I can’t help but feel like this post was generated from a physics discussion I had the other day here.
Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
I can confirm that it was
Ha! Awesome. Happy to know that even though I’m not a professor anymore there are still places where I can inspire more physics questions.
I recently made a comment that "the sun and stars being holes in the fabric of the celestial sphere through which the light of heaven shines through" is a really weird way to describe gravity wells in the fabric of spacetime emotion emitting the energy of solar fusion that created the elements we're all made of but that was mostly a joke and not directly inspired by you.
If you want to get really technical, it's because the symmetries of the Minkowski metric are the Poincaré group. Which includes only rotations, translations and boosts, none of which correspond to acceleration. Meaning it's inherently impossible to make acceleration look like being stationary because of the geometry of spacetime.
If Alice flies by Bob at some relativistic speed, then there's a very simple coordinate transform (a Lorentz boost) that flips our perspective to Alice's pov; she's stationary and Bob is moving.
If Alice were to accelerate and we did the same thing, we'd end up with a "momentarily comoving reference frame," in which Alice is only "stationary" for an instant and Bob is moving at a constant speed as before. Or we could create a non-inertial reference frame which would look nothing like Bob's perspective, but Alice would be stationary.
Physics in non-inertial frames behaves differently, as a simple example: if stationary (or constant speed) Bob dropped an object while floating in space, it would remain there. If accelerating Alice tried the same thing, it would accelerate away from her. You can test this out in an accelerating car or train or whatever and see that it's fundamentally asymmetrical even before considering SR.
In terms of things like length contraction and time dilation, these are a little more complicated mathematically, but it's just an extension of the above asymmetry when spacetime is Minkowski rather than Euclidean. The difference in observed time is clear when looking at each person's worldline, Alice's isn't straight like Bob's and so she unambiguously experiences a different proper time and proper length.
Ultimately this means that even if Alice accelerates then passes Bob at a constantly speed, they'll both see one another's clocks running slow by the same amount, when Alice decelerates and returns to compare her stopwatch with Bob's they'll have very different totals which corresponds to how much time Alice lost during her acceleration.
Short extra
My favourite feature of this asymmetry is that Alice could accelerate at a constant rate in her reference frame forever, while from outside she would appear to accelerate slower and slower as she approaches the speed of light (which is famously constant).
The tl;dr answer is that it's axiomatic. It's built in to the model, and if it weren't true, the model wouldn't work.
More broadly though, symmetry in relativity exists because there is no way of distinguishing the "truth". No one point of reference is more correct. You can't tell who is truly moving, because as you highlight, A is moving away from B is just as valid as B is moving away from A.
Acceleration breaks symmetry though, because you can measure it. You can tell whether it's A or B that's accelerating, and there is a "right" answer.
You can tell whether it’s A or B that’s accelerating, and there is a “right” answer.
This seems counterintuitive to me. Is this because of the motion itself or because of other variables (such as the fact that the acceleration can simulate gravity through the centrifugal force of whatever?)
Say Jane passes Bob, travels some distance away, then turns around and comes back. For both her outward trip and return trip, her experience and Bob’s experience are symmetric—but when Jane accelerates (by turning around), she changes reference frames. In her new reference frame, the point in Bob’s history Jane sees as simultaneous with her own changes—and the farther apart they are, the greater the time shift will be. This time shift will persist for Jane’s return journey, since she’s no longer changing reference frames.
Bob, on the other hand, never perceives a comparable shift in Jane’s history, since he never changes reference frames.
To illustrate the frame shift, let’s say Jane is four light-years away and moving at a relative speed that gives a Lorentz factor of two. So just before turning around, she sees a red-shifted signal from Bob in which he’s moving at half speed. She knows the signal took four years to reach her, so she’s looking at Bob from two years in his past.
Immediately after turning around, she sees the same signal from Bob but now he’s blue-shifted, moving at double speed. Knowing the signal took four years to reach her, she now interprets the same signal from Bob as being eight years in his past—so the point in Bob’s history she considers simultaneous with her own just shifted by six years.
Or here’s a simpler way of looking at the asymmetry: Both Bob and Jane see the other’s signal go through a red-shifted phase and a blue-shifted phase. Jane experiences the two phases as being equal in duration; but because the light from Jane’s turnaround takes four years to reach him, Bob experiences the red-shifted phase being longer that the blue-shifted phase.
~~I don't think this is true, you're right that what's considered simultaneous changes*, but it's not related to distance and that's not how redshift works.~~
~~At best Alice could use the redshift to work out how fast she's moving relative to Bob, if she's moving towards and away from him at the same speed, she'll always get the same result. She'd actually think the same moments are simultaneous regardless of direction.~~
~~The time difference is only accumulated during her acceleration so it can only be measured during it.~~
~~*but only when her speed is different~~
Instead of Alice (aka Jane) turning around, say Alice and Jane are two non-accelerating observers moving toward and away from Bob, who pass each other four light years out. Would you agree that, at the moment they pass each other, Alice and Jane would see different points in Bob’s history as being simultaneous in their respective reference frames? It would be measurable even though no acceleration is occurring.
And it’s related to distance because the further they are from Bob, the greater the discrepancy in their calculations of Bob’s relative time will be.
Edit: You’re right that this isn’t how Alice/Jane would think of it in practice, because everyone would convert their own calculations into a stationary reference frame that would take their own time dilation into account. But that doesn’t illustrate OP’s question about the reference frame symmetry as well.
Would you agree that, at the moment they pass each other, Alice and Jane would see different points in Bob’s history as being simultaneous in their respective reference frames?
I wouldn't say that's necessarily true, no. It's only true if their speeds are different, the direction they're travelling doesn't factor into it. In either case, their lines of constant time are the same because space is rotationally symmetric. I'm not thinking of them adjusting their calculations to some "true" sense of simultaneous, if that's what you meant in your edit, because there isn't one by definition.
And it’s related to distance because the further they are from Bob, the greater the discrepancy in their calculations of Bob’s relative time will be.
~~That really depends on what you mean by time shift in your original comment. If you mean the shift in what they perceive as simultaneous, then it's not, but it seemed to me that's what you meant.~~ If you mean the difference in their age then I honestly can't remember how it factors in for the accelerating case, I haven't had to think about SR problems in a while.
Consider the Lorentz boost to convert events from Alice’s reference frame to Jane’s. The time of an event (like Bob’s current point in Alice’s frame) will differ in Jane’s by a factor of vx/c^2^ (times the Lorentz factor). Since v (their velocity relative to each other) and x (the distance to Bob) are both nonzero, the times of events in Bob’s history will differ between Alice’s frame and Jane’s. And the time shift is proportional to x, which is why the distance to Bob matters.
Cool yeah, dug through the maths and took the time to understand the situation you were describing and I understand now.
I thought you were describing a something else, and then slightly confused myself by only considering the metric and not the global picture. I was trying to abuse some old heuristic techniques and they don't quite work for this case, though it was fine for what I was picturing, where Jane and Alice are symmetric about Bob.
Thanks for taking the time to convince me.
Actually reading back over this is hilariously dumb, forgive my bad reading comprehension, that is how redshift works.