Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox/Archive 1

This is not an unsolved or even a difficult problem
I'm reverting anonymous edits, claiming that this is an unsolved problem of special relativity (or the like). It's not even a difficult problem, once you actually do the calculations or think soberly about.

The paradoxical about it IMHO can be relegated to three areas:


 * 1) The setting may considered ambigous
 * 2) It may be difficult to give a convincing (a.k.a. common sense) expalantion of the result, trying to avoid all formulas
 * 3) In extremo, point number 2 may lead adventurous souls to claim that SR is wrong, because the SR result contradicts common sense.

Pjacobi 18:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we give some formulas in the chapter "SR predictions"?
 * In the case of constant proper acceleration after the start, the worldlines of the spaceships would be:
 * leading ship (starting at x=0, t=0 in the lab system)
 * x(&tau;) = (cosh (&alpha;&tau;) - 1) / &alpha;
 * t(&tau;) = sinh (&alpha;&tau;) / &tau;
 * leading ship (starting at x=-l, t=0 in the lab system)
 * x(&tau;) = (cosh (&alpha;&tau;) - 1) / &alpha; - l
 * t(&tau;) = sinh (&alpha;&tau;) / &alpha;
 * with &tau; being the proper time and &alpha; the proper acceleration.
 * It is a trivial consequence that their distance in the lab systems remains constant, also in the case of a changing &alpha; (&tau;) as long as both ships have the same acceleration program.
 * Pjacobi 09:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The above view is mistaken. The problem may be regarded as unsettled in view of the papers still written on it & reaching different conclusions. See the latest reference by Hsu & Suzuki.

I agree the setting can be ambiguous, which is why it is essential to read the original references to pin down what is defined in the setup & not include as premises plausible deductions added by later authors. The emphasis is on identical s'ships with identical propulsion, implying identical proper acceleration in the s'ship-string frame of reference. That is, an identical force will be felt in each s'ship and the distance between them will therefore be constant referred to the same frame or an inertial one momentarily co-moving with it. If one mistakenly assumes equal apparent acceleration w.r.t. the launchsite frame, this would indeed mean the s'ships move apart in the accelerated frame BUT it would also mean their accelerations would be different in the same mutual reference frame and in turn violate the primary premise of identical s'ships.

If the s'ships have identical propulsion, then from the moment of launch, the s'ship-string-s'ship system is in increasing relative motion and Lorentz coordinate transformations, applying to coordinate intervals regardless of their space or matter content, indicate that launchsite observers will find string, s'ships AND s'ship distance all contracted by the same ratio.

It is easy to see the error in the Bell-type argument by simply drawing the Minkowski diagram of an inertial observer already moving at constant velocity v in the same direction, who observes the whole acceleration as the s'ships "catch up with" and become at rest w.r.t. the same. [One would use for the string ends the lower half of the same hyperbolae used to represent them above the x-axis in the launch frame diagram.] It is immediately apparent that the different starting times make no difference to the string length now exceeding the s'ship distance, if that is correspondingly assumed to be constant w.r.t. this equivalent inertial observer.

Rod Ball, 16:25, 13 April 2006.


 * I have given the wordlines according to SR. The case of uniform acceleration is a standard textbook examples. These worlines equations clearly imply, that the distance remains constant. If you disagree with this result, please give the equatations in your POV.
 * The worldline equations also clearly imply that equal proper accelerations at equal proper times is equivalent to equal lab frame acceleration at equal lab frame times.
 * The choice of parameters doesn't make the effect as visible as would be desirable, but have a look at these graphs:
 * continuous acceleration
 * somewhat clearer: series idealised instantanous accelerations
 * Maybe I see where your line of reasoning goes wrong:
 * The emphasis is on identical s'ships with identical propulsion, implying identical proper acceleration in the s'ship-string frame of reference.
 * No, it's identical proper acceleration at identical proper times! And this makes a huge difference. ship 1 at proper time start+10sec and ship 2 at proper time start+10sec are not on the same time coordinate for either of these reference frames.
 * Pjacobi 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I meant. Proper times being measured in the s'ships frame of reference. Let me clarify by going back to Dewan & Beran and the question of ambiguity. The original paper by D&B was based on their belief that distances between objects do not exhibit the Lorentz contraction that SR predicts for extended connected objects themselves, and say say so explicitly giving as reason that the "rockets" (as they were supposing) would not be aware of each other or of their distance from each other and could not threrefore "adjust" their accelerations appropriately. They specify identical rockets identically constructed so that the proper accelerations (ie. as measured by weighted spring balance or other accelerometer) would be identical. They then claim that the rockets would have "the same velocity at all times" and that the distance between them will remain constant. It is not hard to see that these statements are inconsistent. If the "rockets" have the same proper acceleration as measured by a comoving observer, then their accelerations measured from the launchsite frame will be different and they will have different velocities at the same launchsite time and the same velocity at different launchsite times, just as the ends of the string do. On the other hand, if the "same velocity", "constant distance" deductions (they follow the "then" part of an "if...then" statement)are taken to be primary stipulations of the setup then the proper accelerations of the rockets will be different and the specification of "identical rockets, identically constructed" becomes irrelevant. For this reason and because D&B clearly thought they were presenting a situation that showed empty spatial intervals were exempt from the usual Lorentz contraction, their paper must be regarded as fundamentally wrong. What I believe has happened over the years is that through re-telling without reference to the original paper, the viewpoint and intention of D&B has been lost and the "constant distance" deduction has become incorporated as a premise. Now the constant distance is seen as the "contracted" distance at increasing velocity and thus the "proper" distance between the s'ships (I revert) is steadily increasing and breaking the thread, whose proper length remains the same. This is ok but now the "point" of the thought experiment is lost and the analysis doesn't "show" anything significant. If the proper accelerations are different, the thread would be expected to break even in a Galilean/Newtonian context ! I therefore agree that if the s'ships propulsions or proper accelerations are adjusted differentially so as to remain at a constant distance and constant coordinate acceleration from the launchsite POV, they will inevitably move apart w.r.t. any co-moving observer and consequently break the thread. However, anyone who reads the original paper can see that this is not the thought problem as Dewan & Beran intended it. There are thus two simple but subtly different scenarios depending on to whose reference frame the "equal accelerations" are referred,and it is not easy to distinguish which is being addressed in many instances. Which Bell was addressing in his (very) brief reiteration is not clear but one cannot rule out the possibility that he also thought "spaces" didn't contract. He had written a biography of Fitzgerald (who definitely saw contraction as a physical change due to resistance of the "aether" and thus only applicable to connected matter) and in his own QM book specifically endorses the early relativistic viewpoints of Lorentz, Poincare and Larmor, in distinction to the "purist" interpretations of Einstein.

Rod Ball, 19:45 14 April 2006.


 * It is rather unfortunate, that popular introductions into SR use so much the "time dilation" and "lorentz contraction". Yes some simple cases can be described simply, but other cases look most unclear. Just consider that SR == lorentz transformation. Stop argueing using the contraction/dilation approach.
 * Excuse me, but your arguments are all messed up: It isn't the case, that every extended object defines a frame of reference. especially ship1 and ship2 are not in compatible reference frames. To make the ship1-string-ship2 object be in one frame, carefully adjusted unequal accelerations would have to be applied, quasi simulating the proverbial solid rod. And if we have this simulated solid rod, front and back neither have the same acceleration nor matching proper times.
 * Pjacobi 21:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you refer to popular introductions. Am I imagining a subtle implication that I may be only familiar with such ? Not only untrue but I have at least taken the trouble to get hold of nearly all the relevant papers on this topic together with a good deal else on acceleration of rigid rods etc. and studied them closely in order to get a full picture of the various approaches. Anyway, what is most clear is that the core issue is a qualitative one - will the s'ship distance behave under lorentz transformation (I was only using "contraction" to keep the focus on the length issue without mangling my prose even more by having to further qualify every statement with time references, which do not qualitatively affect the argument) the same as a rigid rod (ie.contract) or not? This is still the issue that divides authors, (and decides the fate of the string). In Matsuda & Kinoshita's paper (which IMO has quite a few errors) they state "The distance between the spaceships does not undergo Lorentz contraction (sic) contrarily to the length of one spaceship.". This is in sharp contrast to the result of Hsu & Suzuki.

