Absolute Time Clock Experiments: Einstein's Special Relativity

[Dale]

Roineust, I don't think that you actually need some specific experiment to be performed. What you need is to better understand the theory. All classical (non quantum) EM phenomena are governed by Maxwell's equations which are invariant under the Lorentz transform. It doesn't matter if you are talking about some EM in a crystal or in a jumble of wire. They will both be dilated by the same amount.

 

[roineust]

Hello Russ,

Absolutely! but maybe up to this point not all possible behaviors of ether have been considered? for example, why can't this type of ether be non-luminiferous as well as non-matter friction at once? Can you help me understand the meaning of static vs. non-static ether? I am trying to understand all the qualities and properties that were historically ever attributed to ether. This way I will try to sort all ether types that were suggested.

Thanks,
Roi.

 

[roineust]

DaleSpam,

Is your suggestion actually to go over and over again through the mathematics of Maxwell and Lorentz equations, and when I will be sure that I understood each and every derivation and other mathematical operations in each and every line, then and only then, will I suddenly understand time dilation? I am having a hard time believing that this is what designates a person who understands time dilation form the one who does not.

Roi.

 

[Dale]

Is your suggestion actually to go over and over again through the mathematics of Maxwell and Lorentz equations

That is not my suggestion, but I do think it is a good suggestion. I would highly recommend that you do so. You should probably spend more time working homework-type problems though, rather than going through derivations.

 

[roineust]

DaleSapm,

I went through these equations a couple of times in the past, and it was hard, long and suspenseful enough to do this while thinking that I will understand at the end that 'magic notion' of time dilation. The disappointment of finally not understanding time dilation at the end of that rigour learning process, was big enough not to want to go over these specific equations again.

Roi.

 

[Dale]

Did you work any homework-type problems?

The other thing that helped me learn a lot was doing spacetime diagrams and learning about four-vectors.

 

[roineust]

Some, not much - it came back to using real numbers with the gama factor, and calling it space ships flying this way or another. It worked out mathematically but it did not change my ability to understand it.

For example, when I was first taught, years ago, that you can use a complex set of pulleys to manually lift up a very big mass, it seemed to me no less a magic than time dilation later seemed, but when I learned the math and made some exercise, my 'head' and 'guts' totally 'hooked up' together again, and it didn't seem to feel like a magic any more, just a very 'cool' thing to understand. So the same with many other even more complex pre-modern physical phenomenon. But this one phenomenon of time dilation could never 'settle down' in my head.

And of course, that is why I also never even attempted to go further and try to understand quantum mechanics phenomenon or GR phenomenon. Besides I was told that SR math is relatively simple compared to these later developments, so why bother understanding stuff like quantum particles jumping between parallel universe, if the math describing such 'more than magic' phenomenon is so complex, while much simpler math, that describes just a much simpler 'magic', I can not even have any real feeling of understanding about.

Roi.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Roi, have you studied the historical interpretation of MMX (prior to Einstein) and how Lorentz (and others) concluded that the experimental apparatus was length-contracted in the direction of motion and experienced time dilation? This conclusion was based on an absolute ether rest frame, so I think it is easier to grasp. From there, it is an easy step to SR.

 

[roineust]

Hey ghwellsjr,

Yes I have tried to understand SR this way as well.

What I don't understand regarding the phenomenon of length contraction, and grasping by it the idea of ether as the cause of this phenomenon, by the way of it becoming a preparatory concept, that when assimilated correctly by the student, brings him to a point where SR is understood, while at the very same time, somewhat mysteriously, he also understands why actually the ether itself, as an entity of having any real physical properties, is redundant, is this:

1. First of all when completing this lesson the student will feel a little bit 'cheated', because he will ask himself if bringing up length contraction and ether, was just in order to never bring up these entities again, without any explanation. And then it gets worse:

2. I saw this problem brought up by many SR students: How can you build an experiment showing length contraction? When the answer here is, that there is no such experiment, then, in the way of accepting the conclusion of time dilation that happens by no means of ether, at least in my mind as a student of SR, the way to get to that conclusion becomes barricaded again, even if the teacher will say, 'hold on a minute!' and go on to time dilation.

That is because the student will feel that he never got an answer to a concrete part of the course of events described by the teacher - e.g. an experimental proof of length contraction! not some mathematical complexity, that he can work out later by himself!

3. If a SR student such as me, gets 'stuck' with understanding SR at the point described above, and will understand that bringing a proof of length contraction is impossible, he may start thinking that it is all a result of science not having yet enough experiments that were built with advanced enough equipment to prove a type of ether, that actually has nothing to do with length contraction.

