That’s funny because that’s exactly the thought I had after watching your video. As you explained before, it can’t be the case for the one person the barn explodes, while for the other it doesn’t. The bundle of dynamite explodes when the pole if fully inside the barn, but from which perspective? I think we must define that first.
If we say it explodes when the whole pole is inside the barn from the perspective of the barn (or someone at rest relative to the barn), the bundle will explode, even though the person running along the pole will say the pole did not fit inside the barn. It’s not his perspective that is deciding for whether the explosion will occur, but rather the perspective of the barn, and the barn says the pole did fit inside it.
If however we say the dynamite explodes when the pole is inside the barn form the perspective of the pole (or someone running along the pole), the bundle will not explode, even though the barn will say the pole fit inside it.
So saying ‘the bundle of dynamite will explode if the pole fits inside the barn’ is not a clear statement, since we must define from whose perspective the pole must fit inside the barn first.
Of course the above is only true if the speed of the pole relative to the barn is high enough that the pole fits inside the barn from the perspective of the barn. Otherwise the pole won’t fit in from any perspective and the dynamite won’t explode either way.
Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the problem. Please correct me if I’m wrong or missed something 🙂

What would happen if there is a mechanism in the barn that only when the ends of the pole touch the ends of the barn, it closes an electric circuit that causes the barn to explode? Would the barn explode? ????‍♂️????

Maybe reality just splits for each person? The person holding the pole lives the reality that it doesn’t explode while the one observing from outside lives the reality in which it does?

We need to define from whose perspective the pole fits inside from the question first before this question can be answered

We should bring the pole in a velocity such that the the pole doesn’t fix in the barn according to the perspective of the bomb or the controller of the bomb

If the dynamite is hooked up inside the barn, it is in rest with respect to moving pole and will perceive pole fitting inside the barn so it explodes. The person riding on the pole would rather be surprised to see dynamite exploding even when pole did not fit inside the barn. He probably will feel cheated at that moment.

So the dynamite is hooked to the pole. It has the same perspective than George claiming that the barn is moving and they are at rest. In their perspective the pole never fits inside the barn (that is Lorentz contracted) so the dynamite won’t explode. Imagine the dynamite as a living being who will trigger itself if the pole where it is hooked to fits in the barn, this will never happen so the dynamite won’t trigger itself.

It will depend on who is doing the measuring. From the Barn’s perspective, the pole is shortened in the direction of travel so it will fit in the barn. Blamo! From George’s perspective, the Barn is in motion and is shortened in the direction of its motion. No harm, no foul! But if Gracie is standing beside the Barn getting ready to set it off is the pole fits inside, Blamo. Of course, George’s feelings will be hurt because he’s sure the pole fits inside.

For a person at rest outside the barn will observe that pole fits inside the barn. But if the dynamite is inside the barn, it will not observe so. Not able to explain.

The device is not triggered as both Gracie and George should see the event. In this case I think the trigger and George aboard the pole both detect too short barn. Gracie on the other hand sees the unsynced nose and tail clocks at the pole (as George sees both the nose clock and tail clock in sync).

Re-thinking. This also collapses my earlier thoughts of pole/barn “gravity self destruction”, however still thinking the momentum of the barn and pole.

If the dynamite is hooked up inside the barn, it is in rest with respect to moving pole and will perceive pole fitting inside the barn so it explodes. The person riding on the pole would rather be surprised to see dynamite exploding even when pole did not fit inside the barn. He probably will feel cheated at that moment. And so it is going to be very confusing

In case the explosive device and the two channel trigger with internal registry attached on the wall. CH A monitoring state “TAIL IN” and CH B monitoring state “NOSE OUT”. Initially both channels in sleep mode. When the nose enter the barn ch A wakes up BUT NOT sending any pole status message. CH A wakes up CH B too. Both channels are armed and ready to signal in case of detection. So TAIL IN explodes the barn in case of missing NOSE OUT. On the other hand TAIL in cannot explode anything in case of active NOSE OUT signal.

Case 1: Too short pole or too long barn

1. Nose enters barn, both indicators and their comm links to the trigger activated

2. Tail enters barn: ch A sends signal “TAIL IN”

3. Trigger gets “TAIL IN” signal and its internal registry is missing “NOSE OUT” signal => Explosion

Case 1: Too short barn or too long pole

1. Nose enters barn, both indicators and their comm links to the trigger activated

2. Nose exits barn: ch B sends signal “NOSE OUT”. Trigger saves this signal into its internal registry

3. Tail enters barn: ch A sends signal “TAIL IN”. Trigger checks registry and finds “NOSE OUT”

4. Trigger has received NOSE OUT before TAIL IN => No explosion

While George and Gertrude must agree whether the barn and the pole are destroyed or not, they also have to agree on the indicator-trigger signalling comm link messages and states of the trigger internal registry. In order to trigger explosion: TAIL IN before NOSE OUT. In order to avoid explosion: NOSE OUT before TAIL IN. So it must be a question of timing. According to the indicator units the tail clock at the pole end must be ahead the nose clock? In constant velocity the Δt must be constant too. I’m not sure at all we can calculate this with the γ, i.e. lagging nose clock. This ideology means every atom or quark has its own time depending on its location on the pole (or barn) and the Gracie detected tail time is ahead the nose time.

Dynamite will respond according to its perspective.If it is synchronized with the perspective of the barn, it explode. If it is synchronizec with the perspective of the pole , it will not explode.