You are again missing the point when you say "ship1 & ship2 are not in compatible RF's". If the s'ships keep a fixed distance w.r.t. launchsite then that is correct, but the fixed distance is the very point at issue ! If contrariwise the distance behaves identically to the string, as many believe it should, then ship1, string & ship2 are in the same RF. At the risk of labouring the point, consider the situation in a purely Newtonian context. There would be no issue of string-breaking as s'ships accelerate, string length & s-s distance being equal & constant. Now "switch on" special relativity & re-run launch. The string-breaking position has to suppose that as velocity increases, the Lorentz transformations that come into effect selectively single out the string whilst not affecting the s'ship distance, despite the fact that LT's are coordinate transformations and s'ships have exactly the same coordinates as the string ends.

[Separate issue: I disagree with your solid rod analogy, it is not necessary to apply "carefully adjusted unequal accelerations", the rod can be accelerated perfectly well with a uniform force along its length - the accelerations of the ends will then appear unequal from the inertial starting-point frame.]

Rod Ball, 19:35 15 April 2006.


 * Oh please just do the calculations. Equal accelerations won't give a solid rod. This will just produce the spaceship-paradox-case.
 * See formula 27 in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9810017 -- each point on the rod has different acceleration.
 * And regarding the question, which is the correct setting, for the spaceship paradox case.
 * I'd consider it rather clear to fix these points:
 * At labframe t=0 the ships are at rest, at a distance l in x-directions (the entire experiment will fit in the x-t plane)
 * There proper times by convention are also at &tau;1 = &tau;2 = 0
 * They are considered to be indentical (mass and drive) and switch on their drives at t = 0
 * This will lead to equal proper accelerations at equal proper times.
 * And this will lead to equal distance in the lab frame. It's just mathematics, no interpretatory leeway.
 * Pjacobi 19:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the Nicolic paper & been familiar with it for some time. Good for finding explicit expressions for rod length as measured from lab frame during acceleration. (27) also depicts lab frame view, which I don't dispute, but Nicolic seems to overlook this and wrongly claims that "an observer in a uniformly accelerated rocket does not feel a homogeneous inertial force". It is only inhomogeneous if measured at the same labtime, which is not what a comoving observer would do (unless being perverse). (22) is a fairly trivial point that during acceleration the equal labtime coordinates of the rod are not exactly "gamma" contracted. This is quite evident in the x-t diagram where the back, then the front achieve velocity v at subsequent labtimes so that, as it were, "gamma" varies along the rod, as view from labframe. The value is in the previous calculations where the effect is quantified to give explicit expressions for observed length during acc., after rear end stops acc. & "coasts" at v, and finally when front is also coasting & exact Lorentz contraction applies. This does not address the issue. All the calculated contraction formulae are as measured from labframe and are affected by the relative difference in simulaneity just as they are in traditional constant velocity SR.

I agree with your adumbrated points except the last one ! (surprised ?) I think our difference has something to do with our view of the "reality" of the LT, in particular the Lorentz contraction. Consequently I think it useful to check views on standard SR between constant v frames. I believe and consider as standard view that length shortenings are an artifact of measurements made whilst in relative motion (due to lack of mutual simultaneity) and not a physical effect on the object or system measured. I don't see how it could be otherwise since either system could be regarded as lab and the effect is reciprocal, not to mention the old pole-and-barn chestnut. Now I can't see any reason for turning what is "apparent" into something very real when acc. is considered. I appreciate that there is now an asymmetry in that there is no doubt which system is acc., but an alternative inertial observer, already moving at v, would see the same acc. as a deceleration and the same lengths increasing, as the first obs. sees contracting.

Thus as I understand it, the string is thought to break because it is not "strong enough" to pull the rear s'ship with it as it contracts. From the above it should be clear that unmodified SR regards the string shrinkage as not "real" (in the string's frame if you like) but just an effect on the measurement from an obs. moving at -v. Such an effect on measurement would also be expected to diminish the s'ship-s'hip distance by same ratio, thus leaving string intact. Even the advocates of string breaking (and, I note, Nicolic also) admit that an observer acc. with the s'ships & string will measure launchsite dimensions increasingly contracted by usual Lorentz factor. So we have the same reciprocal feature. "A" cannot very well measure "B"'s lengths diminished by "gamma" if his own standards and dimensions are already actually less than "B"'s by the same factor.

Getting back to Bell &c, we both agree (I think) that the front s'ship and the string lie on a line of simultaneity drawn from the origin (simultaneous that is in their mutual RF moving at v) in the x-t diagram of the hyperbolic motion. We simply differ on whether the rear s'ship is parallel to front s'ship trajectory or identical with rear string end traj. My argument for the latter is consistent with the measurement view I've just described, in that while an effect actually on observed objects would be expected to influence the string and the lengths of each s'ship, it would not perhaps affect a distance between them; whereas an effect on "measurement" would affect all of them equally. I also feel that if we take the POV of an inertial obs. already at v in +ve x direction, it is tricky to suggest a traj. for rear s'ship consistent with string breaking, except by assuming s'ship distance, far from staying constant, now expands rapidly at (gamma)^2. In most treatments the s'ship distance is tacitly "assumed" to be constant, without explanation or justification (I except D&B) and I can't help thinking it derives from a classical mechanics mindset because the author is often evidently quite unaware that they have made any assumption.

Rod Ball, 5:40 17 April 2006


 * Going from
 * This will lead to equal proper accelerations at equal proper times.
 * to
 * And this will lead to equal distance in the lab frame. It's just mathematics, no interpretatory leeway.
 * is just maths, integretating the equatation of motion.
 * If you agree with the first sentence but not with the second, you should check your maths and ifg still consider them correct present your calculation here. Or you are at severe disagreement with SR.
 * IMHO it can also be seen without calculation, but distrusting appeals to common sense, I doubt this will bring us forward: The trajectory of spaceship1 in the lab frame coordinate system with its starting point at the origin, is identical to the trajectory of spaceship2 in translated coordinate system with ss2's starting point at the origin.
 * Pjacobi 16:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a perfect example of what I meant by a classical mechanics mindset. The distance will only be constant in the Newtonian or sub-relativistic regime. Integrating the equations of motion will merely give the classical trajectories. The same would be true for the ends of a rigid rod, which is why your argument needs to subvert SR by regarding the relativistic contraction as "real" and therefore require unequal accelerations to "make" or "allow" (it's not clear which since the reasoning is false) the rod to contract. As I said before, to accelerate a rigid rod only inertial stresses need be considered because so-called "relativistic stresses" are a fanciful fiction dreamed up by people who persist in the archaic Fitzgerald notion that relativistic contraction is an actual physical shrinkage. The relativistic rod has equal proper acceleration at equal proper times at each end.

I can also make the point from Nicolic's paper. Note that despite all the preamble and window dressing, the first of eq.(23) is simply what Austin Gleeson writes immediately as the hyperbolae at points x and (x-L). [Just subtract (13.11) from the first (13.10)] Gleeson's is much simpler and clearer what is going on. We can now see that he could have chosen (x+L) and x instead, which leads immediately to the first of Nicolic's eq.(21)! So we can see that Nicolic has calculated nothing more than the trivial difference in expression between choosing points (x-L) & x or x & (x+L). He hasn't found a difference between pushing and pulling at all !! (Which is exactly what I'd expect since the contraction isn't real) I think this shows how blindly following "calculations" without thinking about what they mean and apply to, can lead to nonsense.