At this point the student will feel that he must invest much more in understanding the history of ether experiments than in the history resulting from SR conclusions. Here are some thoughts I came up with at this stage:

- An atomic clock does not work the same as the device in diagram 2 that I made. An atomic clock has only the 'upper' part of that device, e.g. only one electromagnetic signal going towards a counter, but it has no comparison between two electromagnetic signals within one device.

So if an ether of the type I am looking for exists, it will cause time dilation, but it will not cause the effect of dis-synchronization between the two signals. And such an effect will be considered a change of physical laws as a result of velocity differences - but it can not be found at present experimental structuring.

- The jets carrying these atomic clocks, where moving at a non-relativistic velocity, so maybe also jet speed is not enough to prove the existence of time dilation as a result of ether, maybe some sort of a very small device put in a powerful accelerator should be built.

-Any other experiment that proves time dilation by properties of accelerated particles, again works in the same way as the atomic clock - with no comparison of two synchronized signals compared before and while relative movement.

- At this point, I am usually told that C invariance is not inconsistent with time dilation, because it is somehow mathematically separate from light, although light moves inside that same time dilated frame - but I was never given, in my point of view, any good explanation to think there is no contradiction here.

And therefor my reasoning goes on and maybe this type of ether can resolve that contradiction by somehow having light not affected by ether, while matter is affected in a some non-friction way.

- Then the most dissident thought of such a student as myself will conclude - never mind the exact properties of such a type of ether, what is sure is that if you have a device that can tell you, without recording acceleration and without 'looking out of the window' of the 'jet', that you are at a different speed, then there must be some kind of ether - and this is something that not only Einstein rejected, but also Newton and Galilei - so maybe it is just a matter of advance enough experimental technology, in order to put all these three huge figures together, as correct but not enough precise, in their theories ability to describe and explain, what might be experimentally discovered in the future.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is really, really starting to sound crackpotty.

Roineust, from the point of view of someone only looking at this thread casually, it appears that people here are telling you things you should learn, and you're coming in with reasons why you shouldn't follow the path they are pointing you to. I think you should back off on your statements, and follow their advice.

And yes, I am afraid that means mathematics.

 

[Dale]

Some, not much - it came back to using real numbers with the gama factor, and calling it space ships flying this way or another.

You may want to try a more geometrical approach with spacetime diagrams and four-vectors. In the end that is what "made it click" for me.

For example, when I was first taught, years ago, that you can use a complex set of pulleys to manually lift up a very big mass, it seemed to me not less a magic than time dilation later seemed, but when I learned the math and made some exercise, my 'head' and 'guts' totally 'hooked up' together again, and it didn't seem to feel like a magic any more, just a very 'cool' thing to understand. So the same with many other even more complex pre-modern physical phenomenon.

That is why I wouldn't give up on this approach yet. You don't seem like you have worked enough problems to be proficient yet.

 

[roineust]

Vanadium,
Please leave me at quiet with such words as crackpotty.

Thanks,
Roi.

 

[Dale]

The jets carrying these atomic clocks, where moving at a non-relativistic velocity

This is factually incorrect. They detected relativistic effects therefore, by definition, they were moving at relativistic speeds.

 

[roineust]

Hey DaleSpam,

Might be - maybe it depends on the technological ability to record minor dis-synchronization between the pulses coming from the two light sources in diagram2.

 

[Dale]

Did you notice post 46?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Vanadium,Please leave me at quiet with such words as crackpotty.

Then adopt a different viewpoint.

There is a common theme in messages by crackpots. "I haven't really studied the theory, at least not quantitatively , but I am sure that it's wrong and the people who have studied it are wrong too". The closer you get to that theme, the fewer people will listen to you. I am trying to make the point that you are getting very close to that.

The title of this thread is the SR equivalent of the Newtonian "A Perpetual Motion Machine!" If someone were to post that, and then refuse to gain the mathematical background to understand (algebra, in both cases) what would the reaction be?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Roi, have you studied the historical interpretation of MMX (prior to Einstein) and how Lorentz (and others) concluded that the experimental apparatus was length-contracted in the direction of motion and experienced time dilation? This conclusion was based on an absolute ether rest frame, so I think it is easier to grasp. From there, it is an easy step to SR.

Hey ghwellsjr,

Yes I have tried to understand SR this way as well.

What I don't understand regarding the phenomenon of length contraction, and grasping by it the idea of ether as the cause of this phenomenon, by the way of it becoming a preparatory concept, that when assimilated correctly by the student, brings him to a point where SR is understood, while at the very same time, somewhat mysteriously, he also understands why actually the ether itself, as an entity of having any real physical properties, is redundant, is this:

1. First of all when completing this lesson the student will feel a little bit 'cheated', because he will ask himself if bringing up length contraction and ether, was just in order to never bring up these entities again, without any explanation. And then it gets worse:

2. I saw this problem brought up by many SR students: How can you build an experiment showing length contraction? When the answer here is, that there is no such experiment, then, in the way of accepting the conclusion of time dilation that happens by no means of ether, at least in my mind as a student of SR, the way to get to that conclusion becomes barricaded again, even if the teacher will say, 'hold on a minute!' and go on to time dilation.

That is because the student will feel that he never got an answer to a concrete part of the course of events described by the teacher - e.g. an experimental proof of length contraction! not some mathematical complexity, that he can work out later by himself!

3. If a SR student such as me, gets 'stuck' with understanding SR at the point described above, and will understand that bringing a proof of length contraction is impossible, he may start thinking that it is all a result of science not having yet enough experiments that were built with advanced enough equipment to prove a type of ether, that actually has nothing to do with length contraction.

At this point the student will feel that he must invest much more in understanding the history of ether experiments than in the history resulting from SR conclusions. Here are some thoughts I came up with at this stage:

- An atomic clock does not work the same as the device in diagram 2 that I made. An atomic clock has only the 'upper' part of that device, e.g. only one electromagnetic signal going towards a counter, but it has no comparison between two electromagnetic signals within one device.

So if an ether of the type I am looking for exists, it will cause time dilation, but it will not cause the effect of dis-synchronization between the two signals. And such an effect will be considered a change of physical laws as a result of velocity differences - but it can not be found at present experimental structuring.

- The jets carrying these atomic clocks, where moving at a non-relativistic velocity, so maybe also jet speed is not enough to prove the existence of time dilation as a result of ether, maybe some sort of a very small device put in a powerful accelerator should be built.

-Any other experiment that proves time dilation by properties of accelerated particles, again works in the same way as the atomic clock - with no comparison of two synchronized signals compared before and while relative movement.

- At this point, I am usually told that C invariance is not inconsistent with time dilation, because it is somehow mathematically separate from light, although light moves inside that same time dilated frame - but I was never given, in my point of view, any good explanation to think there is no contradiction here.

And therefor my reasoning goes on and maybe this type of ether can resolve that contradiction by somehow having light not affected by ether, while matter is affected in a some non-friction way.

- Then the most dissident thought of such a student as myself will conclude - never mind the exact properties of such a type of ether, what is sure is that if you have a device that can tell you, without recording acceleration and without 'looking out of the window' of the 'jet', that you are at a different speed, then there must be some kind of ether - and this is something that not only Einstein rejected, but also Newton and Galilei - so maybe it is just a matter of advance enough experimental technology, in order to put all these three huge figures together, as correct but not enough precise, in their theories ability to describe and explain, what might be experimentally discovered in the future.

Roi, I wasn't asking you to understand SR historically, I was asking if you studied how length contraction (and time dilation) was used by Lorentz (and others) to explain the null result of MMX prior to SR. At this stage, it is important to NOT try to understand SR. Forget about what happened after Einstein's 1905 paper came out.

I just want you to answer that one question: do you understand how length contraction explains why MMX could not detect an ether wind?

 

[roineust]

Hey ghwellsjr,

I have sat in a classroom thorough all of SR course.
I did it only twice (once in a real room and once watching on a video course portal), and made just a little amount of homework in the subject. I am not sure if this answers your question. I remember equations with a big L and a little l, the v and v' and other variables and part of equations. I didn't go through this extraordinary frustrating process lately again (most of all frustrating because this process did not explain time dilation to me).

Thanks,
Roi.

 

[roineust]

Vanadium 50,
I'v dealt with such expressions all my life. I am not lazy. so please stop.

How does this thread represent a contradiction with the laws of energy conservation?

Thanks,
Roi.

 

[JesseM]

Hey ghwellsjr,

I have sat in a classroom thorough all of SR course.
I did it only twice (once in a real room and once watching on a video course portal), and made just a little amount of homework in the subject. I am not sure if this answers your question. I remember equations with a big L and a little l, the v and v' and other variables and part of equations. I didn't go through this extraordinary frustrating process lately again (most of all frustrating because this process did not explain time dilation to me).

Thanks,
Roi.

And do you understand what it means for a set of equations to be "Lorentz invariant"? Do you understand for example that if we know the correct equations to describe the laws of physics in one frame, the question of whether or not these laws are Lorentz-invariant is a purely mathematical issue, not an experimental one? (though of course it is an experimental problem to determine whether we have the equations precisely correct in that one frame). Likewise, do you understand that if the laws are Lorentz invariant this guarantees they will work the same in all the different inertial frames of relativity, and that any physical systems governed by these laws (including clocks) is guaranteed to obey time dilation as SR predicts? In this sense Lorentz-invariance "explains" time dilation, although of course physics cannot "explain" why the universe obeys one set of mathematical equations as opposed to some others, this is a question for philosophy or theology.

