and the other at 3kmh. Also, it's not true that nothing can travel faster than light, as we all know, the universe (space-time) is expanding faster than the speed of light.
but space-time is not travelling within space-time, so that does not count.
It was a nice idea to combine the two postulates of relativity, a logical machine and the relativity of simultaneity. OK, it's good...
I like it from 0:22 to 0:24 ... :)
I hope it's not just that part :D
@@lukasrafajpps Of course I enjoyed the whole video, but to consider logic as " Logic Machine " is really nice. And I also have more to tell you. (I like to share my ideas with you)
The relativity of simultaneity is right, but in my opinion it makes no sense to imagine what happens in the frame of the train when you consider the train moving in the frame of the station.
We will talk more about it in the future regarding the twin paradox, even in that case we have to consider the synchronization of the clocks.
... A spaceship moves in the frame of the Earth, and travels a distance L. (to reach a star S, suppose the Earth-star distance is L in the frame of the Earth)
The nose of the spaceship (the astronaut twin) and the twin on Earth occupy the same position at the initial times (t = t’ = 0)
... and the twins are in relative motion to each other at speed v.
If we consider the uniform linear motion of the spaceship in the frame of the Earth:
1) the astronaut twin reaches the star S at time t = L/v,
2) the star S reaches the astronaut twin at time t’ = L / (gamma*v)
In my opinion if we consider the uniform linear motion of the Earth in the frame of the spaceship, then we need to consider something else: in this case it is necessary to consider the uniform linear motion of the star S in the frame of the spaceship.
And if we consider the uniform linear motion of the star S in the frame of the spaceship:
1) the star S reaches the astronaut twin at time t’ = L/v
2) the spaceship reaches the star S at time t = L / (gamma*v)
It is clear that in the frame of the spaceship the Earth-star distance is contracted (and we must take into account the relativity of simultaneity), but I think this is " as an illusion ". If we consider the uniform linear motion of the Earth, we must consider the uniform linear motion (hidden) of the star in the frame of the spaceship.
If we consider the uniform linear motion of the spaceship in the frame of the Earth the Earth-star distance contracts in the frame of the spaceship, but if we consider the uniform linear motion of the star in the frame of the spaceship … the L distance contracts in the frame of the Earth !
The uniform linear motion of the spaceship (in the frame of the Earth) and the uniform linear motion of the Earth (in the frame of the spaceship) both occur, but in my opinion they are two independent uniform linear motions.
And so the same thing happens when we consider the uniform linear motion of the train (in the frame of the station) and the uniform linear motion of the station. (in the frame of the train)
The relativity of simultaneity is right, but I think the two uniform linear motions are independent.
Neither of the two frames is the privileged frame, but if you consider one of the two in motion it is better not to think about anything else ...
And finally I wish you happy summer holidays, ... waiting for your other interesting videos :)
"If we consider the uniform linear motion of the spaceship in the frame of the Earth:
1) the astronaut twin reaches the star S at time t = L/v,
2) the star S reaches the astronaut twin at time t’ = L / (gamma*v)"
Well, a spaceship reaching the star is a experiment on its own and therefore, if the twin has let's say 2 years on his clock when that happens it also have to be true in the frame of the observer on the Earth.
Although the observer on Earth would read for example 5 years on his own clock he would read 2 years on spaceship clock due to time dilatation.
The observer on the spaceship would read also 2 years on his clock when reaching the star due to length contraction.
But they both must agree that the moving observer had those 2 years on the clock when he passes by the star.
You can imagine it like the moving observer is about to crush directly into the star and if for 1 observer those clock were showing 2 years then this must be true for everyone in the universe because the result of such experiment must be the same for everyone according to the first postulate.
This has not much to do with relativity of simultaneity however as the only thing it says is that if two separated events happen (like two spaceships would crush into two different stars separated by some distane) then different observers would disagree on the ordering of these two events.
But more about this in twin paradox :)
@@lukasrafajpps " But more about this in twin paradox :)" : YES!
I like solutions to the twin paradox like the one described in this video:
th-cam.com/video/mZByVMQpdAI/w-d-xo.html
(even if I don't completely agreee with Avinash S ...)
Unfortunately, the solutions to the twin paradox are many (perhaps too many) and there is no agreement between experts in Special Relativity.
... And those who deny Special Relativity are happy about it. (I am sorry about that)
However, I believe that your solution will also be interesting, I like to follow you! :)
if the reasoning does not violate the postulates it might be true. even if it violates common sense.
In the train is a photon clock bouncing left to right to left again. The photon moves faster to the back of the train then foward. If the train was moving at 99.9% c there would extreme time dilation, in both directions I think but perhaps only in the forward direction. Backwards you could signal further I think. From the point A signal, relative to you in the train you could signal 1.999 times c. In a space ship, backwards signals are fine. Forward ones at 99.9% c aren't even worth it. Is it worth you addressing time dilation here in your example? It is there. It might only take a little.
You can form a two types of clock where photon bouces along the direction of motion or in perpendicular motion and both these views would give different result by one order of magnitude in gamma factor. This is why the length contraction in the direction of motion is needed to make it consistent with perpendicular clock. I have touched on this problem in my video "Is Time Dilation Just a Clock Issue Afterall???"
