Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Relativity of simultaneity — where it appears

The dependence of which events count as at the same time on the observer's motion, and the source of every other relativistic effect. Length contraction, the ordering of distant events and the resolution of the twin paradox are all the same disagreement about slicing, seen from different angles.

Named by 9 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Simultaneity at β = 0.5. Two events on the same horizontal line happen at the same time for the stationary observer. The moving observer slices spacetime along the tilted line, and for them one event happens before the other.

Now is a choice of slicing

Two events happening at the same time is not a fact about the events. It is a fact about who is asking, and different observers slice spacetime at different angles.

relativity · Simultaneity A spacetime diagram at β = 0.5. Position across, time up, in units where light travels at 45°. The shaded wedges are the future and past reachable by light; the tilted axes belong to an observer moving at 0.5 of the speed of light.

The length that depends on when, and is not really about length

A moving object is measured shorter. The contraction is real, it is not an illusion of light travel time, and it turns out to be a disagreement about simultaneity wearing a different costume.

relativity · Length contraction Simultaneity at β = 0.866. Two events on the same horizontal line happen at the same time for the stationary observer. The moving observer slices spacetime along the tilted line, and for them one event happens before the other.

The pole that fits and does not fit

A twenty-metre pole is carried through a ten-metre barn at 0.866 of light speed, and both doors shut behind it. In the pole's own frame the barn is five metres long and there is plainly no room. Both accounts are correct, and the doors' closings are 57.8 nanoseconds apart in one of them.

relativity · Length contraction Which happened first, asked of several observers. Two events on a spacetime diagram: one at the origin and one 3 light-seconds away and 1 second later, so that light leaving the first cannot reach the second. Through the second event runs a family of lines, each one the set of events some observer calls simultaneous with it; an observer moving at a fraction β of the speed of light has such a line of slope β on these axes. Where a line meets the vertical axis is the time that observer assigns to the second event. For a slow observer that meeting point is above the origin and the second event happens later; for a fast one it is below and the second event happens EARLIER. The changeover is at β = 0.3333, which is the time separation divided by the space separation, and it is a legal speed only because the separation is spacelike. So the order of these two events is not a property of the events. What every observer does agree on is that neither could have caused the other, because the two lie outside each other's light cones — drawn here as the diagonals — and that agreement is what causality rests on rather than on any shared notion of before.

Which came first, and who decides

Two events far apart can happen in either order, depending on who is asked, and both answers are correct. That is not a loophole in causality but the reason causality survives at all — because the pairs whose order is negotiable are exactly the pairs neither of which could have caused the other.

relativity · Simultaneity One expression over 3 decades of area times rate. Sagnac time difference against the product of enclosed area and rotation rate, both logarithmic. The relation Δt = 4AΩ/c² is linear in that product — the fitted slope of the drawn points is 1.0000 — and it contains no refractive index, no shape of the loop and no position of the axis inside it. a 1 km fibre gyroscope on a 10 cm coil: 1.62e-19 s, 3.14e-5 fringes; Sagnac's own ring, 1913: 4.84e-17 s, 0.0666 fringes against a reported 0.07; a laboratory turntable at one revolution a second: 6.99e-17 s, 0.0331 fringes; Michelson and Gale, 1925: 4.50e-16 s, 0.2364 fringes against a reported 0.23. Michelson and Gale's rectangle in Illinois is the one that carries the check: 0.236 fringes predicted from its own dimensions and the vertical component of the Earth's rotation at its latitude, and 0.230 reported.

The ring where the two beams disagree

Send light both ways round a closed loop on a turntable and the two beams come back at different times, by 4AΩ/c² — an expression with no refractive index in it, no shape of the loop and no position of the axis. The same number is what a set of clocks round the rim fails to close by, which is the sharper statement — on a rotating platform there is no global simultaneity to be had.

relativity · Simultaneity How large now is, on this planet. By how much a synchronisation carried around a region of the rotating Earth fails to come back to itself, against the size of that region — from a metre to the whole planet, both axes logarithmic. The three horizontal lines are what three kinds of clock can resolve, and where each crosses the curve is where that clock can detect that 'now' is not a global notion: a good wristwatch at 785 thousand km, a quartz oscillator at 25 thousand km, a caesium clock at 785 km. Carried the whole way round the equator the defect is 207 nanoseconds, which is sixty metres of light travel and is the correction every satellite-navigation system applies. The effect is not small and not exotic; it is a routine engineering term, and the reason it was not an engineering term before 1955 is that nothing could measure it. A wristwatch's now is global out past the Moon; a caesium clock's reaches about the width of a large country.