Rod Ball, 10:50 18 April 2006


 * To comment just the last specific point: Pushing and pulling are equivalent when adjusting the acceleration, this is also said in the paper.
 * Now to the more fundamental problem with this little exchange on the talk page: I'm mildly disturbed by your argumentation, which I consider to be a strange mix of detail knowledge and general confusion. The physical theory which has some fundamental problems with understandindng the measuring process is quantum theory (but hardcore Copenhageners and pragmatics ignore even this). Special relativity in itself doesn't are much about measurement. In the history, deduction and pedagogics of the theory, sure. But to actually use the theory to calculate something it's heavily optional. This also shows in the fact, that the most intense discussions of SR and measurement are still the classical treatments from the beginning of SR, by Einstein himself, Born, Reichenbach, etc.
 * Integrating the equations of motion will merely give the classical trajectories.? For sure not!
 * The common ground are only the initial conditions:
 * x(0)=0 and t(0)=0
 * In the newtonian treatment acceleration equals proper acceleration and lab time equals proper time, so we get:
 * dt/d&tau; = 1, integrating gives t(&tau;) = &tau;
 * d²x/dt² = &alpha; and integrating x = 1/2 &alpha; t² = 1/2 &alpha; &tau;²
 * In SR we have
 * (dt/d&tau;)² - (dx/dt&tau;)² = 1
 * (d²x/d&tau;²)² - (d²t/d&tau;²)² = &alpha;²
 * Which, after some technical massaging, gives the trajectory mentioned at the top:
 * x(&tau;) = (cosh (&alpha;&tau;) - 1) / &alpha;
 * t(&tau;) = sinh (&alpha;&tau;) / &alpha;
 * This is all standard textbook stuff and I'd consider it pointless to continue the discussion.
 * Pjacobi 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) Look again. I have not "adjusted the acceleration" but simply used two equivalent expressions for the same points x1-x2 which are a distance L apart.

(2) My original intention was to redress a gross imbalance in the presentation of the problem as a cut & dried standard textbook example by pointing out that it is still debated today. I do not pretend to speak for JH Field of CERN nor the many others who Matsuda & Kinoshita say objected to their conclusions. Much less for Hsu & Suzuki who use methods I'm not familiar with. I don't know if you regard these others as "confused" - or perhaps they haven't read the right textbooks ? I am not in the least bit confused. I have identified the core areas of disagreement and presented as clearly as I can, a variety of my own arguments that I take pains to show are consistent both with one another and with standard SR. Along the way I have shown the Nicolic paper to be meaningless and based on the fallacy of confusing geometry with dynamics. Almost none of all this have you actually addressed in your somewhat repetitious replies.

(3) Some time ago when I started researching this issue, I checked every textbook covering SR that I could lay my hands on in the 3 largest London bookshops and the science museum library, in search of material. I guess there might have been about 3 dozen different texts and I found Bell's problem dealt with in only one of them. In the latest 3rd.edition of Hans Stephani's "General Relativity" it is on page 29 (with a slightly odd description of the string-breaking result). This is hardly "standard". Of course I may have missed some or they have been missing from the shelves when I visited, so if you could list a few of them (say half a dozen) that specifically deal with Bell's problem, I'll certainly look out for them.

(4) I have not claimed there is a "fundamental problem with understanding the measuring process". I have simply pointed out that there are two interpretative paradigms (and have been for a long time). I have tried to show that the "real effect on observed object" interpretation is inconsistent with SR and leads to contradictions.

(5) In your "calculation" (I'm being polite) you integrate to get the classical expressions as I said. To just say "In SR we have..." and then write the hyperbolic equations is merely "switching" to SR, not deriving it. You can't create an argument by merely juxtaposing statements. Whatever you do could apply equally well to the s'ships or the string-ends unless a further arbitrary assumption is introduced.

(6) At the very start (about 5 pages ago) your last equation:
 * t(&tau;) = sinh (&alpha;&tau;) / &tau;

is wrong and it should read:
 * t(&tau;) = sinh (&alpha;&tau;) / &alpha;

At the time I took it to be just a "typo" and didn't quibble, but now that you have repeated the error I thought it worth mentioning.

Rod Ball, 13:35 20 April 2006


 * Of course, you're right on this one. My sloppy spelling on discussion pages now even affects the formulas. Very unfortunate. It's false both times, as I did a copy and paste. I've corrected them and hope there to be no additional error.
 * The actual integrating involves technicalities peripheral to our discussions, but that the trajectories given are correct solutions can easily be seen. It's a bit like the proverbial Euclidian Mousetrap Proof.
 * You are correct, that the BSP isn't explicitely covered in every textbook, but the kinematics of uniform acceleratiom are (often also in GR texts, to introduce Rindler coordinates and horizons).
 * When discussing this on de: we found explicit coverage of BSP in Rindler (ISBN 0-19-850836-0) and d'Inverno (ISBN 0198596863). Within online available courseware, the Harvard one mentions it rather peripherally. The MotionMountain online book has a good discussion of accelerating observes, but this source may be considered on the edge of the WP:V policy.
 * Excuse me for being harsh in this discussion, but the parallel article in the German Wikipedia was for some time under heavy troll attack and required time consuming interventions. Perhaps I'm a bit thinn skinned since then.
 * Perhaps we can even agree on at least two points:
 * It's tempting but misguided to follow from the resoltion of the BSP, that th eLorentz contraction is a real, physical shrinkage. This should be made clearer. AFAIK you can go the extreme and get all SR from a Lorentz aether and physical contraction, but this exercise is eliminated by Occam's Razor from serious consideration.
 * The rope doesn't break authors which, by thinking about the BSP come to reject SR (as we know it) cannot be disproofed by inconsistencies in their arguments (hopefully for them, I didn't check). This would be the case for Fields, if I read him right. They simply offer an alternative theory and experiments would be necessary to rule it out. Of course, I'd consider highly unlikely, that SR is wrong, as there are quite a number of successfull applications of its formula, from particle accelerators to GPS.
 * Pjacobi 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few examples on the web. I've seen the Harvard (just a mention) although don't think I've come across motionmountain. Gleeson of course should be top of the (very short) list for depth & detail (even tho' I disagree). Will refresh my memory on Rindler & d'Inverno. Must certainly agree that two is not every textbook !

1st bullet. I would say the other way round. My BSP following from apparent shrinkage which follows from bijective Lorentz transformations.

2nd bullet. I don't know how many non-breakers want to reject SR. I hope it would be very few, since the one does not at all follow from the other.

Experiments - The snag is that the contraction prediction is the one aspect of SR for which no direct experimental evidence exists and with current technology is not likely to anytime soon ! Almost all realistic SR calcs are done from one viewpoint (the labframe) so the need for reconciling contradictory measurements between 2 observers seldom arises except in hypotheticals like BSP.

I absolutely do not believe SR is wrong. (It's more secure than GR) I do disagree over BSP & link disagreement with degree of "reality" attributed to contraction. This issue has been wrangled over from the birth of the theory. (See Arthur Miller's exhaustive history) Also with whether "spaces contract" (which comes from reality issue)

Last point. Note that the instigators of this whole conundrum, Dewan & Beran, obviously felt a little uneasy about their assumption of constant distance since they go out of their way in an appendix to try to justify it. Their argument about s'ships "knowing how much to adjust" their motion seems a bit naïve now but at least they recognised there was an issue.

Rod Ball, 16:15 21 April


 * I assume I should take a break from this overlong discussion (which, as it is most often the case, IMHO) would profit from more participants. I still think, that after some thinking, it should be 100% clear that the string will break. It is even a bit easier to see than its corollary, that accelartion of the rigid rod requires different proper accelarations. But we are going circles by now. --Pjacobi 22:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would have to say the opposite ! The rigid rod is easier to dispose of ( ie.show that what I have been saying is correct ), and that the spaceship problem follows as a corollary. I have therefore composed a diagram and simple proof or demonstration of the properties of an accelerated rigid rod.