@@lukasrafajpps The up/down clock almost becomes a left/right clock at high speeds. It bounces at 89 and 91 degrees as it approaches 90 degrees. I appreciate your videos. I favor the intuitive. Holding out for we can understand this by visualization.
@@ragnaarminnesota6703 Those two can never be the same. You can just use math to calculate the time intervals for arbitrary high speed the difference increases with velocity rapidly.
I don't see where you have tackled the Twin paradox yet. I am interested in knowing whether you think acceleration is necessary or simply sufficient to resolve the twin question. I have a conundrum that demonstrates my point of view.
Picture this: the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) fills the universe uniformly in all directions. If I am sitting stationary with respect to the CMB and you are traveling at 0.5c, you will see my clocks running slow and I will see your clocks running slow. But you will know that I am at rest relative to CMB; therefore, you will know that you are definitely the one in motion. So that by relativity it must be you whose clocks are running slower.
So, acceleration is just a means to get the reference frames into sync in order to compare clocks. Some people say acceleration is necessary; I am suggesting it is only sufficient. I am suggesting that the key is determining who is in motion. Ordinarily nobody could know who was moving and acceleration would be necessary. But in this universe, acceleration may not be necessary because we have the CMB.
The fact is, acceleration cannot always be perceived as we know. Hence, I conclude that acceleration isn't really absolute in principle. If acceleration is absolute, it isn't the acceleration (in the usual parlance) but the deceleration that would be absolute, because we seem to be always able to feel it or measure it. I know that Einstein considered the equivalence of acceleration and gravity, for instance, but I am not sure that I am aware of his final thoughts on the matter.
Acceleration is in fact necesary to explain twin paradox but you can avoid it by transforming it into a so called clock paradox when you add another observer on twice the distance who is traveling in the opposite direction and he reads the traveling twin clock at the supposed turnaround. This is what for example youtube channel @fermilab did in one of his video on twin paradox.
Nice demonstration of this did also @MinutePhysics showing how simultaneity plane rotates when changing the coordinate frame on the turnaround which creates a time gap on the space-time diagram.
However, none of those explanations really explain the reason behind the time gap on the turnaround and this is where acceleration come into play. I currently work on video about the true meaning of length contraction in SR and then twin paradox video where I explain the turn-around part and why there is distance-dependent real shift in time between the twins.
About your point with CMB. Even though you are right that it somehow created universal frame for the whole universe that you can measure the velocities relative to, this frame is no special in any other way compared to other frames. This means that if you were in a cage with no windows, there is no experiment you could do to distinguish whether you are moving or not so this do not break the principle of relativity.
Sorry for late answer but bussy days :)
@@lukasrafajpps You response made me perform a calculation for a little simpler example. I intend to look at the references you've provided as soon as I can. But with the following example, I was able to verify to some degree what you have told me and see why it must be true. Here is the conundrum: Assume we have two people traveling toward each other at the rate 0.5c. Now A sees that he is traveling approximately 0.5c against the CMB (I just had a thought that this is not true, but I will continue). He will perceive that B is traveling toward him at the rate 0.8c. The same set of affairs will occur for B. Therefore, A will calculate that for every 1.67 years he experiences, B will experience 1 year; B will calculate that for every 1.67 years he experiences, A experiences 1 year. Now, if they, by chance, decelerate at the same rate and meet in the middle, they will see that they are the same age.
Now the calculation relative to the CMB will mess all this up, I think; though, the symmetry of the situation implies to me that the result upon "rest" will be the same.
_"you will know that you are definitely the one in motion"_ - you will know that you are in motion wrt. the CMB, yes. But due to the expansion of space, gravitational fields, etc, two observers can be moving away from each other, even though they are both stationary wrt. to their local CMB. And their is no guarantee that the sources of the CMB were stationary when the light was emitted.
_"I am suggesting that the key is determining who is in motion"_ - you could determine who is motion wrt. some inertial frame, yes (at least in SR). The CMB is not a super reliable inertial frame. It is much easier to just use acceleration, which you can measure accurately with an accelerometer without having to study the heavens.
_"acceleration cannot always be perceived as we know; I conclude that acceleration isn't really absolute"_ - proper acceleration can always be measured with an accelerometer, so yes it is absolute in that sense.
_"it isn't the acceleration (in the usual parlance) but the deceleration"_ - acceleration and deceleration are physically the same. It just depends on the observer's viewpoint whether it is called deceleration or acceleration.
_"...decelerate at the same rate and meet in the middle, they will see that they are the same age."_ - that depends on how they synchronised their clocks to begin with. But yes, if they both accelerate the same amount during the same moment in their journeys, they would have the same age when they meet up again.
_"Now the calculation relative to the CMB will mess all this up,"_ - why? From the viewpoint of the CMB, they make the same journey (mirrored), and so they will age the same.
@@lukasrafajpps I am not sure about the clock version of the paradox. It requires signal to be passed, which mean they are subject to time effects; though the effects may be trivial. In a way, it is like what we are talking about here: you give the basic information for calculating the travel time to the second space craft, if I remember correctly.
My only point in all this was that I could predict who was older by just determining who was in motion (against the background radiation). That means that the underlying problem is determining who is in the state of greatest relative motion with respect to each other. That is, Motion is the most important concept here, not acceleration.