How big now is

Three earlier arguments have established that a global now is a choice, that part of the choice is convention, and that for a rotating observer no consistent global choice exists at all. What survives is a size. Every observer has a local now, and how local is computable: on the rotating Earth it is 785 kilometres to the nanosecond, and a freely falling frame is inertial over the tolerance times the distance to the centre, divided by two.

relativity · Simultaneity How fast each point of a fast wheel moves. The speed through the ground of each point on the rim of a rolling wheel, in units of the speed of light, against the point's angle round the rim measured from the bottom, for axles moving at 0.5c, 0.8c, 0.95c. The dashed curves are the everyday answer, 2v sin(α/2), which puts the top at twice the axle's speed and would carry it past light. Composed relativistically, the bottom is still at rest and the top moves at 2v/(1 + v²/c²): 0.800c, 0.976c, 0.999c, always below c. Every point of the rim stays slower than light, and the fast part of the wheel is flattened into a broad plateau over the top.

The wheel whose top cannot go twice as fast

The top of a rolling wheel moves at twice the speed of its axle, and the bottom is momentarily at rest — two facts every cyclist's spokes show, blurred at the top and sharp at the bottom. Roll the wheel at a large fraction of the speed of light and the second fact survives exactly while the first cannot: the top moves at 2v/(1 + v²/c²), never as fast as light. Caught at one instant of the ground's time the spokes are bent, and over one turn the wheel advances not the circumference measured from its axle but γ times it — the rim's own length, laid down on the ground by a contact point that does not move.

relativity · Velocity-addition A cloud thrown from one event into empty space. A spacetime diagram, time up, one space dimension across, light at 45° (the edges of the shaded cone). Particles leave one event at the bottom with 13 different speeds, equally spaced in rapidity from −2.10 to 2.10 — from 0.970c one way to the same the other — and coast in straight lines (thin). The curves are the hyperbolas on which every particle's own clock reads 1, 2, 3: the cloud's own instants. Measured along any one of them, the particles are evenly spaced — the cloud is uniform — and the spacing grows in proportion to the clock: it is expanding. Nothing here is curved and nothing is created; it is special relativity in flat spacetime, and every particle, the central one included, sees the same thing.

The universe one explosion makes in empty space

Throw particles out of a single event at every speed below light's and let them coast. Drawn on a spacetime diagram, nothing curves and nothing expands — it is special relativity in an empty box. Yet the particles, slicing their history by their own clocks, find themselves in a universe that is the same everywhere, expanding, obeying an exact Hubble law with no speed limit, and filling a space of constant negative curvature. Edward Milne built a cosmology on this in 1933, and it shows that 'space expanding' and 'galaxies moving' are two slicings of one set of worldlines.

relativity · Spacetime diagram The readings of the moving clocks along one instant: a wave. The cosine of each moving clock's phase, read along a single laboratory instant, against position in light-periods of the clock, for clocks moving at 0.3c, 0.6c, 0.85c. The readings make a wave whose wavelength, measured from the drawing, is 3.18, 1.33, 0.62 light-periods: c²/(γvν₀), shrinking as the clocks move faster. For a clock that ticks at its rest energy over Planck's constant, ν₀ = mc²/h, that is h/γmv — de Broglie's wavelength, h over the momentum. Nothing about waves was assumed: only clocks, synchronised where they rest, read from a frame in which they move.

The wave a row of moving clocks leaves on an instant

Line up identical clocks, synchronise them where they stand, and send the whole row past a laboratory at a steady speed. On any one laboratory instant the clocks do not agree: the ones further ahead read less, by an amount that grows steadily along the row. The readings form a wave laid out in space, its crests are the moving row's instants, and they sweep along faster than light. Give each clock the frequency of its rest energy and the wavelength is exactly h/p. De Broglie's matter wave began, in 1923, as an argument about the relativity of simultaneity.

relativity · Simultaneity

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

The Lorentz transformationCausalityClock synchronisationInvariant intervalLength contractionLight coneThe Lorentz factorReference frameSimultaneityCoordinate timeInvarianceProper time

All concepts