The following diagram shows successive positions of the rod in x-t coordinates of the launchsite or "lab" frame.

The two hyperbolae with the same vertex at O and common asymptote c=1 (dashed line) show the locus of points representing each end of the rod starting at x=3 and 5 when t=0 and v=0.

The dotted lines parallel to the x axis B1-B2, C1-C2 and D1-D2 show successive position and length of the rod as observed by measurement from the launchsite frame.

The sloping lines are lines of simultaneity along the rod itself and show the orientation of the x' axis of the rod's comoving frame as v increases with successive time intervals.

All points along each hyperbola are a constant "proper" distance from the origin, so A1-B2, B1-C2, C1-D2 and D1-E2 are all the same "proper" length of the rod, which is constant.

Furthermore, each end of the rod has the same velocity at any given "proper" time. That is to say Va1=Vb2, Vb1=Vc2, Vc1=Vd2 and Vd1=Ve2 as the tangents are equal at each pair of points.

The last two alone (constant length plus same velocity at each end) are sufficient to show that the "proper" acceleration at each end of the rod is always equal, in its own "proper" comoving reference frame. However, I need to reconcile this with the following:

Most textbooks show that the acceleration of such hyperbolic motion is ( if c=1 ), just 1/d where d is the vertex distance of the hyperbola on the x axis. Thus the accelerations along the diagram hyperbolae at t=0 are 1/3 and 1/5.

It is, I think, important to recognise that these are the accelerations of individual trajectories and represent the relative acceleration of points tracing the curves at each end of the rod as observed from the launchsite. A horizontal line parallel to the x axis and moving upwards would intersect the hyperbolae at points that accelerate in the ratio 1/3 to 1/5.

Since each sloping line of simultaneity is a line of constant "proper" time ( tau ), it is immediate that the "proper" time ( tau ) of the rod is always equal at each end and along its length. So we need to compare the accelerations at points A1&B2, or B1&C2, or C1&D2 or D1&E2.

Because the "proper" distance from O to the hyperbolae are in the ratio 5/3, the foremost (far) end of the rod traces the right hand hyperbola at 5/3 times the rate that the rearmost (near) end of the rod moves along the left hand hyperbola. This is a necessary "correlation" factor relating the motion of the two points that has not, so far as I know, been taken into account before.

When this ratio is applied to the calculation to compare the acceleration of the ends of the "proper" length of the rod, it is also immediate that the "proper" acceleration is equal at each end of and along the rod for any given sloping line ( any given tau ).

Since, for instance, rocket propulsions act in the moving frame of the rod and are independant of the launchsite frame, they deliver "proper" forces and "proper" accelerations. Thus to propel a rigid rod to relativistic speeds without distorting or stressing it, only equal forces uniformly distributed along its length are required This is the so-called "Born rigid motion".

In summary it has been demonstrated that for an accelerated rigid rod....

(a) the proper length remains constant,

(b) the velocity at each end and along its proper length is always equal,

(c) the proper time (tau) at each end and along its proper length is always equal,

(d) the proper acceleration at each end and along its proper length is always equal.

It should be noted in particular that the commonly held belief that a clock in the nose of an accelerating rocket will gain time on one in the rear, for a co-moving observer, is entirely wrong and is due to a misapplication of an incorrect form of the equivalence principle.

Corollary: Bell's spaceship problem.

It follows from above that "identical rockets, identically constructed" will produce identical proper accelerations. That implies they will follow the diagram hyperbolae such that their proper distance remains constant, but their coordinate distance in the x-t frame of the launch site will be measured as diminishing, exactly like the string, which will therefore not break.

Rod Ball, 14:10  25 April 2006

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod Ball (talk • contribs)


 * Now that you've registered (good for you!), you can sign and date your comments in talk pages by typing ~ . This practice (together with adopting a single persona while editing the WP) helps others to keep straight who said what.  I removed the dashes which create the box, which you probably didn't intend.---CH 05:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * About Rod's diagram: to correlate this with the current version of the article, Rod is clearly discussing Rindler observers, not Bell observers. The paper by Matsuda and Kinoshita is clearly discussing Bell observers rather than Rindler observers.  Rod's two world lines have path curvatures 1/3 (left) and 1/5 (right).  This means that these two observers measure constant accelerations (in the same direction) with magnitude 1/3, 1/5 respectively.  These are of course measured with respect to ideal clocks carried by these observers, since path curvature is the rate of bending per unit arc length.  Indeed, the Rindler congruence is just the Minkowski analog of a family of concentric circles in the euclidean plane. Rod claims to propel a rigid rod to relativistic speeds without distorting or stressing it, only equal forces uniformly distributed along its length are required.  But this is precisely what Bell points out is wrong.  A pair of Bell observers can model the world lines of the endpoints of a rod accelerated with equal acceleration all along its length, but as we have seen, such a rod would be elongating.  A pair of Rindler observers can model the world lines of the endpoints of a rod which is accelerated while not elongating, but as we have seen, in this case the trailing endpoint must accelerate harder than the leading endpoint.  I wonder if part of the problem here might lie with confusing Rindler observers with Bell observers? ---CH 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The text books get it wrong, but you get it right? That is a terrible argument. --Pjacobi 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have slightly re-worded it to neutralise the textbook criticism and improve clarity. Rod Ball 08:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a few extra words would be appropriate to explain my comment regarding the equivalence principle. It is known experimentally that a clock higher in a gravitational field will run faster and gain time over one below it. Two such clocks would experience a different force due to the differing gravitational field strength. There is thus no equivalence to an accelerating rocket which, having equal acceleration along its length would only be equivalent to an un-physical "uniform" gravitational field. Such a field would be produced by an infinite flat plane of matter or, as has also been suggested, in a off-centre hole inside a solid sphere. No difference in clock rates would be expected for such fields where no "tidal" effects exist and apart from anything else, translational invariance negates the possibility.

I expect my reasoning to stand on its own merits and that it is in no way at variance with SR. If "received knowledge" is endlessly passed on without critical appraisal, it would not be surprising that errors could creep in. I wish they were not there but to progress one has to take a clear-sighted approach.

Rod Ball, 14:20 27 April 2006


 * Sorry, but isn't this original research? - mako 23:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't taken the time to read this long discussion very carefully (it seems to be much ado over nothing), but I did notice that Rod wrote a clock higher in a gravitational field will run faster and gain time over one below it. Maybe he was writing carelessly (never a good idea in discussing paradoxes!), but this reflects a common and fundamental misunderstanding of metric theories of gravitation such as general relativity.  Time runs at the same rate for all ideal clocks.  But due to the curvature of spacetime, null geodesics can converge or diverge and this can result in time signals sent from observer A to observer B being received with a frequency shift.  This is the origin of the so-called gravitational red-shift. ---CH 05:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, just noticed another problem: Rod, when you refer to "infinite flat plane of matter" you may have in mind the Taub plane-symmetric vacuum solution, which has often been rediscovered in many different coordinate charts--- and which has been misunderstood by at least one crank, who maintained (quite incorrectly) that it shows that two flat plates will not attract one another in general relativity. However, this does not have the properties you might expect, and indeed, the idea of an infinite flat plate is even more suspect in gtr than in Newtonian gravity.  In order to obtain a more accurate theory (general relativity), we should expect that we will have to give up certain idealizations (as Pauli and Born already observed long ago, we have to give up the Newtonian notion of a rigid body, for example).  Quite a few common misunderstandings of gtr are due to overlooking this tradeoff. ---CH 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say CH seems to be way off the subject. If you can't get the hang of the earlier discussion I suggest a little web research on Bell's spaceship problem/paradox ( see references on article page ) and rigid rod acceleration. Regarding clocks in a gravitational field try "Hafele & Keating" or "Vessot" to get the gist of my reference.