I don't know how knowledge of this could really help science, but I think this is the fundamental insight. It's probably assumed and I am just not getting it.
SR does the same thing by attending to acceleration, and that is the way to do it if you are in a closed room, etc.--or if there are no physical details that could establish the fact of relative motion-- but if you have the background radiation, at least in a small enough region of space, you don't really need acceleration to know who will be older if and when the twins meet up.
And if neither twin ever slows down, you have the advantage that you would still know whose clock was the slower because you would have a very good idea of their relative speeds.
'Now the calculation relative to the CMB will mess all this up," - why?'...I was thinking at the time that he might not measure his own speed as 0.5c against the CMB.
Looks like the girl took down her video..
I have thought about the following conundrum for over a week now, and I cannot conclude anything about it other than that nature is insane.
The conundrum is similar to the ladder paradox but with specific values set for the barn and ladder, and the speed of the ladder. In addition, I have added a barrier. Here are the specifics:
The barn is 100 meters long.
The ladder is 160 meters long.
A barrier is placed 150 meters away from the back door of the barn.
The ladder is traveling at 0.60c and is 1cm below the hanging barrier and is made of brittle glass.
The barrier comes down 1cm exactly (and stays down) when the front of the ladder reaches the front door of the barn, from the barn's perspective...I could specify that the barrier comes down under gravity and the initiation is timed with an atomic clock that is set to actuate when the ladder should reach the front door according to relativity calculations. But assuming that the barrier comes down instantaneously is satisfactory for this problem. I just want to be able make it physically possible, even today, so that the conclusions we draw from the conundrum cannot be denied.
I'm not done yet--there is a kicker--but if the answer to the following questions are not at least mildly paradoxical, there is no use going on. Questions: (1) what happens to the ladder from the ladder's perspective; (2) what happens to the ladder from the barn's perspective? (3) Is the barrier the cause of the ladder's shattering? (4) Am I violating causality? (5) Am I ignoring simultaneity?
To continue. Now assume a mad scientist (me) sets up a nuclear bomb in the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon to detonate if the ladder shatters in the barn's reference frame.
Questions: (6) If the person traveling in the ladder's reference frame continues on to the Moon and decides to hang out in the Sea of Tranquility, does he get vaporized? (7) If the person in the barn's reference frame hops a rocket to the Moon, will he find devastation in the area of the Sea of Tranquility? (8) Could the two people meet up on the Moon?
I know there is a decent resolution to this, but I have no clue. I think you can figure it out.
I do have a notion for a solution, but it is entirely fanciful.
PS
If there is something to this paradox, what would be the conclusion if we could detonate the bomb if the ladder did NOT shatter in the barn's reference frame? Suppose we could have the ladder shatter in the ladder's reference frame and not shatter in the barn's reference frame. Then if the ladder passes through unscathed in the barn's reference frame, the Sea of Tranquility is devastated by a nuclear bomb and the ladder is shattered in the ladder's reference frame.I believe we can set the problem up so that the ladder behaves that way.
You don't specify whether the barrier is before or after the barn. We assume it is (150m) before the barn, and we assume it goes down a bit more than 1 cm, so it has a chance of shattering the ladder.
_"(1) what happens to the ladder from the ladder's perspective;"_ - nothing. The clock of the barrier appears to run behind the clock of the barn, and so the barrier comes down after the front of the ladder has already entered the barn (relativity of simultaneity)
_"(2) what happens to the ladder from the barn's perspective?"_ - nothing. From the perspective of the barn, the ladder is 128m long, and so the back end of it has already passed the barrier when it comes down (length contraction)
_"(3) Is the barrier the cause of the ladder's shattering?"_ - it doesn't shatter.
_"(4) Am I violating causality?"_ - no
_"(5) Am I ignoring simultaneity?"_ - yes.
_"Suppose we could have the ladder shatter in the ladder's reference frame and not shatter in the barn's reference frame"_ - that is impossible. Physical events either happen or don't happen. Different observers cannot disagree on that. They can disagree on when they happen, or even why they happen, but they always agree on what happens.
@@renedekker9806 Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Actually, the barrier was to be placed After the back door of the barn. In my calculations, the ladder does not shatter from the ladders perspective, but does from the barn's perspective.
If I'm right in my calculations and there are two drastically different outcomes in the two reference frames, with a small complication I can make this a much more interesting (at least from my perspective) problem. One that I think shows that SR is not so dissimilar from Quantum Theory in a certain set of respects.
@@JackPullen-Paradox_"Actually, the barrier was to be placed After the back door of the barn"_ - then I don't understand. If it is placed 150m after the back door of the barn, and lowered when the ladder reaches the front door, then the barrier is down a long time before the ladder reaches it, from both perspectives.
_"the ladder does not shatter from the ladders perspective, but does from the barn's perspective"_ - that cannot be the case. All events always happen for all observers. They may disagree on the order in which they happen, or about why they happen, but they always happen for all. The physics does not change, just the perspective.
If there glass is in front of the moving ladder it shatters. I don't see where there's a paradox.
@@kylelochlann5053 The ladder is made of glass. The barrier is made of steel. THe question was, does the ladder shatter in one frame but remain in tact in another. My calculations showed that the ladder shattered in one frame but remained in tact in the other. However, the expert on these matters told me that the ladder does not shatter in either frame. So the whole question is moot.
