Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

[Goldminer]

3) Is the photon detector small enough for an offset to be determined?

I think the "offset" you are looking for is called "aberration."

Hi, Metryq,
The "offset" everyone is thinking as the angle of a "photon" traveling diagonally in the moving observer reference frame, as opposed to the perpendicular path of a pulse of light in the source/mirror reference frame, is not the actual path of the pulse in that reference frame.

You are right in that aberration causes the location of a source point of light to appear ahead of its actual location, as observed/detected by the relative motion transverse to the path of the ray of light. Aberration cannot be the cause of the zigzag angles diagrammed because the offset is always in the direction of detector motion, and would always be ahead of the direction of the observer/detector.

Any one moving detector passing between the mirrors has little chance of being where the light pulse is in its travel perpendicular to the mirrors. If it did encounter the pulse, the pulse would appear to be reflected ahead of its actual location as seen in the mirror from which the pulse just bounced.

[Goldminer]

This article posted by GaryN, is a really good, (excellent, even) article! In fact, I think it verifies the principles I discuss in the "Silly Einstein" thread (in a perverse sort of way . . . ) By perverse, I mean they demonstrate (without them realizing it) that a principle definition is overlooked all the time by most who try to figure out the operation of "Relativity." Their logic is quite impeccable, except for the fact that they have reified the idea of "reference frames!" I better take the rest of that discussion up over on the "Silly Einstein" thread.

I decided to post the comments to this thread too, since the fact that "reference frames" are just abstract methods of keeping track of objects moving the same direction, at the same speed. Nothing more. A "reference frame" cannot move through another "reference frame," and pick up a photon moving in one direction in said frame, thereby causing it to actually move in a different direction in the "moving reference frame."

Einstein claims the above fantasy is exactly what happens in his "light clock gedanken!" Nope!

Well, the article is excellent in describing the problems of reconciling Einstein's STR with Lorentz's logic, and Einstein's STR with Minkowski's logic. (Up to about page 14 or so, then they go off into "Dark Matter" and such.) What the article demonstrates is that, even using the fictitious idea that "reference frames" can do something to the actual physical world, Einstein's STR is a failure.

Here is the article

What the authors have reified is the idea of "reference frames." We cannot pick up a reference frame and move it across real objects in our surroundings, and cause those objects to move in some manner. A reference frame is just a nebulous idea. Sure, we illustrate "reference frames" with drawings, and animations of drawings, but show me how to make one have any effect on the motion of real objects in our surroundings.

Reference frames are just abstract methods of keeping track of the motion of sets of objects. I have had endless arguments with diehard "theoretical physicists," most of whom are self described as such, trying to convince them of this fact. None have ever given evidence of their "reference frames" ever actually doing anything physical, except increasing the bandwidth usage of the forum where they make their proclamations!

The authors are convinced that there is an "absolute" reference frame. Somehow, they hold this idea in the face of all evidence that every object we observe in the cosmos is in some sort of motion with everything else. review the following excerpt:

"All this means that while LT [Lorentz Transform] and Minkowski space are legitimate mathematical constructs, the relativity principle is still not justified. Actually, the recent measurements of LSR [Local Standard of Rest] (see, e.g. [21,71]) show that there must exist an asymmetry between the moving frames, depending on their speed with respect to the absolute space (preferred frame). Even if the motion is inertial, it should be detectable inside the frame because it does make a difference who is moving relative to the underlying absolute continuum. The detection of LSR [Local Standard of Rest] means that one can safely assume that the motion of an inertial frame can be detected inside the frame, if there is already an established pattern of propagating waves in the underlying continuum. This is due the fact that space is a material continuum, rather than an empty geometric vessel. The results on LSR [Local Standard of Rest] directly disprove Poincare’s RP [Relativity Principle]."

References in [ ] are the meaning of the author's acronyms.

As I hope you can see, these authors commit the same crime Einstein commits: expecting the "reference frame" to affect the physical objects of space. Hopefully you see that such ideas are pure fantasy. If "reference frames" have no actual effect on the physical objects of space, neither do they affect the radiation of energy, known as light. Please argue with me if you think I am mistaken.