It would be nice to think it original research, Mako, but it is only the point about relative rates of traversing the hyperbolae that I'm adding to existing analyses whilst also emphasising the constant proper time along the rod/rocket.

Picking up an earlier point of PJacobi, I have found that the two spaceship problem is not treated in either d'Inverno or Rindler. The rigid rod is, however, covered in Rindler's "Relativity" OUP 2nd.ed.(2006) on pages 72/3 where he says [my comments in square brackets]....

"Clearly if the front end of a rigidly moving rod moves forward with constant proper acceleration, the back end must move with greater acceleration [note absence of "proper"], because of the ever-increasing contraction of the rod. Since the same is true of each portion of the rod, the acceleration must increase steadily towards the rear. But that all points move with constant [Rindler's italics] proper acceleration....comes as a pleasant surprise. And yet it is 'obvious'".

I didn't claim 'the' textbooks go wrong, only 'many' books etc., but on reflection perhaps I should have said 'many web articles and some books' or such like. Anyway, here's another quote from Ellis & Williams' "Flat and Curved Space-Time" OUP 2nd.ed.(2000) page 171/2 [That's the same G.F.R Ellis who co-wrote "Large Scale Structure of Space-Time" with Hawking].....

"Because of the construction of these worldlines by the use of Lorentz transformations, which preserve space and time intervals and will uniformly increment the velocity for the same time step on each world line for all times, this necessarily happens in such a way that each observer will measure his rate of change of speed relative to his proper time to be a constant.... From the force law, this would require a constant force (e.g. a steadily firing rocket engine)"

Finally back to Bell's problem with another reference - Vesselin Petkov's "Relativity and the Nature of Space-Time" Springer 'Frontiers' series (2005) page 136 footnote 5.....

"An obvious problem with Bell's explanation is his assumption that the space between B and C does not contract, whereas the thread does. Also, as a rule, those who believe the length contraction involves forces do not analyze sufficiently the reciprocity of this effect...."

'Much ado' yes, but 'over nothing' certainly not. Far from playing around with whacky ideas, this issue is absolutely fundamental to the basis of SR and therefore of GR also. It is the only example I know of that throws into relief the distinction between the old aether-derived relativity of Fitzgerald and Lorentz, and the structure-free purity of Einstein's approach, where in particular, Lorentz contraction appears in measurements of spatial intervals as well as material lengths. - Rod Ball, 18:40 29 April 2006


 * Rod, you wrote: "I have to say CH seems to be way off the subject. If you can't get the hang of the earlier discussion I suggest a little web research on Bell's spaceship problem/paradox ( see references on article page ) and rigid rod acceleration." I disagree, and if fact I suggested that you back off and consider a Newtonian problem precisely because I think your reading is simply confusing you, so I feel that if you want to make progress, you should go back to first principles.


 * I am guessing that you have in mind the notion that some conspiracy of precisely timed accelerations of the various bits of the string will avoid slack and possibly even avoid breaking the string.  But I doubt that is true.  My suggestion is that you go back to Newtonian mechanics and reduce the whole thing to linear algebra by replacing the string plus trailing spaceship with concatenated springs (you can try to neglect the masses of the springs) connecting a finite number of masses (you can try making them identical masses to start with).  Then you have the simplest possible coupling of harmonic oscillators, and you want to see how hard you can accelerate the leading mass without stretching any one spring too hard (set some "breakage threshold").  If you have never worked with coupled linear oscillators, I assure you that this is a lovely and useful topic so your time will not be wasted even outside the context of your present problem.  I am confident that once you know how to treat this Newtonian problem, you will understand better the relativistic analog.  HTH, ---CH 02:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the indirect argument via rigid rod (above) which I consider to be sound (& conforming to existing textbook treatments with the single addition of a natural correlation factor that is the inverse of the acceleration ratios of points treated in isolation),  the two spaceship problem can also be tackled more directly. In E.Dewan's reply to Nawrocki he attempts to deal with the issue of how the thread could break from the POV of an inertial observer already moving at constant v in the same direction, for whom the thread will increase its length from L/gamma at launch, to L at speed v, when at rest w.r.t. the new observer.

Dewan can only suggest that because the front s'ship would appear to launch first, it is for this different reason that the moving observer sees the thread break. The "moving observer" POV is a potent argument against the idea that the thread should break and thus the "different launch time" defence has been wheeled out repeatedly over the years. I can, however, find no example of diagram use to illustrate the corresponding deceleration despite the obvious need for such. I have therefore composed a diagram of the launch from a moving inertial POV and it not only clearly shows Dewan's suggestion is untenable, but also shows it is highly problematic, to say the least, to suggest ANY trajectory consistent with both a) identical s'ships and b) breaking of the thread.



Consider first the launch site POV in the first diagram, where the bold lines show hyperbolic x-t trajectories of the front rocket (B1-B2) and the trailing end of the rope/string/thread (A1-A2). The bold dashed line shows Dewan/Bell's proposed trajectory for constant distance w.r.t. launchsite.....



Now consider the POV of constant v observer in the second diagram, using appropriate parts of the same hyperbolae. It is obvious that the thread cannot break between timeB1 & "A launches" as these are simultaneous in launchsite frame. The different launch times clearly play no part in the issue. Worse still is that the rear rocket is caught between two contradictions. The dashed trajectory between A2 & B2 which maintains "constant distance" slackens the thread in contradiction to breaking it, whereas the dashed trajectory to the left of A2 is clearly on the one hand in violation of the "constant distance" idea and on the other is a different deceleration & thus in contradiction to the condition of identical s'ships/rockets. Note that the only trajectory consistent with both diagrams is where the rear rocket follows the same bold line of the end of the thread, so that it neither breaks nor grows slack. Rod Ball 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Guaranteed to fail?
From skimming the above, it seems that Rod may have failed to take account of the fact that each bit of matter in the the string will eventually have to accelerate if there is to be any hope of avoiding breaking the string. Since only the endpoints of the string are assumed to be attached to an object equipped with propulsion devices such as rocket engines, it would seem that tension in the string is eventually unavoidable if the string is not to break. Since string cannot easily be pushed, it seems that in order to (eventually) get each bit of matter in the string to accelerate, the string must be pulled by the leading spaceship. Thus, it would seem that a wave of tension must be initiated at the event at which the leading spaceship begins to accelerate, and this must travel down the string, either taking up slack (which may be hard to model) if the trailing spaceship has already begun to acclerate by the time this tension wave reaches it, or by starting to pull on the trailing spaceship when it reaches it. Indeed, it seems that the trailing spaceship only complicates the scenario unneccessarily. Furthermore, the string is assumed to be "very flimsy", but apparently the leading spaceship is assumed to eventually be accelerating rapidly. (Otherwise, it is not clear that we are talking about a thought experiment dealing with relativistic physics.) It seems to me that these assumptions are likely to make it impossible to avoid breaking the string. The only question is when and where it breaks. And the lesson seems to be that this breakage has more to do with self-contradictions in the hidden assumptions of the original thought experiment than with relativistic physics. ---CH 06:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear CH, I've carefully read your points but I confess I simply can't see what they have to do with the BSP. The Gleeson notes (external link) and the Harvard item Pjacobi links to above are clear enough presentations that, being a hypothetical thought expt., need take no account of waves of tension or elasticity, nor for that matter, of loss of rocket fuel reducing mass during flight. The string could, however, be substituted by a rigid rod (hence relevance) attached to front s'ship and just touching rear at launch. Needless to say, I think a correct application of SR means the s'ships will behave relativistically as would the ends of an accelerated rod. - Rod Ball, 20:10 1 May 2006

