Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Simultaneity — where it appears

The question of which distant events count as happening at the same moment, whose answer depends on the observer's motion. Two events with a space-like separation can be ordered either way by suitable observers, which is why nothing at such a separation can influence anything else.

Named by 21 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What the distant observer actually receives. The frequency of a signal from a clock falling into a horizon, as received far away, against the receiver's own time. It is a straight line on a logarithmic axis, which means the fading is exponential: the e-folding time fitted to the drawn curve is 2.01 rs/c, which for a 10-solar-mass hole is 198 microseconds. Nothing hovers. The image reddens, the photons arrive at an exponentially falling rate, and within a millisecond there is nothing left to see.

Two clocks that disagree about the fall

A clock falling into a horizon crosses it in a few milliseconds by its own reckoning and never crosses it at all by a distant one. Both accounts are right, and the thing everybody remembers about the second — that the image hangs there for ever — is wrong.

astrophysics · Horizons A spacetime diagram at β = 0.6. 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 0.6 of the speed of light.

The twin who comes back younger

If motion slows a clock, and motion is relative, each twin should find the other younger — and yet when they meet, one of them has aged less. The asymmetry is not in the speed and not in the acceleration; it is in which worldline is straight.

relativity · Time dilation What puts a scale on a tilted axis. A spacetime diagram with a second observer's axes at β = 0.6. The curves are the sets of events at a fixed interval from the origin — c²t² − x² = s², one branch each for s = 0.5, s = 1, s = 1.5 — and the whole point of them is where they cross. A unit of the moving observer's time is wherever the s = 1 curve meets the tilted time axis, and on the page that point is 1.250 times as far from the origin as the stationary observer's own unit. Without the hyperbolae the tilted axes carry no scale at all, and every argument about which of two clocks is behind is unreadable off the diagram. Each drawn crossing reads back as its own interval to 0.0e+0.

The quantity nobody argues about

Relativity takes away the length of a rod and the duration of an event and hands back exactly one thing in their place. Its hyperbolae are what put a scale on the tilted axes of a spacetime diagram — without which the diagram is a picture with no units on it.

relativity · Spacetime diagram Two corrections, opposite in sign and different in size. How fast a clock in a circular orbit runs compared with one on the ground, in microseconds a day, against the height of the orbit — with the two effects drawn apart rather than added. Being high speeds a clock up, by an amount that saturates: the potential term is bounded because there is only so much potential to climb out of. Moving slows it down, and a higher orbit is a slower one, so that term shrinks toward zero. They cancel at 3186 km — a radius of exactly 1.5 Earth radii, which follows from setting the sum to zero and contains neither G, nor the Earth's mass, nor the speed of light. At 20200 km the gravitational term is 45.7 µs a day and the speed term −7.2, leaving 38.5. Left uncorrected, that is 11.5 km of position error a day, growing without limit, from a clock that is working perfectly.

The clock that is wrong in two directions

A satellite clock loses 7.2 microseconds a day to its speed and gains 45.9 to its height. The two effects have opposite signs, different sizes and different dependence on the orbit, so there is exactly one altitude where they cancel — and 38.6 microseconds a day, left alone, is eleven and a half kilometres of position error.

relativity · Time dilation 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 A cube photographed at four speeds. The outline a camera records of a cube passing at β = 0, β = 0.4, β = 0.7, β = 0.9, moving to the right, seen at the moment it passes. The dashed square is what the usual picture shows: the cube flattened along its motion by the Lorentz factor. It is not what the camera gets. Light from the far face left earlier than light from the near face, by the time it needed to cross the extra distance, and the cube moved in that interval — so the far face appears displaced backwards and the side of the cube comes into view. The two effects together are exactly a rotation: at β = 0.4 the cube photographs as one turned 23.6°, at β = 0.7 the cube photographs as one turned 44.4°, at β = 0.9 the cube photographs as one turned 64.2°. The contraction has not gone anywhere — a ruler laid alongside still reads 43.6 per cent of the proper length at the highest speed drawn — but it is a statement about two positions at one time, and a photograph is not that.