[Goldminer]

In a History Channel video, Michio Kiko had the temerity to "explain" how, if light were a basketball, bouncing back and forth at the speed of light, in his "moving frame, it's shadow would exceed the speed of light as seen in a zigzag pattern on the ground [or on a wall connected to the ground]. He went on to say that light is different, that light cannot travel in the zigzag pattern without warping space and time. (paraphrased)

He suffers the same delusion seemingly all conventional thinkers do; that there are more than the original normal going light pulse emitted by the laser. If this were true, the laser would have to emit an infinite number of laser pulses, simultaneously, requiring an infinite amount of energy to supply all the possible observers moving at various angles and speeds relative the source mirror reference frame. Let alone all the Doppler shifted frequencies necessary to match the evidence.

IMHO, Michio Kiko is coo coo.



The diagram on the left is mislabeled "clock at rest." It should be labeled <i>"the source-mirror reference frame."</i>

The diagram on the right is mislabeled "clock moving at v -->." It should be labeled <i>the changing distance reference frame view of the clock on the left."</i>

The caption claims that there are two clocks in Einstein's "moving clock gedankin." That is a bold faced lie. There is only one clock, observed either at rest with the clock, or in motion [not at rest] with the clock.

The "diagonal" blip in the diagram on the right is a fantasy, too. As I explained above, photodiodes (at rest with the mirrors) placed in the path of the normal going light pulse as it travels between the mirrors, determines where the pulse is at any given nanosecond of time, or foot of distance traveled, in the source-mirror reference frame.

The active photodiodes in a fleet of diodes moving through the path of the light pulse will reveal the diagonal pattern. It is not a diagonal going light pulse.

Einstein postulated his warpy time and space based on a similar diagram. The diagram came first, then his theory. You cannot require the diagram to conform to the theory, i.e. require time dilation and contracting lengths in the longitude direction, a priori his theory. To do so is circular reasoning.

The diagram is from galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes a university course. This nonsense is being taught as "physics!"

[Goldminer]

The following posts and responce are found at General Science Journal Forum: Quote Space Cadet Cre, Re: The Spaceman Emulator, May 19, 2013, 1:10 AM:

"OK, to make this physical and so we're clear on the situation,
let's say:

(1) The light source is mounted on a railroad car which is moving along a track at v.

(2) x is distance measured along the track
(3) A clock mounted on the tracks (stationary) reads T, the time on the stationary track.

(4) A clock mounted on the railroad car reads t, the time on the railroad car.

(5) For a stationary observer, t = (gamma)T

In SR, the point at which the light pulse is generated is usually
designated a x=0, its position along the track.

But there is another coordinate, let's call it x' that is
measured along the flat car and x'=0
where the pulse is generated.

(6) An observer will always call x'=0 the origin of the pulse

(7) An observer on the track will always call x=0 the origin of the pulse.

(8) Both observers will observe light moving away from the source at c in all directions;

therefore:

(9) x = cT for the observer on the track and

(10) x' = ct for the observer on the train car.

This is the seemingly impossible part of relativity; that is, how can (9) and
(10) both be correct.

As should be noted, t = (gamma)T and distances along t x and
distances along x' are related as follows:

dx' = (gamma)dx

So substituting into (10) yields

(11) (gamma)x' = c (gamma)T or

(12) x' = cT"

Firstly, you never stated where your observers are located. If they are located at the "point" where the light pulse is initiated, neither will ever "see the expanding sphere," as the leading edge is emitted: the sphere hasn't started expanding at the source. The light pulse is initiated from the source mounted on the rail car, thus, since the pulse has duration, the observer fixed to the tracks when it is emitted, will only see it at the emission point for an instant. During the rest of the pulse, the "on the tracks observer" will be receding from the source. (The front of the pulse has already started expanding while the rear of the pulse has yet to be emitted. So the "on the tracks observer" will actually get to see a ray of the expanding sphere. The "on the rail car observer" is located right at the source, so how ever long the duration of the pulse, it never expands for him/her, since he/she is at "ground zero" permanently.