Rod, I was trying to encourage you to discover for yourself a number of important points: HTH ---CH 00:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Some might assume that only kinematics is required to resolve the paradox, but in fact the nature of relativistic kinematics is responsible for the involvement of dynamical considerations (tensions, etc.).
 * 2) In relativistic physics, unlike Newtonian mechanics, no rod can be rigidly accelerated and no disk can be rigidly spun up.
 * 3) More generally, in making the transition from Newtonian to relativistic physics, we must always be alert to the possibility that some familiar idealization will have been broken (we should expect this because a model in a more realistic theory will presumably require more stringent boundary conditions).
 * 4) In Newtonian mechanics, if both endpoints of a rod have unit accleration, they maintain their distance. In str, the trailing endpoint must accelerate harder to keep up (and similarly for all the intermediate elements of mass in the rod).
 * 5) The easiest way to see this is to use the Rindler coordinates $$ds^2 = -x^2 \, dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2, \; \; 0 < x < \infty, -\infty < t, y, z < \infty $$ with the frame field $$\vec{e}_0 = 1/x \, \partial_t, \; \; \vec{e}_1 = \partial_x, \; \; \vec{e}_2 = \partial_y, \; \; \vec{e}_3 = \partial_z$$. This is a non-spinning non-inertial frame.  The integral curves of the timelike unit vector field in our frame, $$\vec{e}_0$$, are the world lines of observers who accelerate away from $$x=0$$ with acceleration $$1/x \, \vec{e}_1$$.  These world lines appear as vertical lines in the Rindler chart, but in a Cartesian chart they appear as hyperbolae nested inside the Rindler wedge.  These world lines are vorticity-free, and the orthogonal hyperslices $$t=t_0$$ are locally isometric to ordinary euclidean three space.  Thus we can define a ruler distance from the metric itself, and between the observer $$x=x_0, y=0,z=0$$ and the observer $$x=x_0+h, y=0,z=0$$ this ruler distance is just $$h$$.  Similarly we can define a radar distance by a round trip light signal, and you can verify that the corresponding radar distance is $$h - h^2/2/x[0] + O(h^3)$$.  These two definitions disagree on value (for nearby observers these discrepancies are of course negligible); similarly for some other notions of distance.  Nonetheless these notions of distance all agree that our Rindler observers do maintain constant distance from one another.  This is just what we would expect over small distances since the expansion tensor of the timelike congruence formed by the world lines of our observers vanishes, but for the Rindler congruence, we have a much stronger notion of constant distance.  Yet, like Alice, the trailing observer of our pair is accelerating harder simply in order to keep up!
 * So, if a relativistic observer (say using his rocket to maintain constant acceleration in a comoving frame) pulls a cable or rod, the trailing end must be accelerating harder than expected from Newtonian mechanics. Since we cannot rigidly accelerate a rod or cable, to make a model of the situation we must deal with the mechanical properties of the material of the cable or rod.  In particular, we wish to understand what will happen when a rapidly accelerating observer holds one end of a system of springs, or some other model of an idealized "rod" which can respond to tension.  To answer the question of whether or not a cable/rod will break in Bell's scenario, we must evidently choose a suitable material model.  The outcome will depend upon the strength of the material used, but we might wish to study how it will respond to the tension it is required to withstand.
 * 1) In Newtonian physics, a popular model is the one-dimensional harmonic lattice, which consists of identical masses connected by identical springs all having the same equilibrium length. Let's imagine pulling a finite chain of springs connected in this way.  For a modest number of masses, say three, we can easily obtain the equations governing the motion of the system using the Laplace transform, and this suggests what to expect in general (which we can then confirm, although the Laplace transform might not be the most efficient path to the desired result!).  To wit: if we apply a constant external acceleration to a finite chain of springs, we find that in a frame comoving with the center of mass of the spring system, the system is vibrating with certain combinations of the same fundamental frequencies which appear in the stationary vibration problem for this system (these frequencies can be found using linear algebra).  Similarly, if we "kick" one endpoint.  But note that when we kick the system, the whole thing instantly moves as a unit, which is obviously incompatible with the principle that mass-energy cannot be transported faster than the speed of light.  Indeed, the Kruskal-Zabusky limit of the harmonic lattice is the dispersive wave equation $$u[tt] = c^2 \, (u[xx] + \lambda^2 \, u[xxxx] )$$ where c is the speed of sound in the lattice.  This explains the behavior of disturbances in a harmonic lattice: putative "wave packets" disperse (since components with different frequencies travel at different speeds), and the equation leads to paradoxes in which something responds "instantaneously".  Indeed, it turns out that the form of this PDE is invariant under neither Lorentz nor Galilei boosts; we say that boosts are not point symmetries of this PDE.  (This discussion is related to discussion of Plebański's heavenly equation in the arXiv; the hope is that certain symmetry reductions of the Einstein field equation will admit elegant solutions by inverse scattering.  Such miracles sometimes happen when dispersive and nonlinear effects balance in order to admit the existence of soliton solutions.)  So we see that Hooke's law is incompatible with relativistic kinematics; this is yet another idealization we must give up!  Since the simplest models in Newtonian continuum mechanics are ultimately based upon Hooke's law, we should expect these too will require modification in relativistic physics.
 * 2) Bottom line: idealizations are the physicist's friend, but only if he chooses ones which are in fact admissible in the theory he is studying!


 * It is strange to hear myself echoing somewhat Pjacobi's much earlier requests to study existing textbook coverage, but I implore you to please try and read the available references on article page of BSP and the "not uncommon" textbook treatment of rigid rods. Your approach is so far removed from the topic and so irrelevant to a hypothetical thought experiment that I hardly know where to begin except to say "read the literature". Only then will you appreciate a) what the problem is about, and b) the appropriate methods of dealing with it. The two references above from Rindler and Ellis & Williams are a good place to start for rigid rod analysis and if you still feel that the authors should have utilized "chains of springs", "wave packets" and Laplace transforms etc.etc., I would urge you to write to them directly so that they may amend their next editions. You completely misunderstand the nature of Lorentz contraction. The contraction is a secondary effect of the relativity of simultaneity between different velocity observers. Distance measurements are only meaningful for any observer if they are referred to a simultaneous time coordinate in his frame. The discrepancies that produce "Lorentz contraction" are simply the result of two relatively moving observers having differing simultaneity so that the measurements of one appear separated in time to the other; and vice versa. - Rod Ball, 5:35 3 May 2006

Rod, I am guessing that you may be unfamiliar with frame fields but I assure you that there is nothing I have said here which reflects a misunderstanding of the Lorentz transformations. As for studying the literature, consider the possibility that I am probably more familiar with the literature on relativistic physics than you are! It is amusing that you decry appeal to harmonic oscillators and try to appeal to the authority of Ellis to support your dismissal! You might want to take a quick look at ; in section 4 of this paper, Ellis and Schmidt use a simple harmonic oscillator model to argue that the null curvature singularity of certain pp waves are weak in the intriguing sense that while the curvature diverges, this happens too quickly to actually break anything (that is, in say a rod, the expansion tensor remains bounded during the encounter while the tidal tensor very briefly diverges). This is of course a different problem, but does illustrate my claim that using harmonic oscillators to study a question of whether something will break in some physical scenario is by no means an outrageous suggestion, as you seem to believe! I repeat that your reading of (a very small portion of?) the literature has evidently only confused you, as the fact that you are arguing that all the textbooks are wrong ought to suggest. To make progress you will need to learn some background, and you should give up your disdain for my proposal that you compare accelerated harmonic oscillators in a Newtonian and relativistic treatment. ---CH 23:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, please try and stick to the point ! This is a talk page attached to "Bell's s'ship paradox/problem" and not the right place for rambling diversions on GR, exotic spacetimes, coupled harmonic oscillators, etc.etc. I appreciate these may be your pet subjects but they are simply not relevant. Since you are obviously not going to be bothered to read up on BSP, I'll have to help you out.


 * 1) BSP is a problem in SR. Trying to use GR does not clarify anything, diagrams do.