The contraction no photograph shows

Every textbook picture of a relativistically moving object drawn between 1905 and 1959 showed it squashed. A camera would have shown it turned. The contraction is entirely real in the measurement that defines it, and a photograph is not that measurement.

relativity · Length contraction Two rockets that keep their distance, and the string that does not. Two rockets 0.5 unit apart in the laboratory, given identical acceleration programmes there, drawn in units where the light speed is one and c²/a is one. Their laboratory separation is constant for ever — the two worldlines are the same curve shifted sideways, and every horizontal line meets them 0.5 apart. The slanted lines are the rockets' own lines of simultaneity, and the distance between the worldlines measured along those is what a string tied between them has to span: at 0.3c it is 0.512, a stretch of 2 per cent; at 0.6c it is 0.557, a stretch of 11 per cent; at 0.8c it is 0.631, a stretch of 26 per cent; at 0.9c it is 0.710, a stretch of 42 per cent. The γL that is always quoted — 0.524, 0.625, 0.833, 1.147 here — is the limit of that measurement for a vanishing gap, and at a gap of 0.5 in these units it overstates the stretch by up to 38.1 per cent; shrinking the gap a hundredfold brings the two within 0.46 per cent. Either way the string is stretched and breaks, while the gap in the laboratory never changes by a millimetre. Length contraction is not something that happens to a rod. It is a statement about which events count as simultaneous, and a rod that is not allowed to contract is a rod that is being pulled apart.

The string that breaks between two rockets

Two rockets a metre apart, given identical acceleration programmes, stay a metre apart in the laboratory for ever. A string tied between them breaks anyway. Nothing pulls on it, nothing in the laboratory moves relative to anything else, and the string is stretched — because the distance it has to span is measured on the rockets' slices of simultaneity and not on the laboratory's.

relativity · Length contraction The figure a static field is not allowed to close. A spacetime diagram of two clocks held at fixed heights 22.5 metres apart, drawn as though spacetime were flat: time upward, height to the right, light at forty-five degrees. The lower clock sends two pulses; the upper clock receives them. Because the field does not change with time, nothing about the second pulse's journey differs from the first's, so the two null lines are congruent and the four worldlines bound a parallelogram. Opposite sides of a parallelogram in flat spacetime have equal length, so the proper time between emissions must equal the proper time between receptions, and the two clocks must agree. They do not: the measured fractional difference across a tower this tall is 2.455e-15, which Pound and Rebka established in 1960 and Pound and Snider confirmed to one per cent in 1964. Every step above is either a definition, an assumption of staticity, or a theorem of flat geometry — so the measurement refutes the flatness. No field equation has been written down, and none is needed: a laboratory result twenty-two metres tall is already incompatible with a flat spacetime.

The parallelogram that will not close

Two clocks twenty-two metres apart in a lift shaft run at different rates, by two parts in a thousand million million. That measurement, on its own, is enough to prove that spacetime cannot be flat — and the proof needs no field equation, no curvature tensor and no astronomy. It needs one drawing and the fact that opposite sides of a parallelogram are the same length.

astrophysics · Gravitational redshift 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 Where to put the far clock's zero. Two clocks three light-seconds apart, synchronised by radar: a pulse leaves the near clock at 0, bounces off the far one, and returns at 6 seconds. The far clock must be set to some time between those, and every choice is drawn. Einstein's convention puts it at 3 — halfway — and gives the same speed of light in both directions. Any other value is equally consistent with every measurement that can be made, because everything measurable involves a round trip and the round trip takes 6 seconds under every one of them: computed here across the five conventions, the round-trip times differ by 0e+0 seconds. The lines are the resulting surfaces of simultaneity, which fan out from the halfway choice. What each choice fixes is the one-way speed of light — ε = 0.25 makes it 2.00c outward and 0.67c back, ε = 0.4 makes it 1.25c outward and 0.83c back, ε = 0.5 makes it 1.00c outward and 1.00c back, ε = 0.6 makes it 0.83c outward and 1.25c back, ε = 0.75 makes it 0.67c outward and 2.00c back — and no experiment distinguishes them, because measuring a one-way speed requires two synchronised clocks and synchronising them requires the answer.

