Re: Trying to understand a "paradox"
From: Mitchell (macromitch_at_internetCDS.com)
Date: 11/28/04
- Next message: Old Man: "Re: Polarizability of a Schwarzschild black hole"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Why is the speed of light as it is"
- In reply to: Maury Markowitz: "Trying to understand a "paradox""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 27 Nov 2004 21:30:45 -0800
Maury Markowitz <maury_markowitz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<yeapd.37726$Ro.1592026@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> There's a chance this one is something already "out there", but I
> haven't seen it before. A friend gave me this "paradox" based on the
> train-and-embankment scenario, and although I can see where the problem
> lies, I can't see the actual problem...
>
> The train in this case mounts a pointer that moves vertically at a fixed
> rate based on it's own clock. On the embankment is a similar device
> geared to it's own clock. Each one includes a recording device that
> captures the position of the other's device and it's own when they pass.
> To make this "non-physical", we use lasers and photographic film, such
> that when the train passes the device on the embankment the train's
> laser records a streak on the embankment's film, and vice versa. There
> is negligable space between the two in either direction.
>
> At low speeds the train passes the embankment and the two have clocks
> that are running "in sync". Therefore they both end up at the same
> "height" when the pass, and comparing the film shows nothing
> interesting. Things are more interesting in the relativistic case.
>
> From the embankment's point of view the train's clock is running slow.
> Thus when they pass it would expect the train's laser to paint a line
> below it's own. Nothing too surprising there.
>
> From the train's perspective the embankment's clock is running slow,
> and therefore would expect it's line to be low.
>
> So if they later compare, it would seem that the beams are bent, the
> train records the embankment's line "down low" while the embankment
> itself records it "up high", and vice versa.
>
> I believe the problem revolves around the statement "when they cross".
> I've been trained to be leary of any statment containing an instant in
> time in relativity. Nevertheless I can't spot the EXACT problem in this
> setup -- or even if there is one.
>
> Maury
They don't have to cross. Only one experiences time slowdown.
The train is the one that accelerated.
There is no paradox. You can'y have it both ways.
Einstein was wrong here to think it is reciprical. Its not.
It only goes to show Einstein did not entirely understand time.
But what can you expect?
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
- Next message: Old Man: "Re: Polarizability of a Schwarzschild black hole"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Why is the speed of light as it is"
- In reply to: Maury Markowitz: "Trying to understand a "paradox""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