 * 2) In your 5th sentence after "Guaranteed to fail" you say "the trailing spaceship only complicates the scenario unnecessarily" !! Well, if you are obsessed with modelling the string's motion you may think so, but unfortunately I have to point out that the two spaceships or rockets & the distance between them is precisely what the problem is about. It is the string that is unnecessary !
 * It is only there to contrast Lorentz "contraction" of material lengths with Dewan & Berans's (incorrect) view that rocket-rocket distance should not exhibit contraction.


 * 3) In the very next sentence you say "the leading spaceship is assumed to eventually be accelerating rapidly. (Otherwise it is not clear that we are talking about.....relativistic physics.)" Not so. You are confusing acceleration with velocity. It is sufficiently rapid velocity that takes measurements into the relativistic regime. The acceleration could remain low and indeed, from the launchsite frame, it diminishes steadily to zero.


 * 4) Your misunderstanding of Lorentz contraction is amply evident from your assertion of the need to model it with concatenated springs etc.


 * I have already dealt with the "all the textbooks" (which I didn't say) point earlier. I can't help it if you won't read what is written.  - Rod Ball, 5 May 2006

Rod, you have seriously misunderstood my comments:
 * 1) I did not "use gtr"; nowhere did I appeal to the Einstein field equation or even to curved spacetimes.  I did use frame fields, but despite the title of that article (which I wrote) it should be clear that this is a general method of computing with vectorial/tensorial objects expressed in terms of a possibly non-Cartesian coordinate chart (on some smooth manifold, Lorentzian or not, curved or not).  When physicists speak of computing "physical components" of tensorial objects, they generally mean computing components with respect to a frame and its dual coframe.  If you read frame fields carefully, you should see that this is a perfectly appropriate and convenient tool to use when computing say with polar spherical coordinates in E3.  To see this, just try some computation using the frame $$\vec{e}_1 = \partial_r, \; \vec{e}_2 = \frac{1}{r} \, \partial_\theta, \; \vec{e}_3 = \frac{1}{r \, \sin(\theta)} \, \partial_\phi$$ where $$0 < r < \infty, \; 0 < \theta < \pi, \; -\pi < \phi < \pi$$.  There is nothing particularly "exotic" about the notion of frames and coframes!
 * 2) Don't take my remark that "the trailing spaceship only complicates the scenario unnecessarily" out of context.  (You seem to be several days behind in your reading, incidently, which might partially explain our apparent disagreement about the nature of our discussion.)  There are in fact several possible thought experiments here, as we both know (e.g., leading and trailing observers with same magnitude and direction of acceleration; Rindler observers, various possible models of "rods" with applied forces in some direction at various places along the rod, possible time variation of applied forces or impulsive kicks, etc.).  In my first response, I was trying to suggest a simplification of the thought experiement using string.  In later responses, I tried suggesting that you think about alternative simplified thought experiment using Rindler observers.  What is common to these suggestions is this: while reading the literature is usually a good idea, in this case it has only confused you, so I suggest considering in turn simplified thought experiments, not neglecting to carefully analyze (and consider) Newtonian analogs.
 * 3) You seem to make much of "proper acceleration", but I am worried that you might have misunderstood something you read. In some of your comments above it seems that you might be "double counting" and coming to a mathematically incorrect conclusion. When I speak of the acceleration vector of a timelike curve in a Lorentzian manifold with unit tangent vector $$\vec{U}$$, I mean the covariant derivative $$\nabla_{\vec{U}} \vec{U}$$.  The magnitude of this vector is the analog of path curvature in elementary differential geometry.  This is usually only taught for euclidean geometry (the euclidean plane E2), but with a change of sign it works perfectly well for Minkowski geometry (the E1,1 plane).  Path curvature measures turning per unit length taken along the curve.  That is, in the Minkowski case it does measure bending per unit of proper time (i.e. equal time intervals as measured by an ideal clock carried by the accelerating observer).  Don't be mislead by that fact that we are appealing to tensor calculus (in the geometric language of covariant derivatives and frame fields)--- that's not at all the same thing as appealing to general relativity!  When you say the acceleration could remain low and indeed, from the launchsite frame, it diminishes steadily to zero,  I am not sure exactly which thought experiment you have in mind, but the (proper) acceleration of each Rindler observer is constant.  OTH, I agree that ultimately we want to consider thought experiments with nonconstant acceleration, and when we do that, an important point is to avoid using mechanical models which result in a body responding too quickly to a force applied at some element of matter.  This is one reason why considering a Newtonian analysis of the harmonic lattice and thinking about some related "paradoxes" involving dispersive wave equations like $$u_{tt} = c^2 \, \left( u + \lambda^2 \, u_{xx} \right)_{xx}$$  is valuable in coming to grips with Bell's spaceship "paradox".
 * 4) Of course I did not say that one needs to use spring systems to understand the Lorentz transformation!  I said (in other words) that considering a Newtonian analysis of the harmonic lattice and thinking about some related "paradoxes" involving dispersive wave equations like $$u_{tt} = c^2 \, \left( u + \lambda^2 \, u_{xx} \right)_{xx}$$  is valuable in coming to grips with Bell's spaceship "paradox".

I regret that my remarks seem "rambling" to you. However, repeatedly accusing me of misunderstanding relativistic kinematics (much less relativistic dynamics) or of being an ignoramus, while amusing, clearly does not point the way forward in this discussion. While you may be feeling frustrated (or slighted?), please bear in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

As far as I know, you have not clarified your mathematical background. I sense that you may not be very familiar with modern (or classical?) methods of differential geometry, particularly calculus on smooth manifolds. If that is so, some very readable introductions are Maybe reading the literature confused you in part because you haven't studied subjects the authors assume their readers have mastered? I also feel that several of the papers you cite are not very well written, which no doubt also plays a role. Happy reading (of the books!). HTH ---CH 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Offers a particularly nice transition from classical to modern differential geometry.
 * A readable introduction to differential forms and calculus on manifolds.
 * A gorgeously illustrated overview of geometric methods in physics, including covariant differentiation, frames and coframes.


 * I think most people would agree that not-reading and mis-reading are far likelier causes of confusion. As Pjacobi headed the talk "This is not an unsolved or even a difficult problem". It turns out that it has been "solved" with two different results but there is only one problem and it is a simple one. Using it as a springboard for general musings on what other forms of problem you might have preferred and all the interesting methods that such extrapolations might throw up is quite frankly a waste of time and space in this wikipedia context. Neither Bell nor any of the other authors deem it necessary to to use any but standard SR methods nor for one moment worry about the material properties of the string. An encyclopedia, like a dictionary, should always try where possible, to explain terms and concepts by the use of simpler terms and concepts, not more recondite ones. It's ok after that to use a "see also" link.


 * In order to be more constructive than this exchange has thus far been, can I draw your attention to the two demonstrations of non-string breaking that I entered with diagrams some pages back before "Guaranteed to fail". They both use simple methods and straightforward arguments. No-one has so far claimed to find any flaw in the reasoning and they are at least a relevant contribution to the discussion. (Incidentally, I have quite a number of diff.geom. books including the latter two but I don't believe that such apparatus in any way clarifies Bell's problem nor helps decide the simple issue of whether two identical s'ships with identical propulsion should exhibit Lorentz contraction of their distance w.r.t. launchsite. I am in no doubt that they do, and my confidence is the greater for the simplicity of the approach.) Rod Ball 18:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rod, I don't know what you mean by "standard SR methods" but it seems to me that the confusion exhibited in the papers you cited (and many more--- why do you assume I have read none of them?) ought to suggest that a serious scholar should not fail to consider broadening his horizons when it comes to mathematical technique. The application of more appropriate concepts and methods to a given problem rarely creates more confusion, as you seem to fear! You seem to assume that the methods I advocated familiarizing yourself which are not simple. They are simple, just unfamiliar to you. (If you really feel that covectors and other differential forms are "complicated", IMO you didn't read Flanders with sufficient care.) If for no other reason than to argue your case knowledgebably, I still urge you to take the time to study those books and make sure that you can reproduce the frame computations I gave in Rindler coordinates and Frame fields in general relativity. You seem to insist that every simple problem must have a simple solution. That is often true, but you seem to overlook the fact that many "paradoxes"--- and this one is no exception to the rule--- arise from conflating distinct notions which happen to agree in more familiar situations. These distinctions may indeed be simple once you understand them, but this issue illustrates why broadening your mathematical horizons is so important: more appropriate concepts and techniques can clearly reveal this kind of confusion.