No observer can "see" the light pulse moving away from him/her. You have to be ahead of the light pulse and looking back at the source to see the oncoming pulse. Therefore, x'=ct for the train car observer is meaningless, since being located at the source, that observer's distance is fixed at zero, and the radius he/she sees is permanently zero. (If for example, another observer at the caboose, the source being at the front, will permanently detect a fixed radius ray of the sphere as it continuously expands to where said observer is located.)

x=cT for the "the on the track observer" is also meaningless, since that distance is changing as time passes; during which elapsed time the light pulse is being emitted from the source. If the source happened to pass the "the observer on the track" exactly as the leading edge of the pulse was emitted, he/she would see the leading edge before it started expanding, then the rest of the pulse would overtake him/her as the source recedes from him/her . Thus, "the observer on the track" would get a view of a ray of the continuously expanding sphere. The radius of the sphere would be increasing as the source moved away from this observer. So, the distance d (the radius of the light sphere) for the "the observer on the track" is continuously increasing as the pulse is emitted, whereas the distance for the observer on the rail car does not change from zero, regardless how long the duration of the pulse lasts.


Quote Space Cadet Cre, Re: The Spaceman Emulator, Re: The Spaceman Emulator, May 21 2013, 1:22 AM

Sorry guys, but I had to repeat my arguments in the previous post, because Jose keeps repeating the same thing in every post.

A***********B where v is in this direction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A beam that leaves A and B simultaneously in the moving frame
will leave A and B at different times as seen from the stationary
frame because they will not be simultaneous in the stationary frame.

A simple computation will show the tangent of the angle relative
to the y-axis is v/c which will bring the beams exactly back
to the point they left from, contrary to Jose's postulate.

The effects of Huygens' and length contraction will affect
the 45 degree mirror in this case and cause it
to produce beam parallel to the x-axis.

By the way, this explains the working of a light clock.

I haven't found these calculations any place else.

I can't believe I'm the only person to ever investigate these details
but I haven't found them elsewhere.

For me, it makes the case for SR ironclad.

Sorry, Space Cadet Cre, you have absolutely zero understanding of the "light clock." The "light clock" consists of two mirrors parallel to each other in one frame of reference. That frame of reference is the source reference frame. It is the source reference frame because the source emits a light pulse perpendicular to the two mirrors, probably through a hole in one of the mirrors. Detectors spaced along the path of the light pulse in this reference frame can track the motion of the pulse as it travels back and forth between the mirrors.

Any moving detectors passing through the path of the light pulse, at whatever angle you choose for them to pass through the path of the pulse, will only detect the pulse if any of them happen to be where the pulse is located as they pass through the path. There is no diagonal going light pulse, so you haven't discovered anything except in your imagination. If the angle you choose is something other than parallel with the mirrors, or along the light path, perpendicular to the mirrors, then sure, these detectors will encounter the light pulse at an angle, but not 45 degrees, unless that is the angle you have chosen for them to pass through the path.

Yes, you are probably the only one to come up with your foregoing fantasy, but I wouldn't go around bragging about the mistake, if I were you!

By the way, looking back through the posts, it is you who keeps posting the same mantra, not me.

[marengo]

Readers of this topic might be interested to look at my animated time dilation clip on Youtube. its only 2m30 long.
You can search for it under Aether v Einstein.
It gives an experiment which shows Einstein's relativity to be wrong and the Aether Theory of Relativity to be correct.
You can read up on Aether Relativity on my website www.aetherpages.com.

[marengo]

I have now placed a second animation clip on Youtube in the Aether v Einstein (search for it by this phrase) series.
It demonstrates that Einstein's theory only applies to inertial and not to real bodies.
The Aether theory of Relativity does apply to real bodies.
The point being that if the Aether theory is the correct theory then it follows that Space is an Aether.

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

[Michael V]

Time Dilation, as proposed by the "observation" of light clocks.

light clock classic.gif (5.6 KiB) Viewed 17676 times

The above diagram is fairly representative of the classic method used to "reason" on the idea of time dilation.
The argument being that an observer standing next to his light clock (i.e. in the same frame of reference) would "see" the left-hand clock. But another, relative moving, observer would "see" the same light clock as the right-hand version and conclude that because the light pulse/beam/ray travels further, it takes longer and so "time" appears to be slowed down or "dilated".

First, some details about the construction of the light-clock need to be made clear:
- The space between the mirrors is a perfect vacuum. So the speed of the light-pulse is constant and no scattering occurs whatsoever.
- One of the mirrors, let's choose the bottom one, has a laser mounted below it that initiates the pulse through its semi-mirrored surface.
- Also mounted on the surface of the mirror is a detector that registers the pulse as it passes through the surface of the mirror and also registers the reflected signal.
- We will assume that once initiated the light-pulse continues back and forth between the mirrors with no losses to the mirrors or detector
- The detector is linked to a light bulb or a display showing a numerical count that are activated and incremented each time the detector registers the light-pulse.