The speed that cannot be measured one way

Every measurement of the speed of light ever made has sent it out and brought it back. Measuring it one way needs two clocks that agree, and making two distant clocks agree needs a rule about when the far one should read what — which is a choice, not a discovery. The constancy of c is a fact about round trips; its isotropy is a convention, chosen because it makes the equations simple.

relativity · Simultaneity The far end that has not been told yet. A rod 3 metres long, pushed at one end at time zero. On the left, position across and time upwards, for the two fastest disturbance speeds drawn here, with the light cone beside them: nothing may lean further to the right than that line, which crosses the rod in 10.0 nanoseconds. A rigid rod would be the vertical dashed line — the far end moving at the same instant as the near one — and it is not a limit that a hard material approaches. It is a signal at infinite speed. On the right, how long the far end actually waits, against how fast the disturbance travels, both logarithmic, with every material on it: 8.8 ms at 3.4e+2 m/s, 600.0 μs at 5.0e+3 m/s, 250.0 μs at 1.2e+4 m/s, 100.0 ns at 3.0e+7 m/s, 20.0 ns at 1.5e+8 m/s. The line has slope −1 and the light cone is a hard floor beneath it. Ordinary materials sit four to five decades above that floor, which is why rigidity is such a good approximation and why it is still not a limit: steel's delay is not small compared with light's, it is 6e+4 times larger. Everything usually derived from rigid bodies survives, because the delay is beneath notice in ordinary circumstances. What does not survive is the use of rigidity in an argument about simultaneity, which is where it does real damage: a rod pushed at one end is compressed for as long as the wave takes to cross it, and there is a frame in which its far end is still at rest while its near end is moving.

Nothing is allowed to be rigid

A rigid body would move its far end at the instant its near end was pushed, which is a signal at infinite speed. Relativity forbids it — not approximately, and not as a limit that a hard enough material approaches. What follows is a ceiling on how stiff matter may be, and that ceiling caps the mass of every neutron star.

relativity · Relativistic dynamics A circumference that is more than 2π times the radius. The ratio of a rotating disc's measured circumference to 2π times its measured radius, against the speed of the rim, together with the rate of a clock carried on the rim. Rulers laid round the rim lie along their own direction of motion and are contracted; rulers laid along a radius lie across it and are not. So the circumference takes more of them than a stationary observer counts and the radius takes the same number, and the ratio is γ: 1.091 at β = 0.4, 1.400 at β = 0.7, 2.294 at β = 0.9. The geometry a rotating observer measures is therefore not Euclidean, and it is not Euclidean by an amount that depends on where on the disc the measurement is made. That is the observation Einstein said set him on the road to describing gravity with curved geometry: here is an accelerated frame, and here is a geometry in it that no choice of Cartesian coordinates can flatten. The rim's clock runs slow by the same factor, so a rotating frame has neither a common time nor a flat space.

The disc that cannot be spun

Set a disc turning and measure its circumference with rulers carried on the rim. They lie along their own direction of motion and are contracted, so more of them fit; rulers along a radius lie across the motion and are not. The ratio of circumference to radius is therefore not two pi, in a frame where nothing is happening but rotation — and Einstein said that was what set him looking for gravity in geometry.

relativity · Length contraction One factor, defined by an experiment rather than by a transformation. A observer A stays at x = 0 and flashes a light every 1 second by their own clock. B recedes at 0.6c. The flashes are the diagonal lines; where each meets B's worldline is where B receives it. B's clock reads a longer gap between arrivals than A's read between departures, by the factor k = 2.0000, and it is the same factor between every consecutive pair — measured here off the drawn meetings rather than assumed. That single number is the whole apparatus. Nobody has written down a coordinate transformation, chosen a convention for distant simultaneity, or drawn a tilted axis; the only thing used is that light travels on the diagonals and that neither observer is special, so B's flashes reach A stretched by the same k. From it: γ = (k + 1/k)/2 = 1.2500, and β = (k² − 1)/(k² + 1) = 0.6000.

Everything from an exchange of pulses

Send a flash every second and ask how often the far observer receives them. That one measured ratio generates time dilation, the composition of velocities and the twin result, with no coordinate transformation written down anywhere and no convention chosen about what "at the same time" means far away.

relativity · Doppler Where the second tick actually goes. A spacetime diagram with a second observer's axes at β = 0.6. The hyperbolae are the sets of events one second and one metre from the origin — invariantly, by the interval — and every observer's unit tick is where their own axis crosses them. That is checked here rather than drawn by eye. The moving observer's one-second mark sits 1.458 times further from the origin on the page than the stationary one's, so a ruler laid on this picture reads the two frames on different scales. The picture is not distorted; the page is Euclidean and spacetime is not. The Lorentz factor here is 1.2500.

The diagram a ruler cannot read

A spacetime diagram is drawn on flat paper, and the geometry it depicts is not flat. The tick marking one second on a moving observer's axis sits further from the origin than the stationary observer's, by an amount that is not the Lorentz factor and means nothing at all.

relativity · Spacetime diagram The point that does not notice the collision. Two bodies of rest mass 1 and 2, approaching at 0.8c and -0.3c, colliding elastically and leaving at -0.6168c and 0.5969c — speeds obtained by reversing the motion in the zero-momentum frame, with the total energy and momentum checked to a part in a million million. The third line is the energy-weighted centre. It runs straight through the collision at 0.1872c, which is the total momentum divided by the total energy, and it has no kink — verified at two hundred instants. Nothing here is the centre of mass: the rest masses are unchanged by the collision but the energies are redistributed, and it is the energies that do the weighting.

The centre that is not a place

The centre of mass is replaced in relativity by the centre of energy, which moves uniformly and does everything the old point did — except be the same point for everybody. Boost a spinning body and its centre moves, so a spinning object has no centre at all.

relativity · Relativistic dynamics Two things that change and one that does not. How a boost treats a piece of charged matter: the charge density rises by the Lorentz factor because the same charges occupy a contracted length, and the length falls by the same factor. At β = 0.6 the density is 1.250 times what it was and the length is 0.800 times, and their product is one to fourteen decimals across the whole range drawn. So the total charge is the same number in every frame, and it is the only quantity in the transformation that is. Charge density is the time component of a four-vector and transforms like an energy; charge itself is a scalar, and nothing about the observer changes it.

The one quantity a boost leaves alone

Energy, momentum, length, duration, density and field strength all change when the observer moves. Electric charge does not, and the whole of the field-transformation argument rests on it — so it is worth asking what the evidence is.

relativity · Field transformation 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 Two straight worldlines that meet twice. A spacetime diagram of a universe whose space is a circle 10 light-years round, drawn unrolled: the shaded strip is the whole of space, and the strips beside it are the same space again, so the dashed lines are the same stay-at-home twin A seen in the copies. Twin B leaves A at 0.6c and never changes speed or direction. After 16.67 years by A's clock B has gone once round and meets A again — the line reaches A's copy at 10 light-years. Neither twin has accelerated at any moment; both worldlines are straight. A has aged 16.67 years and B 13.33, less by the factor 1/γ = 0.800. The usual resolution of the twin paradox, that the travelling twin is the one who turned round, is not available: here nobody turned.