I plan to write an article on Born coordinates, parallel to Rindler coordinates, and perhaps some more background articles on frame fields, and then to rewrite Ehrenfest paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox, referring to these background articles, to more clearly explain the issues involved, while hopefully avoiding a tedious survey of the generally unimpressive literature on these topics. I would like to avoid conflict with you and I am disturbed that your recent edits to Bell's spaceship paradox seem to move this article further from the mainstream. I understand that you feel very strongly that the mainstream view is wrong, but please remember that WP:WIN. ---CH 16:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You did not cope with my points 2) and 3) but simply tried to prevaricate and bluster, which does you no credit. It would have been more honest to just say "Whoops, I meant velocity, not acceleration."


 * I have slightly adjusted your tiresome Bell rewrite. There are not "many" versions. If you imagine there are - where are your references ?


 * Your use of "dissident" is slanted and biassed. Have you any statistics among physicists worldwide to justify it ?


 * You've reinstated the Nicolic reference despite my showing that it's nonsense a few pages back.


 * I think your whole attitude is insufferably high-handed. Rod Ball 08:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rod, I've volunteered to compare your treatment above and the standard treatment by Nikolic, etc, on your user talk page. Article talk pages are generally not the right places for arguments about the subject of the article or original research. Let's have a try there (and we can try to abstain from any mathematical technicalities not strictly needed).


 * Wikipedia relies heavily on the hope, that the scientific process get's it right (in the vast majority of cases). We can't try to outsmart international academia with our limited resources. Note that the Nikolic paper got accepted in a peer-reviewed journal, at least one paper not from Nikolic, citing it positively got accepted in a peer-reviewed journal, and the Fields papers trying to reject Nikolic all were rejected for publication.
 * Pjacobi 09:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rod, you wrote that you believe that somewhere I wrote acceleration when I meant velocity. That is not the case. As for responding to your points, I believe that I have been very generous in responding to your complaints item by item, and that in fact it is you who have simply ignored the points I took the time to explain on this talk page. For example, above you refer again to "distance", even though I had just mentioned that there are in fact several distinct notions of distance involved (see Rindler coordinates for a discussion). It is unfortunate that you regard my efforts to help you advance your understanding as "blustering".

As for multiple versions of Bell's spaceship paradox, I am puzzled by your question since there are multiple versions discussed in the recent eprints I cited, as you can readily check since links are provided. I try to keep the number of citations to a half dozen in each article, but as I mentioned I am planning to also rewrite Ehrenfest's paradox and there I do plan to cite some recent eprints. You might also look at these, since several of the issues discussed in them are common to Bell's spaceship paradox, and some of the Ehrenfest paradox papers in fact also discuss spaceship and string paradoxes. I believe it is clear from the literature that the view I characterized as mainstream is in fact mainstream. Wikipedia is traditionally concensus driven, and I believe that the community will support me on this one.

I am getting tired of arguing with you, since--- as User:Pjacobi already told you before I came along--- the result of computation is unambiguous regarding Bell's original question. Since you are arguing that the textbook answer is wrong, IMO it is up to you to learn the concepts and techniques involved in justifying that answer, rather than accusing us of failing to justify the mainstream resolution of spaceship and string "paradoxes". ---CH 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * More bluster & evasion. I simply invite readers (if there are any by now, your longwinded meanderings via Kruskal-Zabusky limits and Plebanski's heavenly equations etc.etc. would have exhausted the patience of Job), to decide whether "assumed to eventually [my italics] be accelerating rapidly. (Otherwise it is not clear we are talking about....relativistic physics"

is correct or even consistent with "constant" or "diminishing" acceleration.


 * Mainstream ? What about Bell and the CERN Theory Division ? One for and a "clear consensus" against ! These are not naive punters. And all the opposition to Matsuda & Kinoshita that they complain so much about?

I think the balance of articles shows a division of opinion, especially bearing in mind that a "no paradox" verdict is less likely to be of interest to either writer, publisher or reader. And furthermore why do you consistently ignore Hsu & Suzuki ? Surely their advanced techniques should appeal to you, or are they perhaps unfamiliar ?


 * I see in your rewrite you've fallen into the same trap as others in assuming s'ship distance doesn't contract at the start, so that what follows is redundant. It's trivial that they move apart in comoving frame if you assume const. dist. w.r.t. launchsite, as I said 2 or 3 times in my first responses to Pjacobi. Your Bell observers should be Rindler observers, but you even go astray there by not taking into account that the arctan(t/x) sloping Rindler coordinate lines sweep out proportionately greater path lengths further from the origin.


 * Lastly why are all your readers "students", differing views "confused" or "dissident" and articles not written as you would have written them "generally unimpressive literature" ? Rod Ball 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rod, I have supported the claim with a clear and unambiguous computation. You are behaving as if I had somehow changed the rules of the game by applying mathematical reasoning. You won't find many physicists who feel that computations are out of bounds in resolving questions about thought experiments. In any case, if you will give me a chance, I am about to revise the article again to provide some simpler arguments first. In my most recent version, I discussed both Bell observers and Rindler observers. In the literature, as I already noted and as you can see from the papers already cited, various thought experiments involving both Bell observers and Rindler observers are discussed. As for my opinion about the literature on this topic, since I have read the papers you cited (and more), I feel that I am allowed to have an opinion about general quality (there are of course individual exceptions, and even badly written papers might contain valid insights).---CH 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to Ehrenfest paradox
I've added a wikilink to the Ehrenfest paradox, as it is very much the same situation. In the EP; the disc canot remain rigid when it starts rotating. If the disc is considered to consist of rigid spokes and not-so-rigid chords, the chords will break the BSP rope. Unfortunately, in the current state of our article, I didn't find a good way to link in the prose, so I've (temporarily) added a see also section. --Pjacobi 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd like to expand Ehrenfest paradox and rewrite Bell's spaceship paradox and Rindler coordinates. The last must come first, but will be tricky since I think a clean slate is advisable, but many have worked on the current version, etc.  Nonetheless, the current version fails to mention many of the most important and useful properties of these coordinates, and has many other defects. ---CH 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now completely rewritten Rindler coordinates from scratch, with completely new figures, to correct various errors in the text and figures of the previous version. ---CH 04:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

POV flag
Whoever disputed the nuetrality of the main article on the grounds that "CERN colleagues" refers to one person, is mistaken. My small amendment makes it clear that Bell consulted a "poll" of his colleagues and Bell states explicitly in his book "Speakables and Unspeakables in Q.M." that all of them disagreed. - Rod Ball, 5 May 2006


 * Rod,
 * I added that flag, and there's nothing mysterious here. Go back to the article and click on "history".  You will see my edit listed.  (Sorry, I should have mentioned in the edit line that I was adding a POV flag.)
 * I moved your comment to the bottom of the page and created a new section. The standard way to add a comment in a talk page is to add a new comment at the end of the appropriate section, or to go to the very bottom and begin a new section.
 * If you sign and timestamp your contribs by typing ~ (four tildes) at the end of your comments, your timestamp will probably be given in UTC, which has obvious benefits, given the fact that Wikipedia has a global community of editors.
 * ---CH 04:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the Bell's poll at CERN to the "controversies" section. It has no influence on SRT's prediction. --Pjacobi 08:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)