The Real Scenario:

The light pulse proceeds upwards towards the top mirror. When it reaches the top mirror, the electrons at the surface "absorb" the "light-signal" and emit a new light-signal that is a facsimile of the incident light-signal - we refer to this as light reflection. This new light pulse travels back to the bottom mirror and is detected. The time between consecutive detections defines the rate of the light-clock. As the light pulse travels in a perfect vacuum there is absolutely no scattering of the light-pulse, so nobody, absolutely nobody and no other matter, whether in the same "reference frame" or anywhere else in the universe, receives any information whatsoever about the progress of the light-pulse. In other words, there is no observer anywhere at all that can "see" the light-pulse. The only way to observe the light pulse, would be to stick your head inside the light clock so that the light pulse enters your eye, but of course that would interfere with its operation. In order to observe the rate of the light-clock, the detector is linked to a light-bulb that flashes every time the detector registers the light pulse and a count display that increments at each detection. In fact, we could reduce the opportunity for confusion still further by enclosing the light clock in an opaque covering.

By pointing out that, in reality, the light-pulse is not visible to any observers, and then removing that distraction completely by enclosing the light-clock, there is now no light-pulse path length distance to confuse the gullible. The rate at which the light-clock operates is presented purely as a function of the flashing bulb or a display showing a numerical count of the pulses. Both the "local frame" observer and a remote relatively moving frame observer would see the light-bulb flash at exactly the same rate. and the display counter update at exactly the same rate. There is absolutely no logic, or even any proposed reality distortion field (or should that be relativity distortion field), that suggests that the two observers would not receive the information about the flashing bulb and count display, and hence also about the functioning of light-clock, at exactly the same rate.

Furthermore, everything in the universe is travelling. There is no matter that is not travelling. Therefore, the left-hand clock never ever ever happens. The right-hand clock is the only possible scenario; and that's completely regardless of its "stationary" or "moving" assignment. Some people might disagree with this, relativists certainly will, but that is because they have allowed themselves to believe that time, distance and light signals are magic. However, even by the loose reasoning of relativity, there is nothing to suggest that the distance between the mirrors would change or contract with a forward motion perpendicular to the mirror faces (as presented in the diagram). So for the light pulse to always continue to bounce between the mirrors, it must under all circumstances be aimed diagonally toward where the "next" mirror will be. And this angle will have to be continuously adjusted to match the velocity of the mirrors. As the mirrors move faster, the distance the light-pulse has to travel increases and the so the light-clock runs slower.

With the elimination of the gross misinterpretation of the observed view of the light-clock operation, we are left with single consecutive events common to all observers. There is no alternative interpretation that can be applied to the flashing of the bulb or the display counter. When the bulb flashes a light-signal is transmitted both to the local observer, moving with the light-clock, and to all and any remote observers. Obviously, relatively moving observers will experience a Doppler shift corresponding to their relative velocity, but that is not time dilation as proposed by relativity. All observers must see the flashing bulb at precisely the same rate (allowing for Doppler shift) and there is no other interpretation available to disagree with this conclusion.

Just in case you object to the covered light-clock, let's now consider a "visible" light-clock as close as is possible to as originally conceived. However, as I have already pointed out there are issues with the standard description of this "thought" experiment. The first and most obvious, is that what one is told one would "see", is not what would actually be observed. In order to make the operation of the light-clock visible we could fill it with smoke so as to scatter the beam/pulse toward observers. Obviously, we must then posit that the smoke will have so effect on the light-pulse other than to make it visible to observers. Now if an observer views the light-clock from in front or behind, with reference to the direction of travel, they will "see" the left-hand light-clock image. Any observer viewing the light-clock from the side, with reference to the direction of travel, will see the right-hand light-clock image. Furthermore, from in front or behind, the light-pulse will appear to be travelling slower than c, although this point is merely academic. Anyhow, the rate at which the light-pulse completes a lap of the light-clock must intrinsically and unarguably correspond with the rate of the bulb flashing. The important point is that all observers must also receive information about the light-pulse at the same rate and without any hint of time "dilation".

Whether the standard interpretation of this thought experiment is a childish mistake or a deliberate deception is unclear, but in either case it is baffling how this ever passed scrutiny. What is clear however, is that any theoretical model that somehow distorts the reasoning of this thought experiment to arrive at "time dilation", is either dishonest or in gross error.


Michael

[Michael V]

and there's more:

A moving "observer" would supposedly see the right-hand view and conclude that since the speed of light must travel at a constant speed between the mirrors then, for that relatively moving observer", the light must travel further than for an observer "local" to the light-clock, who would supposedly see the left-hand view - hence the moving observer concludes that "time" is moving slower (or is dilated) for the local frame, at rest relative to the light-pulse and mirrors, observer.
All sorts of suspension of disbelief is required for this to be true, not least of which, is that the "local frame" observer and the light pulse that they observe are unaware of the travel of the mirrors relative to the points of reflection of the light pulse. For the moving frame observer however, both the observer and the self-same light pulse is now aware that the mirrors are travelling relative to the points of reflection. We can only conclude then, that in the left-hand scenario, the mirrors are not moving relative to the light and in the right-hand scenario the mirrors are moving relative to the light.
So, for this illusion/delusion to work you must accept that the ponderable matter that constitutes the mirrors is not moving relative to the light-pulse and then simultaneously the ponderable matter that constitutes the mirrors is moving relative to the light-pulse. Also simultaneously to this occurring, the "at rest" observer is supposedly not moving relative to the light-pulse in both scenarios. Therefore, in the right-hand scenario, for time dilation to occur, the ponderable matter of the local observer must be at rest with the light-pulse and the ponderable matter of the mirrors must be moving relative to the light-pulse.

In conclusion, the right-hand picture is the correct picture at all times and to all matter and all "observers". Light travels relative to matter and matter travels relative to light, so the notion of time dilation is fallacious.


Michael

[marengo]

To Michael V
Have you given up on trying to understand Aether physics?

I cannot understand how you can argue against this logic:-
Time dilation, length contraction and mass increase are all relativistic effects which stem from the same cause.
On another thread I pointed out that the relativistic mass of protons in the Large Hadron Collider was 15000 times their rest mass. Thus proving relativistic mass increase happens.
If one happens they all happen. Thus Time dilation must also happen.

So many posters on this forum are determined to ignore facts in order to hang onto their cherished beliefs.
You should accept the inevitable and move on.

[Michael V]

marengo,

Have you given up on trying to understand Aether physics?

I think I pretty much understand it well enough, thank you. Unfortunately, it is you that does not. Your reliance on the Lorentz factor and the politically motivated "proofs" of Einsteinian relativity to bolster the predictions of Lorentzian relativity have blinded you to objective logic.

I do not see that you have made any attempt whatsoever to develop any logical argument in favour of time dilation. If you have made such a logical argument, then I would happily review it.

Your description of Lorentzian length contraction is not a description of length contraction at all. The shrinking of electron orbits is not in any way a description of, argument for, or proof of, length contraction.

What I am interested in, is logical arguments. What is the physical mechanics by which these supposed effects occurs?.

(I will repeat this post of the AToR thread to continue there, if you wish)


Michael

[marengo]

What I am interested in, is logical arguments. What is the physical mechanics by which these supposed effects occurs?.

OK. Lets have some logical arguments. It would make a nice change.
How about the one i gave you in my last post on this thread?
You did not answer that in your post.

[viscount aero]

Readers of this topic might be interested to look at my animated time dilation clip on Youtube. its only 2m30 long.
You can search for it under Aether v Einstein.
It gives an experiment which shows Einstein's relativity to be wrong and the Aether Theory of Relativity to be correct.
You can read up on Aether Relativity on my website http://www.aetherpages.com.

Those animations explain nothing, especially the 2nd one whose comparisons and animations do not clearly depict why anything is true or false. Both videos provide vague dialogue that just says "Einstein was wrong and the aether is right." There is no education or clear understanding of anything possible with the animations provided.

[marengo]

Re my Youtube videos

I show two clocks previously synchronized side by side separating and taking different journeys before re-uniting.
The two clocks are then found to be un-synchronised.

Viscount aero does not think that is meaningful.
But surely science is forced to explain how and why this happens.
One clock (acting as an observer) sees the other clock as having run fast.
The other clock sees the first clock as having run slow.
There needs to be an explanation for either observation.
The Aether Theory of Relativity gives those explanations and I am certain that no other theory does.