Although the two perspectives, that of the pole and that of the barn, have different measurements of the each other, they agree on their differences. That is, the observer in the pole’s frame agrees that the observer in the barn’s frame will measure the pole to be shorter than it is in the pole’s frame. The opposite is true with respect to the barn.

Now, if the dynamite is fixed to the barn, then the pole will fit the barn from the barn’s perspective, and the observer in the pole’s frame knows this. Hence, the dynamite will explode, and both observers agree it will (at least before the explosion). Alternatively, if the dynamite is fixed to the pole, then it will not explode, and both observers will agree on this.

If the dynamite is attached to the pole it will not explode. Gracie will think the detonator is faulty because she expects it to explode, but she does not see it explode.
If the dynamite is attached to the bar, the dynamite explodes. George has no opinion on this because is is blown to bits.

No paradox. The pole will either always explode or always not explode for a fixed configuration of the (non-quantum, non Schrodinger Cat) system. For example if the relative pole length detector is on the pole itself then it will not explode. If the relative pole length detector is with the stationary observer then the pole will explode or be detonated (after suitable signal delay).

In all of these equations, I wonder what it would look like from the measure ring device being observed, i.e. the pole’s perspective. From the pole’s view, imagine how reality would appear. I would like to see equations accounting every variable as a living constant.

It will explode or not depending on which perspective causes it to explode.

Please explain this out

I think it depends on the rest length. If the pole fits inside the barn at its rest length the dynamite will explode no matter which observer is seeing that. Two different observers will claim two different views.The observer in the barn’s frame will see that the pole is moving so it will fit. The observer in the pole’s frame will see that the barn is moving so it will not fit. But if the pole fits inside the barn in their rest lengths the dynamite will eventually explode.

I don’t believe the dynamite will explode from either perspective as it is real length that matters ( rest length ).

Exactly. Rest length is all that matters.

The key to understanding is in the details of the triggering device and the concept of simultaneity. Imagine two clocks, one at each end of the pole. If, according to a triggering device attached to the pole, both ends are in the barn at the same time, it will indeed explode. Observers riding along with pole OR stationary with respect to the barn will agree to the result.

How do you measure rest length of a moving pole? To estimate, you would have to measure speed and position of the pole before it enters the barn. Then you would have to time the peak of the explosion to coincide with the pole entering the barn. Regardless, at high speed, the pole may not spend enough time in the barn to be damaged by the blast wave.

Well, the barn seems to blow up and not blow up depending on perspective. Nevertheless the rest lenght of the pole seems to hint that there’s no explosion after all.

We must consider if the dynamite is rest to pole or barn

is pole in constant motion ? will same things happen if it accelerate?

If it fits from at least 1 perspective, then the bomb will go off regardless of the dazzled audiences from all other perspectives who’s scenarios didn’t have the pole fitting in the barn but yet witnessed the explosion!

I would love to think of paradigm in which that explosive could not explode at all…. but it obviously depends on where the trigger has been set. If it moves with the pole it will work from the pole’s perspective. If it set in the barn’s door it will fire the bomb from the barn’s perspective.

A explosion is a time dependent event – it has the factor of ‘WHEN’ the event happens ‘THEN’ the resulting event occurs..
From the pole’s perspective the event will never happen and as the explosives are attached to the pole there will never come a situation of the pole fitting the barn.

That seems a little inappropriate for this.

Reality of workplace events, no one is going to be in the barn if it is rigged to explode when it enters.

Workplace safety rules will not allow such a thing.

There will therefore be no in-barn perspective. There is only pole perspective. The fire is in the hole, not the roasts. The seeming paradox is ended by workplace hazard rules.

The only perspectives are outside the barn reference frame. Why is this important? The pole has to be going rather fast to fit in the barn. The barn is going to be demolished even if the dynamite isn`t mighty.

The pole goes in unobserved by insiders and explodes, no lives lost.

In the scenario you described, the presence of the dynamite attached to the pole does complicate the situation, introducing a potential paradox. Let’s analyze the situation from two reference frames: one at rest with respect to the barn and the other at rest with respect to the pole.
From the frame at rest with respect to the barn, the situation appears straightforward. The pole fits inside the barn, and the dynamite will trigger and explode, resulting in the destruction of the barn. Therefore, observers in this frame would conclude that the barn has been blown to pieces.
From the frame at rest with respect to the pole, the situation is different. Since the pole is stationary in this frame, it doesn’t fit inside the barn, and the dynamite would not be triggered. Therefore, observers in this frame would conclude that the barn remains intact.
Now, we encounter a paradox, observers at rest with respect to the barn claim that the barn has been destroyed, while those at rest with respect to the pole claim that it remains intact. This apparent contradiction arises because we are considering two reference frames simultaneously.
The resolution to this paradox lies in understanding that the triggering mechanism of the dynamite is frame-dependent. The dynamite’s detonation is synchronized with a specific reference frame. If we consider the frame at rest with respect to the barn as the reference frame synchronized with the triggering mechanism, then the dynamite will explode and destroy the barn. On the other hand, if we consider the frame at rest with respect to the pole as the reference frame synchronized with the triggering mechanism, then the dynamite will not explode, and the barn will remain intact.
The key point is that we cannot simultaneously synchronize the dynamite’s triggering mechanism with both reference frames. The resolution of the paradox depends on selecting a specific reference frame that governs the synchronization. By doing so, we establish a consistent cause-and-effect relationship and avoid these contradictory conclusions.

For the question to work I think we have to define from which perspective are the events happening because there is the possibility that in a perspective in doesnt happens the explosion and in the other happens as i said all depends on the perspective taken.