But the paradox was supposed to be that a cause and effect event was inconsistent between the two frames. This could lead to the event that the Moon could be devastated for one observer, while being perfectly normal at the same time for another, and other strange events.
Do you want to explain Einstein's physical foolishness to be incapable of using light in his 1905 article to verify the simultaneity of two events, when in reality it was enough (and that's it) to use two bullets?
I don't know whether I properly understand what are you saying but using two bullets instead of light would not work since those two observers would not agree on the velocity of the bullet whereas for light it is c for both of them.
@@lukasrafajpps Exactly: since light always has the same speed, it is a physical nonsense (indeed it is a systematic error), to use it to study simultaneity.
We are facing a PHYSICAL SCENERY because when Einstein's train is in motion and the two lightning strikes it in A and B, it is enough to always start two bullets from A and B, and consequently our two events are simultaneous.
Read well the first pages of Einstein's 1905 article when he talks about the synchronization of clocks, and where he writes that it is necessary to use light ... but when ever, since it is enough to use two bullets.
Hello from Italy.
Well, this is what special relativity is all about. The speed of light is c and it is independent of the relative motion of the source. It is the postulate of special relativity. Einstein used this postulate since it is what all experiments have shown like Michaelson-Morley experiment. Of course if you prove that this is not true, then the special relativity will fall apart. But not only special relativity would fall, Maxwell's equations would also fall as well as general relativity or quantum field theory yet quantum field theory is one of the most precise theories we have (for example the prediction of anomalous magnetic dipole moment correction of electron (g-2) = 0.001 159 652 181 643(764) vs experimental value of 0.001 159 652 180 73(28)) Getting this kind of precison of experiment vs preditcion would be absolutely impossible if special relativity is incorrect because quantum field theory is build upon special relativity.
Einstein had to use light in his clock since he needed something that does not obey Galilean transformation since he knew those transformations are wrong. Therefore he used light that clearly does not obey Galilean transformations and this way he could derive how the correct set of transformaitons look like. Those are Lorentz transformations.
@@lukasrafajpps ha scritto:
> Well, this is what special relativity is all about.
> The speed of light is c and it is independent of
> the relative motion of the source. It is the
> postulate of special relativity. Einstein used
> this postulate since it is what all experiments
> have shown like Michaelson-Morley experiment.
I do not repeat what I have already written about the fact that the use of "c" therefore involves a physical (and not mathematical) error of a systematic type.
> Of course if you prove that this is not true,
> then the special relativity will fall apart. But not
> only special relativity would fall, Maxwell's equations
> would also fall as well as general relativity
> or quantum field theory yet quantum field theory
> is one of the most precise theories
> we have (for example the prediction of anomalous
> magnetic dipole moment correction of electron
> (g-2) = 0.001 159 652 181 643(764) vs experimental
> value of 0.001 159 652 180 73(28)) Getting this kind
> of precison of experiment vs preditcion would be
> absolutely impossible if special relativity is incorrect
> because quantum field theory is build upon special relativity.
Beware that I am saying that special relativity is only a mathematical theory and not a physical theory. The Ptolemaic theory also works often and well, yet we all know that it is not a physical theory, but only a mathematical theory.
> Einstein had to use light in his clock
> since he needed something that does not obey
> Galilean transformation since he knew
> those transformations are wrong.
Einstein could use the "limit speed", which is practically a simple number, without disturbing a physical entity such as the speed of light "c", without thereby incurring the physical stupidity of relative simultaneity, and thus finding confirmation again what happens in the real physical world, where in fact by using 2 bullets, everyone can verify that simultaneity is absolute.
> Therefore he used light that clearly does
> not obey Galilean transformations and
> this way he could derive how the correct
> set of transformaitons look like.
> Those are Lorentz transformations.
I inform you that already in 1910 a Russian physicist, namely Vladimir Sergeyevitch Ignatowky, succeeded in the mathematical (and not physical) feat of obtaining the Lorentz transformations without using "c", but using the "limit speed", thereby without incurring in the Einsteinian physical nonsense: of relative simultaneity, and therefore without incurring physical nonsense: of the kinematic contraction of lengths and of the kinematic dilation of time.
Giovanni.
"I do not repeat what I have already written about the fact that the use of "c" therefore involves a physical (and not mathematical) error of a systematic type."
so you are saying that the experiment showing the speed of light is independent of the source are wrong?
"Beware that I am saying that special relativity is only a mathematical theory and not a physical theory. The Ptolemaic theory also works often and well, yet we all know that it is not a physical theory, but only a mathematical theory."
I don't understand your point here. A gyromagnetic moment is something we can physically measure. We can also predict it based on our theories involving special relativity and the experimental result match the theoretical prediction. You can't get any more physical than that.
"Einstein could use the "limit speed", which is practically a simple number, without disturbing a physical entity such as the speed of light "c", without thereby incurring the physical stupidity of relative simultaneity, and thus finding confirmation again what happens in the real physical world, where in fact by using 2 bullets, everyone can verify that simultaneity is absolute."
Well, using a speed limit is the same as using light. since light travels with the speed c which also happens to be the speed limit for the entire universe. It is also called the speed of causality.
