Home > Uncategorized > How long is a very fast piece of string?

How long is a very fast piece of string?

In his work on special relativity, Einstein outlined the relation between time and distance, and in doing so, changed physics as we know it. In recent posts I’ve outlined a way to rebuild that effect using a discrete network-based approach. However, those posts have avoided addressing a one of the most astounding experimental consequences of that theory: Lorentz contraction.

Lorentz contraction, simply put, describes the fact that when an object is travelling fast, it appears to squash up along its direction of motion. This gives rise to the well-known barn paradox, in which a ladder too long for a barn will seemingly fit inside that barn so long as it’s moving quickly enough. (I don’t recommend trying this at home.)

With the kind of discrete system that I described, objects have fixed length, regardless of how fast they’re going. So how can I possibly claim that the essence of special relativity has been captured?

The answer is simple: There is no actual, physical Lorentz contraction.

Am I denying that Lorentz contraction is an observed phenomenon?  No. Do I contest the fact that it can be experimentally demonstrated to exist? Absolutely not. It happens, without a doubt, but what I’m proposing is that, in reality, Lorentz contraction has everything to do with time, and nothing at all to do with length.

Far from being a wild and implausible conjecture, this idea is actually a necessary consequence of other things we know about nature. For starters, that physical particles are observed to be point-like. At the scales that experiments have been able to probe, particles don’t behave as if they have width. And if particles don’t have width, at least of a kind that we recognize, how can they possibly be compressing? The answer is, they can’t.

So where does the Lorentz contraction we observe in experiment come from? It comes from synchronization. Or, to state the case more exactly, from the relationship between objects where their relative velocity is mediated by messages being passed between those objects.

Consider a fleet of starships readying to take part in a display of fancy close-formation flying. They all start at rest somewhere near the moon, each at a carefully judged distance from each other. Then, the lead pilot of the formation begins to accelerate and the others pull away with him to keep the formation in step. Because the formation is tricky to maintain near the speed of light, the ships use lasers to assess their relative distances. They measure how long it takes for each laser ping to return from a neighbor and use that to adjust their velocity.

Should we expect the fixed formation of starships to exhibit Lorentz-contraction just like every other fast moving object? Of course we should, whether the ships are inches apart, or separated by distances wider than the solar-system. Should it make a difference if the starships are tiny, and piloted by intelligent bacteria? Or even of zero length? Not at all.

So, in other words, the size of the starships themselves is irrelevant. It’s the testing of the distances between them using lasers that makes the difference. And this, of course, is what particles do. They exchange force-carrying particles to determine how far away they want to be from each other.

What does change, depending on how fast you’re going relative to someone else, is the wavelength of light that you see coming from other people. Things moving toward you look bluer. Things moving away turn red. And the good news is that wavelength isn’t the same thing as length.

To illustrate this, try to build yourself a mental cartoon of a particle emitting a photon. The particle looks like a bowling ball. The photon looks like a length of rucked carpet being spat out the side of it. The length of the carpet sample determines the wavelength of the light. Now take your cartoon, wind it back to the start, and run it forward very slowly. At first, the carpet will be just sticking out of the bowling ball. A few frames onward you can see how rucked and wiggled it is. A few frames after that and the carpet is all the way out and flying on its way, maybe with a tiny Aladdin on it.

We can play this little sequence out because the carpet sample has physical extent. This means that carpet-emission isn’t a single event–it’s a sequence. And this will be true for any model that we build for photon emission that gives wavelength physical meaning.

This leaves with realization that one of the following two statements must be true:

  • Photon emission is instantaneous. Therefore particle wavelength doesn’t involve physical length. Therefore we need an extra mechanism to explain why wavelength should be affected by Lorentz contraction.
  • Photon emission requires time. Therefore particle wavelength is real. Therefore it’s possible (perhaps preferable) to model it as a pair of events: a start and an end.

By treating the emission of a photon, or any other messenger particle, as a pair of events, our problems with Lorentz contraction evaporate. The timing of the start-of-photon and end-of-photon events is determined by how fast the emitting particle is travelling. Similarly, the perceived wavelength of a photon by a receiving particle is determined by the subjectively experienced delay between the start-of-photon and end-of-photon events. And, voila, temporal effects substitute for spatial ones.

This puts constraints on our choice of simulation model, of course. If we’re going to model photons with start and end events, that’s going to have implications on the kinds of wave implementation we can reasonably use. Fortunately though, the implementation I outlined for my posts on the double-slit experiment will work just fine.

I won’t lie to you and say that everything about this approach is solved. How the timing of photon events of this sort translates into energy is something I still don’t have an answer for. And it’s debatable how useful this way of treating relativity will ever turn out to be. However, I think what this model demonstrates is that when it comes to physics as weird as relativity, it’s worth looking for workable implementations that don’t rely on the mathematical tools we usually use. Their requirements can shed light on assumptions in the theory that we’re often not even aware that we’re making.

  1. David Stewart Zink
    June 20, 2012 at 6:20 am

    “They exchange force-carrying particles to determine how far away they want to be from each other.” Well, no they don’t. That’s just a model. A pretty dumb one, all things considered. Not as much fun as the virtual photons in perfect reflectors…

    Photon wavelength is not because photons have extent (beyond the trivial) but because they have internal structure and because their effects have extents. Amusingly, if the photon has an internal electric dipole (since it has no net charge) then observation of its electric fields shows that sometimes the positive charge is at minimal speed relative to observers while at the same time the negative charge is at maximal speed; then they swap. There is a perfectly tuned place where both the charges and their magnetic fields cancel perfectly. The “wavelength” is of course just the inverse of the rotational speed. The rotation can be in any plane.

    Amusingly, the EM fields of two neighboring photons interact by exchanging even more photons…if you believe any of that crap. Hey look! Camelot!

    • June 25, 2012 at 10:59 pm

      Re: photon wavelength/internal structure/electric dipole/effects with extents vs. extents
      You seem to be referring to some results/theory that I’m not familiar with. If you have links, please do point me at them. If you can point me to a physics paper or article discussing the internal structure of photons, I’d be delighted.

      Whether we believe in messenger particles or not, the key point that I wanted to get across here is that the effects of electromagnetic fields propagate at the speed of light. The effect of that field can be thought of as one or more messages.

  2. Keir Finlow-Bates
    June 21, 2012 at 6:53 am

    I went back to the phone problem, and was thinking a bit more about it. In particular I became interested in the following problem:

    If you create a graph with N nodes by randomly assigning K directed edges from each node to K other nodes, what is the probability of there being Z disconnected subgraphs? And n particular what is the mean size the subgraphs?

    (If you think of this initial graph being a multiverse, then each disconnected subgraph would be a universe).

    I still wish I had the time to think a bit more about algorithms for reorganising the random connected subgraph into a more organised structure without new disconnected subgraphs breaking off. Although perhaps this doesn’t matter – you could still get a big enough subgraph with a big enough N to have a suitably sized universe.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: