File talk:Lorentz transform of world line.gif

Solid Gold! Kevmitch 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel dizzy now... Falos 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. It's today's featured picture. No idea that was gonna happen. It's just that trippy. --Falos 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion for greater clarity

Yes, this is a really good animation. I have added it to an article Milne Model I've been working on.

I have a suggestion for an improvement if you have time. Currently you have created a series of random events which are not associated with any physical bodies, or necessarily causally connected in any way. This is great, and it really gets across the idea of the Lorentz Transformation applied to an accelerating observer.

So this is a minor improvement, and may not add a whole lot to it, but if you add line segments between causally connected events, this represents the permanent positions of actual objects. These lines would move along the horizontal axis at speeds greater than that of light as your observer accelerated.

If you're interested in trying this, let me know and if needed I can give more specific advice on how to modify the code. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the software.

Thanks, JDoolin 17:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I had some time and inclination and put together a Java demo; essentially the same as the animation, conceptually, but with a bit more interactivity and features.

You can see it here: http://www.wiu.edu/users/jdd109/stuff/relativity/LT.html

JDoolin 13:26, 22 February 2009 (CST)

Random Events

I know hardly anything about physics, but aren't the random events only allowed to happen within the boundaries of the light cones? In this image they seem to pass through the boundaries unaffected or undrawn towards the singularity. Ingore me if I'm talking nonsense. Yeanold Viskersenn 15:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The upper cone indicates influencable spacetime; the lower cone indicates observed spacetime. The important thing is that no events move into the upper light cone (no part of spacetime becomes influencable which previously was not), and no events move out of the lower light cone (no part of spacetime becomes unobserved which was previously observed). mennsa 17:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture is wrong :(

As cool as it is, it seems to re-align whole space as it would look in tangent minkowski space at every the moment, however, actual space in this case is curved. 95.133.12.111 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

you dont even have to take my word for it, just watch how some dots jump into the future :) this just cant happen in reality, and it does not happen in curved space. 95.133.12.111 (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No The Picture is Right! ;-) That is exactly what happens when you change frames as e.g. when the observer accelerates. This is why you can't define absolute simultaneity in SR. Different observers at the same place and time but moving w.r.t. each other can see distant events as happening either at the same time, earlier or later than that instant. Likewise a single observer seeing a distant event as having already happened may boost to a different frame wherein the event hasn't happened yet.

Of course he cannot actually see the event at all at this instant but does so much later and back-tracks the light to determine what part of his history was "at the same time" as the distant event. For example we might see a nova from a star 1 ly away so it happened 1 year ago. Let's say you were camping out on that day when the nova happened and saw a flying saucer zipping by. The alien on the flying saucer also later sees this light from the star but depending on his speed and direction of motion he may determine that the nova happened an hour after he buzzed you. What the picture shows is what you would see if you were abducted (by a second saucer following the first) a few minutes after this instant. At that time just before you accelerate the nova event is in your past but not your past light-cone. After you zip up to the space-ship the event enters your future but of course not your future light-cone.

It is no different than if you turn your head so that an object above your line of sight moves below your line of sight. You are changing which direction is "up" so changing the definition of "level with your eyes" when you move your head.

Do the math and you'll see that it is so. Note that in the picture the events are not moving. The observer is moving and accelerating so that his perspective is changing. Regards, James Baugh (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)