The twin who never turns round

The twin paradox is usually settled by pointing at the turn: the travelling twin is the one who fired the engines and came back, and so the one whose worldline is not straight. Put the twins in a universe whose space closes on itself, like the surface of a cylinder, and the traveller can come home by going straight on. Neither twin ever accelerates, both worldlines are straight, and the traveller still comes back younger. What decides it is not any motion but the shape of space, which picks out one state of motion as special — and hands every observer a way to measure it.

relativity · Time dilation In the rod's frame: a long rod threads through, front first. The same events seen from the rod's own frame, computed by transforming each point's motion from the hole's frame. Here the rod is its full length and the hole is the contracted one, 0.60 of it, sweeping left at 0.8c — a long rod over a short hole. But the moment each point starts to fall is not one moment in this frame: the front end starts at t′ = −1.07, the rear end at −0.27, and each point then falls at γu = 0.50c. While the start of the fall runs back along it the rod is bent, level behind and sloping in front; once every point is falling it is straight again and tilted, front down, by 21.8°. It threads through the hole front first as the hole slides under it, each part dropping below the plate just before the plate's far edge reaches it. It passes through in both frames; only the order of events along it differs.

The rod that is level for only one observer

A metre rod slides at high speed over a metre-wide hole in a thin plate. In the plate's frame the rod is contracted and drops through. In the rod's frame the hole is contracted, the rod is far too long for it, and it drops through anyway — because the instruction 'every point starts to fall now' names a different now for the rod. Its front end starts first, the start runs back along it, and the rod tips into the hole like a spear. Whether a moving thing is level is a question about which events are simultaneous, and so it has an answer only for an observer.

relativity · Simultaneity Where the spot is, and when, for three sweep speeds. A spacetime diagram of the spot a turning beam makes on a flat screen at distance D: position along the screen across, the time at which light arrives there up, both in units of D and D/c, for beams sweeping the screen's nearest point at ωD = 0.5c, 1.0c, 3.0c. Each curve is the arrival time t(x) = atan(x/D)/ω + √(D² + x²)/c. Every curve has a lowest point on the approaching side — at x = −1.25, −0.79, −0.32 D respectively — because far out the beam strikes the screen obliquely and its sweep along the screen outruns light whatever ω is. Light reaches that point first: the spot is born there, as a pair, one running back up the screen and one forward. The faster the sweep, the nearer the centre the birth. The faint dashed lines are light signals, slope one. Wherever a spot's track is flatter than they are, it is a sequence of events no signal could connect.

The spot that outruns light and carries nothing

Flick a laser pointer across the face of the Moon and the spot it makes crosses the Moon faster than light. Nothing is wrong with relativity: the spot is not a thing, and no part of it travels from one side to the other. Each lit point is lit by its own light, sent from the hand. What makes the spot worth studying is how strange such a non-thing is allowed to be. It can be born in the middle of the screen as a pair running apart; its speed can be made infinite, or reversed, merely by watching it from a moving frame; and the composition of velocities that caps everything real has nothing to say about it.

relativity · Velocity-addition The travelling twin's surfaces of now. Surfaces of equal radar time for a twin who leaves at 0.6c and turns round after 4 years of their own time, every half-year of the twin's time from 0.5 to 7.5, drawn in the home frame; each surface is every event the twin would time, by echo, at that moment. On the outbound leg, far from the turnaround's influence, the surfaces are the tilted lines of the outbound rest frame; on the way back, those of the return frame. In between they bend, with a corner where they cross the light rays from the turnaround, and they sweep up the home worldline smoothly: the home clock read at radar times 3.5, 4 and 4.5 is 4.00, 5.00 and 6.00. No two surfaces cross, so no event is given two times, and none is skipped.

The now a travelling twin can measure

The standard account of the twin paradox has the traveller's sense of “now on Earth” lurch forward by years at the moment of turning round. That lurch belongs to a recipe — borrow the simultaneity of whatever inertial frame the traveller happens to be in — and the recipe is not something the traveller can measure. Timing the home clock by echo, as a radar does, gives a now that the traveller can measure, that never jumps and never crosses itself, and that during the turnaround coincides, surprisingly, with the stay-at-home's own.

relativity · Simultaneity

Named alongside it

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

Proper timeThe Lorentz transformationReference framesLight coneLength contractionReference frameSpacetime diagramTime dilationThe twin paradoxCausalityClock synchronisationCoordinate time

All concepts