You don't need to consider light to derive relative simultaneity.
You just have to think about how cause and effect work.
Using light just makes things much easier to imagine as we all know that light influences things around us. So if from the stationary observer's point of view the right strike influences the moving observer sooner than the left strike, then this must be the same for the moving observer. The influence does not have to come from light interaction.
"I inform you that already in 1910 a Russian physicist, namely Vladimir Sergeyevitch Ignatowky, succeeded in the mathematical (and not physical) feat of obtaining the Lorentz transformations without using "c", but using the "limit speed", thereby without incurring in the Einsteinian physical nonsense: of relative simultaneity, and therefore without incurring physical nonsense: of the kinematic contraction of lengths and of the kinematic dilation of time."
How can you have Lorentz transformations without time dilatation and length contraction? These two phenomena can be directly derived from these transformations. And how does the limit speed differ from c anyway?
Relativity of simultaneity leads to an irrecoverable contradiction-not simply a paradox, but a damning contradiction.
Say two distant instantaneous events (A and B) take place such that one inertial frame calculates they occur at the same time, this means other frames could calculate A occurs before B, while still others calculate B occurs before A. Since any inertial frame exists at any one point in space and time, one can then say, the moment and place A occurs, the following is true about B: it occurs in A’s past and future (i.e., not past). The fact that each conclusion (B is past or future) is derived from different inertial frames is irrelevant… in reality B cannot occur both before and after A. It’s one, the other or neither, which means the one frame that predicts this true state of affairs (even if we’re unaware of which frame it is) is the “preferred” frame.
This reasoning proves relativity’s light postulate is false, which means relativity is false, making its predictions still correct but now for the wrong reasons. Why does it matter that relativity is right for the wrong reasons? Why not just keep it if it works? Well that’s probably the same line of thinking that kept the earth-centered planetary model the dominant model for over 1500 years. Imagine what we’d miss without a sun-centered model. What are we missing with relativity? For starters, the cause of time dilation, the cause of the specific force we call gravity, and a solid foundation from which to derive a quantum theory of gravity.
Join me at my channel as I investigate the heart of a new scientific revolution: universal specificity.
So in the start you are assuming there has to be a one valid (absolute ordering of events) that A has to occur before B or otherway aroud which is false asumption from the start. With false assumptions you will get contradictions with postulates but postulates can't be contradicted because they are known facts from the experiment.
No, not exactly-it stands to reason, but that’s not my base foundational knowledge. By base is that contradictions cannot exist in reality. Coming to a contradictory conclusion is an admission of an error in thinking. If you’re faced with a contradiction, then check your premises, for one will be wrong. And you, being someone who claims to use logic, ought to know this too.
B coming before A and NOT coming before A is a contradiction plain and simple. How is “something that is and isn’t” a contradiction in every case, except in this case? What makes relativity so special that a blatantly obvious contradiction becomes accepted?
If relativity and its light postulate were the only model (and assumption about the speed of light) to accurately predict the observed phenomena, then I can see why accepting the contradiction might be tempting, yet still an error. But we’re given another equally powerful predictive model (the Lorentz ether theory), which doesn’t result in a contradiction, and it makes the same exact verifiable predictions as relativity-proving this alternative model and assumption correct.
Also, why are you so sure a “preferred” frame can’t exist? Better yet, how do you know the speed of light postulate is true, when it’s only an unverified assumption. The Michelson-Morley experimental results (and all others to follow) never proved this assumption true. It only proved that the average (two-way) speed of light appears to be constant. Two assumptions (one for each model) both explain why it appears to be constant-either it is constant in all directions as Einstein guessed, or experiences/instruments are miscalibrated and it’s not truly constant as Lorentz guessed.
I find that when conducting any human endeavor seeking knowledge it’s important to know what’s been established and proven true, and what hasn’t been established and needs revisiting. You don’t seem to be aware that the light postulate hasn’t been established. In fact, I’ve given you compelling reason to reject it. Or, if not fully convinced, then you ought to at least wonder if this is something you should look into further.
Search “two-way” vs “one-way” speed of light. Also search “Lorentz ether theory” and discover what your professors failed to include in your education.
@@CausalDiscoveries " _B coming before A and NOT coming before A is a contradiction plain and simple_ "
But B coming before A in one frame, and not coming before A in ANOTHER frame is NOT a contradiction.
they happen in DIFFERENT frames, hence there is no contradiction.
Differing frames doesn’t resolve the contradiction. A contradiction is something that is and isn’t at the same time and respect. The respect in question isn’t differing frames, but a notion of “before now”, “after now”, and “right now”. The fact that frames differ doesn’t remove this respect in question.
To resolve a contradiction you need to revisit the earlier assumptions to see which one is in error. In this case the unverified (never before observed) light postulate is in error.
@@CausalDiscoveries
" _A contradiction is something that is and isn’t at the same time and respect_ "
NO. a contradiction is something that is and isn't at the same time IN THE SAME FRAME.
If they are in different frames, then it is NOT a contradiction.
" _The respect in question isn’t differing frames, but a notion of “before now”, “after now”, and “right now”. The fact that frames differ doesn’t remove this respect in question_ "
the notion of before, after and now are NOT absolute. They are relative to the frame. What is NOW in one frame is NOT now in another frame. This is called relativity of simultaneity. Look it up.
