Talk:PlanetPhysics/On the Idea of Time in Physics

Original TeX Content from PlanetPhysics Archive

%%% This file is part of PlanetPhysics snapshot of 2011-09-01
%%% Primary Title: On the Idea of Time in Physics
%%% Primary Category Code: 03.30.+p
%%% Filename: OnTheIdeaOfTimeInPhysics.tex
%%% Version: 2
%%% Owner: bloftin
%%% Author(s): bloftin
%%% PlanetPhysics is released under the GNU Free Documentation License.
%%% You should have received a file called fdl.txt along with this file.        
%%% If not, please write to gnu@gnu.org.
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\pagestyle{empty}
\setlength{\paperwidth}{8.5in}
\setlength{\paperheight}{11in}

\setlength{\topmargin}{0.00in}
\setlength{\headsep}{0.00in}
\setlength{\headheight}{0.00in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.00in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.00in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9.00in}
\setlength{\voffset}{0.00in}
\setlength{\hoffset}{0.00in}
\setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.00in}
\setlength{\marginparsep}{0.00in}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.00in}
\setlength{\parskip}{0.15in}

\usepackage{html}

% this is the default PlanetMath preamble.  as your knowledge
% of TeX increases, you will probably want to edit this, but
% it should be fine as is for beginners.

% almost certainly you want these
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}

% used for TeXing text within eps files
%\usepackage{psfrag}
% need this for including graphics (\includegraphics)
%\usepackage{graphicx}
% for neatly defining theorems and propositions
%\usepackage{amsthm}
% making logically defined graphics
%\usepackage{xypic}

% there are many more packages, add them here as you need them

% define commands here

\begin{document}

 \subsection{On the Idea of Time in Physics}
From \htmladdnormallink{Relativity: The Special and General Theory}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/SpecialTheoryOfRelativity.html} by \htmladdnormallink{Albert Einstein}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/AlbertEinstein.html}
Lightning has struck the rails on our railway embankment at two places
A and B far distant from each other. I make the additional assertion
that these two lightning flashes occurred simultaneously. If I ask you
whether there is sense in this statement, you will answer my question
with a decided ``Yes." But if I now approach you with the request to
explain to me the sense of the statement more precisely, you find
after some consideration that the answer to this question is not so
easy as it appears at first sight.

After some time perhaps the following answer would occur to you: ``The
significance of the statement is clear in itself and needs no further
explanation; of course it would require some consideration if I were
to be commissioned to determine by observations whether in the actual
case the two events took place simultaneously or not." I cannot be
satisfied with this answer for the following reason. Supposing that as
a result of ingenious considerations an able meteorologist were to
discover that the lightning must always strike the places A and B
simultaneously, then we should be faced with the task of testing
whether or not this theoretical result is in accordance with the
reality. We encounter the same difficulty with all physical statements
in which the conception ``simultaneous'' plays a part. The \htmladdnormallink{concept}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/PreciseIdea.html} does not exist for the physicist until he has the possibility of
discovering whether or not it is fulfilled in an actual case. We thus
require a definition of simultaneity such that this definition
supplies us with the method by means of which, in the present case, he
can decide by experiment whether or not both the lightning strokes
occurred simultaneously. As long as this requirement is not satisfied,
I allow myself to be deceived as a physicist (and of course the same
applies if I am not a physicist), when I imagine that I am able to
attach a meaning to the statement of simultaneity. (I would ask the
reader not to proceed farther until he is fully convinced on this
point.)

After thinking the matter over for some time you then offer the
following suggestion with which to test simultaneity. By measuring
along the rails, the connecting line AB should be measured up and an
observer placed at the mid-point M of the distance AB. This observer
should be supplied with an arrangement ({\it e.g.} two mirrors inclined at
$90^\circ$) which allows him visually to observe both places A and B at the
same time. If the observer perceives the two flashes of lightning at
the same time, then they are simultaneous.

I am very pleased with this suggestion, but for all that I cannot
regard the matter as quite settled, because I feel constrained to
raise the following objection:

"Your definition would certainly be right, if only I knew that the
light by means of which the observer at M perceives the lightning
flashes travels along the length A~$\longrightarrow$~M with the same \htmladdnormallink{velocity}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/Velocity.html} as
along the length B~$\longrightarrow$~M. But an examination of this supposition
would only be possible if we already had at our disposal the means of
measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in
a logical circle."

After further consideration you cast a somewhat disdainful glance at
me---and rightly so---and you declare:

``I maintain my previous definition nevertheless, because in reality it
assumes absolutely nothing about light. There is only one demand to be
made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real
case it must supply us with an empirical decision as to whether or not
the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. That my definition
satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same
time to traverse the path A~$\longrightarrow$~M as for the path B~$\longrightarrow$~M is in
reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical
nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill
in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity."

It is clear that this definition can be used to give an exact meaning
not only to \emph{two} events, but to as many events as we care to choose,
and independently of the positions of the scenes of the events with
respect to the body of reference \footnotemark[1] (here the railway embankment).
We are thus led also to a definition of ``time" in physics. For this
purpose we suppose that clocks of identical construction are placed at
the points A, B, and C of the railway line (co-ordinate system) and
that they are set in such a manner that the positions of their
pointers are simultaneously (in the above sense) the same. Under these
conditions we understand by the ``time" of an event the reading
(position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the
immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a
time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable
of observation.

This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity
of which will hardly be doubted without empirical evidence to the
contrary. It has been assumed that all these clocks go \emph{at the same
rate} if they are of identical construction. Stated more exactly: When
two clocks arranged at rest in different places of a reference-body
are set in such a manner that a \emph{particular} position of the pointers of
the one clock is \emph{simultaneous} (in the above sense) with the same
position, of the pointers of the other clock, then identical ``settings''
are always simultaneous (in the sense of the above
definition).


\footnotetext[1]{We suppose further, that, when three events A, B, and C occur in
different places in such a manner that A is simultaneous with B and B
is simultaneous with C (simultaneous in the sense of the above
definition), then the criterion for the simultaneity of the pair of
events A, C is also satisfied. This assumption is a physical
hypothesis about the the of propagation of light: it must certainly be
fulfilled if we are to maintain the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo.}



\subsection{References}
This article is derived from the Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org) 1999, 2002. \htmladdnormallink{Einstein Reference Archive}{http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/index.htm} which is under the FDL copyright.

\end{document}