Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox

Clocks Within Each Ship

I think that the fact that the clocks in the two ships appear synchronized to the initial observer in S distracts us and makes us think of the situation in non-relativistic terms. In general, most SR paradoxes can be eased by remembering the relativity of simultaneity. Let's say that the 2 spaceships have clocks at their centers, and the observer in S finds them to be synchronized throughout. What jolts us back into an SR view of the situation might be to point out that for that observer in S, a clock in the back of each ship appears to be set later than the clock in the front of that same ship. The "sameness" of the clocks in the two ships now appears much more artificial and "set up."

A pity this whole article is misconceived & incorrect

This discussion has been closed per talk page guidelines. Please do not modify it.

What a shame that readers are being misled by the sort of nonsense perpetuated by this article ! The question of whether the string breaks or not is easily settled under either of the two possible paradigms - Lorentz/Fitzgerald theory or Special Relativity. Under the Lorentz-Fitzgerald theory of absolute motion it is certainly arguable that the string would break due to a genuine physical contraction arising from motion with respect to an absolute stationary frame. However, this is definitely not the conclusion if one tries to adopt the rather more dubious paradigm of Special Relativity ! This is because in Special Relativity all inertial frames are perfectly equivalent, from which it follows rigorously that for two such frames A & B, any contraction of an object in B, observed from A would necessarily mean there would be an identical contraction of an object in B, observed from A ! This reciprocity is an unavoidable and essential feature of SR and means quite unequivocally that the observed "contractions" are all merely "apparent" and not physically real. They are nothing more than apparent artifacts of the measurement process where "relativity of simultaneity" interferes so as to make locating end points of a measured moving length non-simultaneous in the moving object's frame, thus making it "appear" shorter. The very use of the terms describing 'from this frame' or 'from that frame' as used in the article, are a clear acknowledgement of the apparent nature of the effects. (Otherwise one runs smack into fatal contradictions of the A<B whilst B<A type.) Consequently, according to Special Relativity, there would be no reason at all for the string to snap, and it would not do so ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.47.246 (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC) 146.200.47.246 Articles in Wikipedia should explain subjects acccording to mainstream science and as supported to reliable sources. If you cannot supply a reliable source to backup your personal opinion then it has no place here. That is why your comments have been repeatedly deleted. You are free to register and have more general discussions on your talk page with anyone willing to participate but this page is strictly for improving this article based on mainstream science and what is said in reliable sources. (Please feel free to delete this reply after 146.200.47.246 has had a chance to read it). Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC) For a start, Mr.Hogbin, this topic is not in any sense a part of what you like to call "mainstream science". For instance, of all the many hundreds of textbooks published over the years on Special Relativity, you'll be hard pushed to find more than 2 or 3 that even give it a mention ! Secondly, the article itself refers to Petkov and Franklin - Petkov denying string breaking in a published Springer-Verlag textbook and later elsewhere at least denying physical reality of contraction in much the same way I am doing. These viewpoints are merely mentioned in the article and I see nothing wrong in elaborating some reasoning behind them in the talk page ! (An additional bias is that while Dewan and Beran's view is presented at great length, Nawrocki's rebuttal of their analysis at the time is denied any explanation or consideration.) Thirdly, the lack of any "mainstream" support for the view as presented in the article is further evidenced by the fact that Bell was flatly contradicted by the whole of the CERN theory division - a formidable body of eminent physicists, both theoretical and experimental, most of whom would have more direct involvement in relativity applications than Bell himself ! [Again, the article further alludes to a similar situation in Japan, where Matsuda and Kinoshita's article was met with a barrage of criticism and contradiction from Japanese physicists, also better qualified than Matsuda and Kinoshita who were at the Earth and Planetary Sciences at Kobe and the Japan Meteorological Agency respectively.] Fourthly, in Bell's article he makes it clear that he is an advocate of Lorentz-Fitzgerald theory which he prefers to Einstein's Special Relativity, and is arguing specifically from the Lorentz-Fitzgerald theory point of view. If you have any doubt about this, I recommend you refer to the interview chapter with Bell himself published in "The Ghost in the Atom" by P.C.W.Davies and J.R. Brown, where Bell explicitly denies the validity of Einstein's Special Relativity in favor of Lorentz-Fitzgerald theory !! So the suggestion that Bell's view is "mainstream" is far from the truth, and the alternative view that seems to be advocated by a majority of physicists such as those contradicting Bell or Matsuda and Kinoshita, is one not sufficiently represented in the article and which I am merely trying to rectify by airing it in the talk pages. I do not see anything inappropriate in doing so !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.47.246 (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Why then do you not cite a reasonably recent reliable source which supports what you say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous !! I am using mostly some of the same sources as are used by the article itself, and are therefore equally legitimate. In addition I referred to "The Ghost in the Atom" by P.C.W.Davies & H.R.Brown (Prof.Davies being an eminent physicist and well established author of popular and semi-popular books on modern physics), which was published first by Cambridge University Press in 1986 to 1991 and subsequently by Canto in 1993-4. [Note that Bell died in 1990 and his theorem has been proven with even more exquisite precision since, thus more accurately representing his views and position regarding Lorentz-Fitzgerald vs Special Relativity in regard to the article topic is certainly relevant and well worth pointing out. You are showing a lamentable indulgence in personal bias ! See User_talk:146.200.47.246#Bell.27s_Spaceship_Paradox Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Moved to bottom. Final warning for talk page disruption at User talk:146.200.47.246. - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)