Re: Park City Paradox ?

[John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Robert Cohen wrote:

> Aren't you saying the same thing I was saying?

I don't think so, but I'm willing to concede that it may be a
minor point.

> We agree that no separation is observed when the two electrons move side by
> side at v=c?

Essentially, yes.  (I would say that we agree that *if* electrons
could move at the speed of light, no separation would be observed.
The fact remains that electrons cannot move at the speed of
light.)

> Saying that this is because "time stops" or "the magnetic
> field counters the electric field" or "the information can't
> catch up" -- aren't these the same?

Well, no. I don't see that these are the same at all.  They *are*
different ways of reaching the same conclusion.  But I think the
"information can't catch up" view is problematic for at least a
couple of reasons:

1) It doesn't allow for a quantitative analysis except in the
one case (v = c) that doesn't occur.

2) It seems to imply that the electron *does* get the information
in some frames, *doesn't* in others, and, I suppose, gets some,
but not all of it in others.  IMO, this is a distasteful
conceptual framework.

John Mallinckrodt      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm