Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 29. Aug 2024, 09:40:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <vapc6f$3tel7$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-08-28 11:30:01 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity
 The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
by the set of all physical phenomena occurring at the same instant,
You can't define that way unless you first define what "at the same time"
means.

one should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
found in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity", "universal synchronization", or "common calendar" - these terms then
being capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if one could,
without it varying, transpose the simultaneity proper to a particular
observer to all other inertial observers present in the same frame of
reference.
The words "ablsolute", "universal" and "common" should not be used for
concepts that are specific to one inertial frame.

It would suffice to find any signal, or any action, by which a body A could
interact instantaneously with a body B, that is to say by means of information propagating infinitely quickly, for this notion of "absolute simultaneity" to be experimentally proven. We could then say that
the action induced by body A was instantly transmitted to body B, or that the action produced by
body A was carried out at the same time as its detection by body B, and that there exists, de facto, between A and B, a sort of reciprocal and absolute simultaneity.
 We could also imagine a round-trip signal carried out over the distance x separating A and B, and carried out by means of infinitely rapid information, in such a way that the instants Ta (departure noted by watch A) and Ta' (return noted by watch A) are simultaneous. It would easily come that if the two watches A and B are "correctly" tuned (for example by using an electromagnetic signal from the medium M of AB,
or by slowly moving apart the two watches that we would have previously synchronized at the same place)
then the instant Tb (instant noted by B for the reflection of the signal) would be the same as the instants Ta and Ta',
since if Ta'-Ta = 0 by definition, then |Tb-Ta| + |Ta'-Tb| = 0, hence Ta =Ta'=Tb, and, by practicing in this way
step by step, for a multitude of other points C, D, E, F, G, H, I and so on, the notion of general coexistence
in perfect absolute simultaneity of all the fixed components of a given inertial frame R
could be demonstrated.
  However, this proof does not exist: we know that a body can act at a distance on another body - for example in the
form of an electromagnetic wave, in the form of a mechanical shock transmitted along a rigid rod, or
in the form of a gravitational interaction - but we have never found a signal that is infinitely fast,
or an action at a distance that is instantaneous. It seems rather, in fact, that there exists, in nature, a sort of
uncrossable limit speed that we will find for any Galilean frame of reference considered - a limit
observable speed, the true keystone of modern science - and which will extend to all particles and all
properties of physics.
 We can then suppose, and state, in light of what we have just said, the following fundamental principle:
"the notion of simultaneity is relative by any change of observer; even fixed between them, different
observers placed in different places, build different systems of simultaneity"; and, thus, generally, in a given system, two or more simultaneous events for an observer A will no longer be so, and reciprocally, for an observer B, even perfectly inertial.
We also can do otherwise. It is best to define simultaneity so that it
can be used for the construction of the time coordinate of a coordinate
system. If we can find a signal that has the same speed in all directions
we can use that. For example, sound in a metal bar that is stationary
with respect to the coordinate system being constructed.
--
Mikko

Date Sujet#  Auteur
28 Aug 24 * 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity16Richard Hachel
28 Aug 24 +* Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity6Paul.B.Andersen
28 Aug 24 i`* Yes, I Know (je connais l'histoire).5Richard Hachel
29 Aug 24 i +- Re: Yes, I Know (je connais l'histoire).1Python
29 Aug 24 i +- Re: Yes, I Know (je connais l'histoire).1Python
29 Aug 24 i +- Re: Yes, I Know (je connais l'histoire).1Mikko
29 Aug 24 i `- Re: Yes, I Know (je connais l'histoire).1Paul.B.Andersen
29 Aug 24 `* Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity9Mikko
29 Aug 24  `* Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity8Richard Hachel
29 Aug 24   +* Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity3Paul.B.Andersen
29 Aug 24   i`* Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity2Richard Hachel
29 Aug 24   i `- Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity1Richard Hachel
30 Aug 24   `* Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity4Mikko
30 Aug 24    `* Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity3Richard Hachel
30 Aug 24     +- Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity1Paul.B.Andersen
31 Aug 24     `- Re: 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity1Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal