Relativity thought experiment
- Thread starter Zeno
- Start date
Well, the devil is in the details.
Do you think that examining the results in that reference frame would really be helpful for Zeno? It's no more special than either ship's frame, so it's not going to illustrate what the "real" order of events is. If both ships are destroyed in that reference frame, then you still have to show that both ships are destroyed in the other reference frames as well... so why not just cut to the chase and do that first?
Do you think that examining the results in that reference frame would really be helpful for Zeno? It's no more special than either ship's frame, so it's not going to illustrate what the "real" order of events is. If both ships are destroyed in that reference frame, then you still have to show that both ships are destroyed in the other reference frames as well... so why not just cut to the chase and do that first?
Well, that's the heart of the "paradox", isn't it?
Naively, it seems that in Ship1's reference frame, Ship2 is destroyed before it fires its laser. So Ship2 is destroyed, but Ship1 isn't.
But (again naively), it seems that in Ship2's reference frame, Ship1 is destroyed before it fires its laser. So Ship1 is destroyed, but Ship2 isn't.
That's what I think Zeno is looking for. Not just an answer to "which ships are destroyed", but an explanation of how this happens in each reference frame.
Naively, it seems that in Ship1's reference frame, Ship2 is destroyed before it fires its laser. So Ship2 is destroyed, but Ship1 isn't.
But (again naively), it seems that in Ship2's reference frame, Ship1 is destroyed before it fires its laser. So Ship1 is destroyed, but Ship2 isn't.
That's what I think Zeno is looking for. Not just an answer to "which ships are destroyed", but an explanation of how this happens in each reference frame.
Anybody who claims to have one gram of understanding about Einstein Relativity, such as yourself, Pete, is also de facto claiming to know about the additions of the Weak Causal Principle and the Causal Principle into the body of ER. ER, in its origin, substantially disclaimed causality in Einstein's proclamation of the Relativity of Simultaneity ( coming back to you now, Pete? ).
Instead of you trying to abuse your power of EDITOR, you should instead try to help all of us to advance our study of important physics ideas.
COPIED TO MY HARD DRIVE BEFORE YOU CAN EDIT IT.
A real Special Relativity exprt like yourself should have no problem at all in either remembering or researching and finding Albert Einstein's description of the relativity of simultaneity in perhaps his book "Relativity". It is a very small book that is easy and quick to read and I certainly will not insult your veracity or intelligence by pretending that you are so ignorant that you can not find it ( again ) by yourself.
COPIED TO MY HARD DRIVE BEFORE PETE CAN EDIT.
Your question contains paradoxes. So don't be surprised when answers contain paradoxes also.
For your mulling over:
Observing when a distant ship reaches a certain location depends on the time for light reflecting off of it to reach the observer's eye.
Firing a laser depends on the time for its wave front to travel to the target.
Ask yourself this question; "Is it possible that the gunners on both ships pull the trigger ( absolutely ) simultaneously so that each laser's wave front passes each other midway, and both wavefronts strike and destroy their targets ( absolutely ) simultanteously?"
If two playful children both toss ping pong balls at each other simultaneously, is it a paradox if both children are pingponged at the same time?
Just to quibble: the possessive is " your". The contraction of " you are" is you're.
You have dizzied us with your talent for deleting and editing my posts and then retorting to my posts in way giving a distorted view.
You should be amply familiar with the fact that Einstein did not uphold causality in his presentation of Special Relativity, as exemplified by his description of the relativity of simultaneity and that causal principles were added in later years by other physicists to General Relativity to try to avoid causal paradoxes.
The sad fact that you are quizzing me about it is prima facie evidence of your degree of competence to administrate a physics forum.
COPIED TO MY HARD DRIVE BEFORE PETE CAN EDIT .
CANGAS, you're babbling.
Firstly, I'm neither an expert nor an "exprt"
in any branch of physics, nor have I ever claimed to be.
However, I am quite satisfied that Einstein did not disclaim causality, in Relativity or any of his other works. I believe he had quite a lot to say about it in the realm of Quantum Machanics, but that was to strongly affirm causality. In fact, if my limited understanding of QM is on the mark, he believed in causality too much.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Feel free to cite where Einstein disclaimed causality, or where causal principles were added in later years by other physicists.
Secondly, your implication that I've distorted your posts by edits is unfounded and transparent. You aren't fooling anyone. Again, feel free to prove me wrong - a thread in Open Government with links to the offending posts would be appropriate.
Firstly, I'm neither an expert nor an "exprt"
in any branch of physics, nor have I ever claimed to be.However, I am quite satisfied that Einstein did not disclaim causality, in Relativity or any of his other works. I believe he had quite a lot to say about it in the realm of Quantum Machanics, but that was to strongly affirm causality. In fact, if my limited understanding of QM is on the mark, he believed in causality too much.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Feel free to cite where Einstein disclaimed causality, or where causal principles were added in later years by other physicists.
Secondly, your implication that I've distorted your posts by edits is unfounded and transparent. You aren't fooling anyone. Again, feel free to prove me wrong - a thread in Open Government with links to the offending posts would be appropriate.