Talk:Ladder paradox

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ladder paradox article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

‹See TfM›

Physics: Relativity Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Archives

1

What you talkin about Willis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How can switching meaning from constant velocity to acceleration explain what goes on when the ladder or barn are not accelerating? Is this not a special relativity representation at constant velocity with no acceleration? An explanation of what happens when something is accelerating can't describe or explain what happens when there is no acceleration. Where in the explanation is the position of the observers in the barn or on the ladder considered? What they observe will depend on their positions due to finite photon speed. An observer at the back of the barn will observe something different than an observer at the front of the barn. An observer at the front of the ladder will also observe something different from an observer at the back of the ladder.

The problem here is that there is no real experiment with real observables to constrain by necessity. There is no actual experiment and therefore no actual observables. The truth will be whatever it is your imagining! The only thing being proven is that you can imagine or assume how it works because, there are no real observables from an actual experiment that can be contradicted by your assumptions. But there are no real observables that can be used to prove your assumption is correct either.

2603:3024:204:B00:7941:85DF:72A0:DE2E (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Arnold[reply]

The effect described here is an accepted scientific fact. If you want to contest its validity, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. This talk is to be restricted to talk about improvement of the article only. --uKER (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The truth will be whatever it is your imagining!

If you read the original paper by Rindler, you can examine the math. DonQuixote (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no discussion about the article here, therefore off-topic per wp:Talk page guidelines. Further attempts by anon will result in reverts and more warnings. - DVdm (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"(...) the ladder did not need to fit inside the garage."

In the article, it all looks like both referential frames are cancelling each other's length contraction. It should be explained why/how the presented solution does not bring (back) in the next paradox: Michealson's experiment and findings that light doesn't act according to Galilean/Newtonian laws. Aren't special relativity and general relativity theories? We are trying to build new tools to observe cosmologic gravitational waves to try to prove or discard those theories, isn't what a Wikipedia article is supposed to state? That this paradox exists only in the case those theories were proved to be true, and have yet to be? Instead what do I read?... I am disappointed. Even more so because it reflects more the state of mind of (some, not all) scientists than the spirit of the Wikipedia project and community. What tech and knowledge are we missing because of so much denial? :( 80.215.94.164 (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A different analysis of Man falling into grate

See https://phys.uri.edu/~gerhard/PHY331/lam23.pdf "Skater paradox" In short: If relative speed is high enough the events: - back end of rod meeting back end of hole - front end of rod meeting front end of hole can not be casually related. Johanwiden (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to the figure in the "Bar and ring paradox"

The figure used the illustrate the bar and ring paradox is incorrect/misleading and should be replaced. The two frames are Wigner-rotated with respect to each other, so velocity vectors cannot be antiparallel. I just put an article out in AJP to correct this common misrepresentation that can serve as a reference. https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/92/8/630/3303442/The-role-of-the-Silberstein-Thomas-Wigner-rotation?redirectedFrom=fulltext I think it is inappropriate if I cite my own article, so will you DVdm or uKER perhaps share your opinion on this correction before i do anything? Further I think we should mention the Wigner-rotation by name and link to the wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_rotation MadsVS (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]