Therefore, A coming before B in one frame and coming after B in ANOTHER frame is NOT a contradiction.
it would only be a contradiction if both of those happened in the same frame.
But aren't you just moving the problem from one place to another? To make the light reach the middle of the train at the same time, for both observers, you delay the impact from one of the lightnings. But the lighnings were fired of from the cloud simultaneoulsy, and travelled precisely the same distance, to hit the train simultaneously to the outside observer. To avoid the light hitting the observer in the train delayed, you delay it some where else, on it's travel down to the train. But the delay and so the paradox is still there.
No it is not true. For observer on the station lightnings strike simultaneously that is our initial assumption. The lightnings though are separated by some distance and therefore causally disconnected. Their ordering is not fundamental thing for other observers since one is not a cause for the other. The fact that light from one hit the moving from right sooner however must be universal truth because it happens at the same position in the frame of the moving observer and therefore events are causally connected.
The ordering of two events must not break the first postulate otherwise everything is within the postulates.
The lightning takes time to travel from the source to the train, so they must have been generated earlier. At that time the source is in front of the train. From the perspective of the train, that means that the lightning has a shorter path to travel to the front of the train, than to the back of the train. So it will strike the front before the back. The "delay" you mention occurs because the back strike has a longer way to go.
They fired from the cloud simultaneously only from the perspective of the observer at the station
I just realized that the description of the video is opposite to the example given.
The example of Einstein using Postulate 1 and Postulate 2 and using "Logic" to come up with his conclusion, is actually a great example of extremely POOR Logic, and example of how NOT to think rationally.
Ask me why I say this.
why you say this?
@@lukasrafajpps Because it's not Logical or rational to combine those two postulates and end up with the final conclusion that Einstein provides. And that what I'm trying to get you to discuss.
I am providing my conclusions that are the same as Einsteins because if the logic is done right we must end up with the same conclusions. Did I make a logical mistake in my logic so far?. Why can't we combine postulates to create conclusion? This approach is also used in geometry and its axioms.
@@lukasrafajpps Yes, you memorized perfectly everything they told you in Uni. Well done, you are good at learning by Rote. You applied the exact same "logic" and "Reason" as did Einstein, according to your guide book instructions, used his equations exactly as he did, and came up with an exactly identical, perfectly WRONG answer, just like Einstein did.
And as he intended, you MISSED the part that he neglected to explain, the stuff that had you known about it, would have allowed you to come up with a totally different conclusion.
The rational conclusion that says that moving objects do NOT shrink in only one plane, do NOT experience any Time differences, or magically gain Mass, simply because someone who is not moving, is watching them fly past.
The rational person would want to find out how come Einstein even came to such a silly nonsensical conclusion in the first place, and the rational person would be at least, regarding such claims with extreme suspicion. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Not only that, but first those extraordinary claims require an extraordinarily solid Hypothesis.
But what we have is experimental results that are not incontestable, and often actually disprove SR, not support it, and a Paper that is full to the brim with irrational statements and weak logic and bad assumptions, leading to silly conclusions.
More papers, articles videos, lectures, and books have been written over the last 100 years trying to "solve" the twin paradox, and many contract the next, so which one is the "right" solution? And you couldn't read all that material in a lifetime of study, but why is it such a problem needing so much effort to excuse? If SR is correct, it ought to be easy to support. Hell, its not even containing any hard to grasp concepts, and the math is easy... but although the concepts are easy to follow, the EXPLANATIONS as to WHY the claimed effects occur, are always lacking, totally absent in fact.
First of all, I don't work much with special relativity and it is long time ago I had this subject. I learn in on the go as it is my hobby.
"he rational conclusion that says that moving objects do NOT shrink in only one plane, do NOT experience any Time differences, or magically gain Mass, simply because someone who is not moving, is watching them fly past."
Which rational conclusion? Isn't it just the bias you gained by evolution because this works with enough precision to survive in our environment? Tell me one rational reason why time and length should be absolute.
"But what we have is experimental results that are not incontestable, and often actually disprove SR, not support it, and a Paper that is full to the brim with irrational statements and weak logic and bad assumptions, leading to silly conclusions"
What experiments? How do you explain the muon lifetime? why can't we accelerate protons in higher speeds in particle accelerators and we can get only to like 99.999% of the speed of light?
By the way the experimental basis of SR math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
About the twin paradox. A lot of people are talking about it because math is quite easy but can't make sense of it because of a poor understanding of how coordinate systems and coordinate transformations work. In the scientific community, no such debate is being held.
OK, Ive destroyed in my other comment that has a 159 parts... the claim that Special Relativity is rational and logical.
Now in this comment, I want to reveal where the example in this video is wrong.
At 2:34 you say show the moving train, with the light flashes radiating from each end OF THE TRAIN. But the lightening is NOT attached in any way to the moving train, so it's not able to "follow along with the train, expanding from each end of the train.. They is like saying that Light IS affected by the motion of the Source. But even Einstein realized that Light is not affected by the motion of the source. So the centre of the expanding sphere of light CAN never get carried off with the Train.
So why did you even animate that? Its not Physics.
Then at 2:51 you make a sensible statement, great work. You said, "the light from right should be first... and that all observers must all see it that way.
But if that contradicts someone's "postulate" then it can only mean that the postulate is garbage and needs to be thrown out.
At 3:42 you make an irrational claim That two events can never be simultaneous. But of course they can. Nothing is stopping two events to be simultaneous. Its logically possible, and in the example, the guy watching the train pass does indeed really witness the two lightning strikes as being simultaneous. He is correct, and its physically possible to verify that the strikes are simultaneous. The key here is that the distances between the lightning and the observer are identical, so he sees the light arrive at his location at the same instant, so then that means that the strikes were truly simultaneous indeed.
Now we have BOTH the guy on the ground, AND they guy on the train, BOTH agreeing that the light reached the guy on the train from the right side first, then the light from the left next.
(rear of the train when the train is moving to the right)
So now we have full agreement between all observers regardless of their imaginary frames of reference, they both agree on the sequence of events. So where is the big problem that need Einstein to supply his time warping length shrinking solution to fix?
There is no issue, no contradictions, nothing to solve here.
So you say "The two light events can't be "Causally connected..." So what? No one needs to make them CAUSUALLY connected.. The two lightening strikes are totally separate and there is not relationship between them at all. They are random events, one did not "cause" the other or trigger the other. Why would you say that they OUGHT to be "Casually connected"? They are random events that just happen to have occurred at the exact same instant of time. This type of thing happens every day, its not magic.
So then you make the silly claim that the guy on the ground witnessing the simultaneous lightning strikes is UNABLE to say anything about the sequence of events in any other frame of reference... but this is an unscientifically incorrect statement. Of course he can figure out what any observer, in any conceivable frame of reference will observe from their frames, based on what he just observed in his frame. We call this mystical magical power of that observer, "Mathematics driven by Physics principals." Geometry and algebra.
And the funny thing is that his calculations for what observers in other frames will see, matches exactly what those other observers do see. And even better, no Time Dilation or Length Contraction is needed.
So in real Physics, verified by direct observations and calculations we find that
"ALL observers, regardless of the own frame of reference, will all see that light falling on the train guy from the right first, followed by the light from the left."
Thus proving that Einstein's conclusion regarding the marriage of his two postulates is wrong.
At 3:556 you make a false statement. You claim that the train guy MUST see light from the right first, (correct) but then you make an error when you claim that 'Its ONLY POSSIBLE IF... the strikes were not simultaneous. This is a obviously incorrect claim.
Because you have animate the lightning strikes (they are the sources of the expanding spheres of radiated light) you have those sources MOVING WITH THE TRAIN. BUT the Lightning is NOT connected to the train. This would mean that the light MOVES with the Source, but you have previously said that this is impossible, which is correct. "Light is NOT affected by the motion of the Source"
So the "only way to have the train guy receive that light from the right first... is to animate the strikes radiating the light from where the lightning actually occurred, which was back at each end of the train station.
And if you animate that in your video, we see that now the train guy, AND the stationary guy BOTH see that the light arrives from the right for the train guy, followed by the light from the left.
So why did you say "'Its ONLY POSSIBLE IF... the strikes were not simultaneous"?
We have already proven that the strikes WERE simultaneous, and we also have mathematics and geometry that can calculate that all observers everywhere will all realise that the lightening was simultaneous, after they take their own state of relative motion into consideration.
Do you see the issue here?
Real Physics and Math says that all observers and events will be in perfect harmony and no issues are possible.
Einstein says that every observer gets results that conflict with everyone else, and there is no way to fix this massive problem unless we shrink stuff and stretch time unilaterally and to varying degrees to fix it all.
I've just shown you that your animation where you draw the lightning sources moving along with the train is WRONG, and opposite to the postulate that everyone has agreed, (both Einstein and Newton) that "Light is not affected by the motion of the Source". How did your lightning strike attach itself to your train and run off to the right, and if it did, then why did you not show that happening when we could see the guy on the station? He also would have seen the lightning run off to the right with the train. ???
You illustrate two different situations, one of which is nonsense, then claim that we have to change the Laws of Physics to solve the fake problem that you pretend exists.
everything isalllies
Sorry but I can only answer few points at the time because I really struggle with time but I think it is even better to always make 1 thing clear before moving to the next.
you said
"At 2:34 you say show the moving train, with the light flashes radiating from each end OF THE TRAIN. But the lightening is NOT attached in any way to the moving train, so it's not able to "follow along with the train, expanding from each end of the train.. They is like saying that Light IS affected by the motion of the Source. But even Einstein realized that Light is not affected by the motion of the source. So the centre of the expanding sphere of light CAN never get carried off with the Train."
I don't know what are you trying to say here? why it is not physics? Two lightnings can't strike in physics? I didn't attach lightnings to anything. All I said that they hit simultaneously for the observer at the train station.
But to the main point:
"At 3:42 you make an irrational claim That two events can never be simultaneous. But of course they can. Nothing is stopping two events to be simultaneous. Its logically possible, and in the example, the guy watching the train pass does indeed really witness the two lightning strikes as being simultaneous. He is correct, and its physically possible to verify that the strikes are simultaneous. The key here is that the distances between the lightning and the observer are identical, so he sees the light arrive at his location at the same instant, so then that means that the strikes were truly simultaneous indeed."
