Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Androcles - 28 Jan 2005 11:59 GMT Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder. by Androcles
Much of this story is credited to Daryl McCullough, only the ladder was added by me. It explains the origins of Einstein's Special Relativity for those having difficulty grasping the subject.
Sam and Joe are housepainters, and are walking along the street at 3 fps in still air carrying a 32 ft long ladder between them, Joe leading the way. Sam is carrying some paint cans and Joe has the brushes and rollers.
At some point along their journey a mosquito name Albert buzzes past Sam's ear. Sam swats at it, but drops a can of red paint as he does so.
Albert flies along the ladder from Sam to Joe at a constant speed of 5 fps. When it reaches Joe, Joe also swats at it, but drops a paint
roller. Albert, still hungry but not liking the smell of Joe's cigar, flies back along the ladder toward Sam, again with a constant speed of 5 fps in the still air. Upon reaching Sam, once again Sam tries to swat the wee beastie but drops a can of green paint. He yells as the mosquito bites him and this startles Joe, who drops a paint brush.
Now it's your turn. I'll give the answers further down, but take a moment to do the calculations for yourself.
1) How many seconds did it take for Albert to fly from Sam to Joe? 2) How many seconds did it take for Albert to fly from Joe to Sam? 3) How far is it between the red paint can and the roller? 4) How far is it between the green paint can and the roller?
(Answers below) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assume the speed of the mosquito is c = 5 fps. The speed of Sam and Joe is v = 3 fps, given.
We then must have a distance along the road for Joe of 32ft + vt, and for the mosquito, a distance of ct.
Solving for t, ct = 32 + vt ct - vt = 32 t(c-v) = 32 t = 32 /(c-v) = 32/(5 - 3) = 16 seconds So the answer to Q.1) is 16 seconds.
The mosquito coming back is going to meet Sam going forward, so it flies along the 32 feet of the ladder in time t = 32/(c+v) = 32/8 = 4 seconds.
The answer to Q.2) is therefore 4 seconds.
The distance from the dropped red paint can to the dropped roller is just ct, or 5 * 16 = 80 feet, so the answer to Q.3) is 80 ft. Or we could do it by vt + 32 = 3 * 16 + 32 = 80, once again. (Remember Joe had a 32 ft head start over the mosquito)
Coming back, Albert again flies at 5 fps but this time for only 4 seconds, so it reaches the green paint can 20 feet from the roller, which is the answer to Q.4)
So, as Sam sees it, Albert takes 16 seconds to reach Joe, flying at 5-3 = 2 fps, and 4 seconds to return, flying along the ladder at 5+3 = 8 fps.
Now we think like Einstein with his mosquito brain. Sam wants to know when the mosquito reached Joe.
He isn't able to see the mosquito, its too small at 32 feet away, so he guesses that since it went 32 ft each way, and took 20 seconds to fly away and back again, it must have reached Joe after 10 seconds = 1/2 of 20.
So we explain it carefully. First we label the red paint can "A" and the dropped roller "B". We write:
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer called Sam at the red paint can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of the red paint can by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at the red paint can, it is possible for an observer Joe at the dropped roller to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of the roller at B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at the A with an event at the dropped roller. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for the red paint can and the dropped roller, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by a mosquito to travel from the red paint can to the dropped roller equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to the red paint can, A.
Now, we want to do this algebraically, because tomorrow Joe and Sam might be carrying a different length of ladder, and we want a general solution.
So we write: If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system ladder must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.
What that means is the ladder's length is x', so that 32 = 80 - 3 * 16, and doesn't change as time passes. Did you think it would? Well, we'll have to see. Maybe if we water it, it might grow.
According to Einstein, we are to assume the speed of the mosquito is independent of the speed of Sam (which is fair enough) and also we are to assume that the time for the mosquito to make the round trip (20 seconds) when divided by 2 is equal to the time it took to reach Joe, 16 seconds.
We don't know yet about the 16 seconds, we can only write it algebraically and pretend it is 10 seconds. It is actually written as x'/(c-v) [or 32/(5-3) in real numbers].
Now we say:
From the origin of system ladder let a mosquito be emitted at the time tau0 along the ladder to x' (the other end of the ladder), and at the time tau1 be reflected thence (that just means go back) to the origin of the co-ordinates (which we are deliberately vague about as to whether we mean Sam on the ladder or the red paint can), arriving there at the time tau2; we then must have (don't you just love that phrase, "then must have" ?)
½(tau0 + tau2) = tau1, or ½([midmorning + 0] + [midmorning + 20]) = [midmorning + 16], which is curious to say the least, since Sam and Joe could be doing this in the late afternoon for all the difference it would make. But ok, Einstein wanted to be complete, so I guess its fine.
But our hero and physics wizard isn't satisfied with this. Oh no, we need to include the length of the ladder as well, or we won't have any spacetime to prattle on about later so that people will see just how smart we are.
Here is Einstein's equation: ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
You can read about it at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ (in Section 3)
Putting in the mosquito numbers,
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+32/(5-3)+32/(5+3))] = tau(32,0,0,t+32/(5-3)) ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+20)] = tau(32,0,0,t+16)
In agreement with experience (gotta love that phrase!) clearly(!) (0,0,0,t) is pretty meaningless, and we can drop the "t+" since we really don't care if Sam and Joe are walking in the midmorning or late afternoon.
So, ½ * tau(0,0,0,20) = tau(32,0,0,16).
There's some differentiation by Einstein to make himself look smart and important, he has to show off all his skills if not his common sense, because "common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen", he tells us, and he eventually arrives at
tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ) xi = (x-vt) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ) eta = y zeta = z.
That is what you get when you treat time as if it were a vector and mix in some distance. We can forget y and z, the mosquito didn't fly up into a tree or into the ditch at the side.
We apply this to the equations derived:
tau = (16 - 3 * 80 / 25) / sqrt (1 - 3^2/5^2) = (6.4) / 0.8 = 8 seconds
xi = 32 / sqrt (1 - 9 / 25) = 40 feet
Sanity check:
c = 40 ft / 8 seconds = 5 fps. Yep, that's the right speed for Albert.
So... We are standing at the roadside watching Sam and Joe carry a 40 ft ladder that they think is a 32 ft ladder, because the speed of mosquitoes is 5 fps in all inertial frames of reference.
It must be right, its only algebra after all is said and done.
So now you should be able to fully understand Special Relativity, all you need do is replace the speed of the mosquito with the speed of light, have Sam and Joe run at the relativistic speed of 0.6c, the algebra is perfect, and who needs common sense anyway?
Just remember that 40 ft ladders shrink to 32 ft ladders when you run with them at 180,000 km/sec, and you'll be as smart as Einstein the cretin.
For myself, I prefer to keep the collection of prejudices I acquired by the time I was eighteen.
Androcles
tadchem - 28 Jan 2005 14:58 GMT > Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder. > by Androcles [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > 3) How far is it between the red paint can and the roller? > 4) How far is it between the green paint can and the roller? <snip>
> Assume the speed of the mosquito is c = 5 fps. > The speed of Sam and Joe is v = 3 fps, given. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The answer to Q.2) is therefore 4 seconds. Your use of simple addition of velocities implies that Albert is flying a 5 fps *relative to the ground,* whereas you clearly stated that "Albert flies along the ladder from Sam to Joe at a constant speed of 5 fps." Since Sam and Joe are stationary WRT the ladder, Albert's speed should also be 5 fps relative to Sam or Joe.
How and relative to what are you measuring Albert's speed?
You cannot have it both ways. Is Albert's velocity relative to the ladder or relative to the ground? It makes a difference - an *observable* difference.
Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
Dirk Van de moortel - 28 Jan 2005 15:22 GMT [snip Androfart]
> > The answer to Q.2) is therefore 4 seconds. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA You are going to regret this ;-)
Dirk Vmd
Dave - 28 Jan 2005 15:55 GMT > [snip Androfart] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Dirk Vmd its obviously relative to the aether (air in this case)... and i agree, stand by for all the standard aether vs air arguments.
RP - 28 Jan 2005 18:48 GMT >>"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > its obviously relative to the aether (air in this case)... and i agree, > stand by for all the standard aether vs air arguments. No. He isn't an aetherist, he doesn't seem to subscribe to anything but Newton. He thinks that light propagates at c + v wrt the observer and at c wrt the source; not LET, not any other aether theory, not SR, just Newton. He perpetually argues that constancy of lightspeed isn't consistent with his model, such as in the argument above. If he could get his own model correct, then we could perhaps simply agree with him, i.e. that constancy of lightspeed isn't consistent with his model, and be done with it.
Richard Perry
Androcles - 28 Jan 2005 19:36 GMT >>>"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Richard Perry I subscribe to the PoR, Perry. "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate," -Einstein -
Reference : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and that is where it ends.
In 1905, Einstein added :
"and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. "
But in 1920 he was compelled to devote a chapter to the problem, saying
VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity "Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec. "
I'm not a child in school, maybe you are. I don't believe the huckster. I know a hoax when I see it. You may be gullible, or simply indoctrinated. I'm not.
Androcles.
Franz Heymann - 29 Jan 2005 06:26 GMT > [snip Androfart] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You are going to regret this ;-) I doubt it. Tadchem wisely drops morons without so much as how d'ya do.
Franz
Androcles - 28 Jan 2005 18:30 GMT >> Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder. >> by Androcles [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > 5 > fps." Yes, and I proved it too. 40 ft ladder, 8 seconds.
> Since Sam and Joe are stationary WRT the ladder, Albert's speed > should also be 5 fps relative to Sam or Joe. Yes. Pity of it is, you snipped the proof. Read it again.
> How and relative to what are you measuring Albert's speed? Albert's speed is 5 fps in ALL inertial frames of reference. The length of the ladder and Sam's watch compensates to make it so. That's what special relativity is all about.
> You cannot have it both ways. Tell that to Einstein, not me. It is his equations I'm using. I happen to agree with you, but I'm just explaining how Special Relativity has worked for the last 100 years. You can't have it both ways. Either his equations are right, or I can have it both ways :-)
Is Albert's velocity relative to the
> ladder or relative to the ground? Both. Relative to the ground, the ladder is 40 ft long, but relative to Sam and Joe it is 32 ft long. It gets shorter because it is moving.
It makes a difference - an
> *observable* difference. Well, tell Einstein, then. It is his bullshit, not mine. I'm just explaining it. I seem to be doing a good job, too. Androcles
> Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA Uncle Al - 28 Jan 2005 16:18 GMT > Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder. > by Androcles [snip whining crap]
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be> You are a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Androcles - 28 Jan 2005 18:34 GMT >> Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder. >> by Androcles > [snip whining crap] > > <http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be> > You are a spewing psychotic idiot troll. Nothing but venom to offer, psychotic ineducable imbecile Schwartz? f.ck off, you dumb motherf..ker. Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel - 28 Jan 2005 18:37 GMT > >> Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder. > >> by Androcles [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nothing but venom to offer, psychotic ineducable imbecile Schwartz? hehe... too bad it's all venom that came out of your abdomen ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Eli Botkin - 28 Jan 2005 17:24 GMT > Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder. > by Androcles [quoted text clipped - 219 lines] > > Androcles Androcles, I like your last line best. It's not often that a writer will admit to prejudices. Definition of prejudice: an opinion or judgement formed without due examination or knowledge of the issue. Eli
Androcles - 28 Jan 2005 18:37 GMT >> Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder. >> by Androcles [quoted text clipped - 266 lines] > judgement formed without due examination or knowledge of the issue. > Eli Ah, but that isn't Einstein's definition and that's how I'm using it. Have a nice day. Androcles.
|
|
|