You said exactly what I said you should not do at the end of the video. Where did I postulate an absolute simultaneity?
I said the strikes were simultaneous for the observer at the train station but I didn't say anything about the moving observer. Why do you add postulates on your own into the theory?
@@lukasrafajpps
Ok, You have created two animations of a flash of light.
First one, the flashes originate from each end of a platform, with an observer located equidistant from each end of the platform. So the light spheres expand from those two locations.
But in the next animation, you show the same two flashes of light and the expanding sphere now is attached to a moving train carriage. How can that ever happen? When Light is NOT influenced by the motion of the source? So do those flashes expand from where they were generated, at each end of the platform or somehow are those flashes now expanding from the ends of the moving train?
Pick just one, as both can never be correct.
And if you say light gets to be carried off with the train, then you break the Physics of both Newton and Einstein who say that it cant. This is a major problem, and you are correct we should not proceed until you clear up this problem with your animations.
This first point is the main problem, not the second point.
But you did mention a second point, so I will address it here now.
There is a difference between the fact of two events, (separated by some distance), occurring simultaneously, and the Un-associated observations of those two events. The observations can be misleading.
Yes, the events occurred at exactly the same instant, a universal truth, absolutely simultaneous. A universal Fact.
Nothing to do with Causality. One event did not cause the other.
But differently located or differently moving observers wont always receive the vision of the events simultaneously, because the light from each event has different distances to travel to get to the observer.
Only Observers who are placed exactly mid way between the two events can receive the Light pulse at the same instant, which then truly reflects what actually occurred.
None of this requires any weird distance or time shrinking of Einstein's theory.
Observers who are not equidistant between the two events, will need to take the extra travel time for the signal to reach them, into consideration, and adjust their calculations accordingly. After that, each observer will agree that the two events occurred simultaneously, an absolute fact, universally recognised.
Do you agree with this simple explanation?
@@everythingisalllies2141 Ok abut the animation. The lightnings are not attached to the train in any way. Yes it was easier to animate that way but you should think of them being instant. What really matters is the speed of light being the same for both observers that is the main point as it is one of the postulates.
So no. Lightnings are not attached to the train. Pardon me that the animation is not perfect.
"Yes, the events occurred at exactly the same instant, a universal truth, absolutely simultaneous. A universal Fact.
Nothing to do with Causality. One event did not cause the other."
It is not a universal fact. It is a fact for only one observer but since they are causally disconnected it is ok because then there is not a problem with the first postulate.
Again, you are throwing an absolute simultaneity into the theory which is not postulated.
Basically what you do is define simultaneity as being absolute and then you try to debunk my logic trying to show it is not which is totally wrong.
If you claim the simultaneity is absolute, show me from the postulates it is.
"But differently located or differently moving observers wont always receive the vision of the events simultaneously because the light from each event has different distances to travel to get to the observer.
Only Observers who are placed exactly mid way between the two events can receive the Light pulse at the same instant, which then truly reflects what actually occurred"
this would break the second postulate because the bolts of lightning are in equal distances apart from each other also for the observer on the train.
If the speed of light is the same also for him, then he should see the bolts of lightning simultaneously which is in contradiction to the first postulate.
So I don't agree with your simple explanation because it is in contradiction with the postulates.
@@lukasrafajpps Short question here. Why on earth would you think that "'The Postulates" are worth a cracker?
You keep forcing rational ideas to become irrational just so that you get to keep your silly postulates. Why do you have such value placed on those two postulates?
Especially since Ive told you many, many times, that the second postulate is irrational nonsense.
If you fix the second Postulate so that its sensible, then it destroys all of the rest of Einsteins hypothesis, but you refuse to fix it. Your whole argument depends on a crappy false second postulate.
"If you claim the simultaneity is absolute, show me from the postulates it is."
Simple, the two events occurred at the same moment in time. That fact can't possibly change just because you watch it from some remote location where you were closer to one event than the other. That can't change the fact that the two events sill happened at the same moment.
All it changes is that now the light from one even got to you before the light from the other, but that has ZERO to do with the events still occurring at the same instant, absolutely.
@@everythingisalllies2141 "Short question here. Why on earth would you think that "'The Postulates" are worth a cracker?
You keep forcing rational ideas to become irrational just so that you get to keep your silly postulates. Why do you have such value placed on those two postulates?
Especially since Ive told you many, many times, that the second postulate is irrational nonsense."
First of all you said it is nonsense because you force Newtonian physics into the theory and you don't even understand the word relativity.
There were historical reasons why the postulate makes sense and I covered it in my very first video about special relativity.
Non-existence of a reference frame in which electromagnetic and optic processes take place like Aether.
Inconsistency of electromagnetism with Newtonian physics and Galilean transformations
" "If you claim the simultaneity is absolute, show me from the postulates it is."
Simple, the two events occurred at the same moment in time. That fact can't possibly change just because you watch it from some remote location where you were closer to one event than the other. That can't change the fact that the two events sill happened at the same moment. "
If both observers are not moving relative to each other then the simultaneity is ok. The problem is when moving relative to each other because in order to satisfy the second postulate, simultaneity must be relative.