 

[roineust]

Hey DaleSpam,

What you say in post 46 I absolutely agree with.

On the other hand I gave it my best, and couldn't understand it (SR), although I understood each and every mathematical move. Telling me to go into an endless loop of starting again every time I get to the end and still time dilation looks like magic, doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, I will try to check out if a geometrical approach makes it seem a different path, in understanding time dilation.

Thanks a lot,
Roi.

 

[roineust]

JesseM,
You might be right. I don't know.

Roi.

 

[Dale]

On the other hand I gave it my best, and couldn't understand it (SR), although I understood each and every mathematical move. Telling me to go into an endless loop of starting again every time I get to the end and still time dilation looks like magic, doesn't make sense to me.

It is a difficult subject. It took me 7 years of sporadic study before I understood it.

Anyway, I will try to check out if a geometrical approach makes it seem a different path, in understanding time dilation.

I highly recommend it. There are two things which made it finally "click" for me:
1) Spacetime diagrams
2) Four-vectors

For 1) in particular I did a diagram where I used the Lorentz transform to draw the t'=0, t'=1, t'=2, x'=0, x'=1, and x'=2 for a primed frame moving at v=0.6. When you do that you can look at your diagram and visually see the invariance of c, relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation and how they all fit together.
Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[roineust]

Can someone explain to me why diagram 2 depicts a contradiction with the laws of energy conservation (a 'perpetum mobilum’)? Is this exactly the same issue as with time dilation, or maybe it is simpler to explain? Because, for example, I know that in old ‘perpetum moblium’ machines, what happens is that they stop working because of friction, but what diagram 2 has to do with friction or with a ‘perpetum mobilum’ at all?

Thanks,
Roi.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Roi, I wasn't asking you to understand SR historically, I was asking if you studied how length contraction (and time dilation) was used by Lorentz (and others) to explain the null result of MMX prior to SR. At this stage, it is important to NOT try to understand SR. Forget about what happened after Einstein's 1905 paper came out.

I just want you to answer that one question: do you understand how length contraction explains why MMX could not detect an ether wind?

Hey ghwellsjr,

I have sat in a classroom thorough all of SR course.
I did it only twice (once in a real room and once watching on a video course portal), and made just a little amount of homework in the subject. I am not sure if this answers your question. I remember equations with a big L and a little l, the v and v' and other variables and part of equations. I didn't go through this extraordinary frustrating process lately again (most of all frustrating because this process did not explain time dilation to me).

Thanks,
Roi.

Roi, chances are those classes did not teach how Lorentz explained the null result of MMX using Length Contraction and Time Dilation. It can be done purely graphically with very little math. Would you like me to walk you through this exercise?

 

[roineust]

Hey ghwellsjr,

Yes, Please.

Roi.

 

[JesseM]

Roi, chances are those classes did not teach how Lorentz explained the null result of MMX using Length Contraction and Time Dilation. It can be done purely graphically with very little math. Would you like me to walk you through this exercise?

There is actually no need to use time dilation in the explanation of the null result of MMX, since the measurement was just based on whether waves remained in phase and there was no testing of the total amount of time they took to travel up the interferometer arm and back.

 

[JesseM]

Can someone explain to me why diagram 2 depicts a contradiction with the laws of energy conservation (a 'perpetum mobilum’)?

No one said your idea contradicted energy conservation, Vanadium said it an absolute time clock is 'the SR equivalent of the Newtonian "A Perpetual Motion Machine!"', which just means that it is analogous in the sense that it is as basically impossible in an SR context as perpetual motion is in Newtonian physics (and perhaps also in the sense that both hold a persisting appeal to physics cranks).

 

[JesseM]

JesseM,
You might be right. I don't know.

Roi.

Which part of what I said are you not sure about? The only uncertain issue is whether the fundamental laws of physics will ultimately turn out to be Lorentz-invariant, but it's certainly true that the most accurate equations found so far are, and that it's a guaranteed theoretical truth that if all the fundamental laws of physics are Lorentz-invariant then all clocks governed by these laws will show time dilation and an "absolute time clock" must be impossible.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Roi, chances are those classes did not teach how Lorentz explained the null result of MMX using Length Contraction and Time Dilation. It can be done purely graphically with very little math. Would you like me to walk you through this exercise?

Hey ghwellsjr,

Yes, Please.

Roi.

OK, good. Now the first thing we must do is put ourselves in the mindset of most of the great scientists of that era. They believed in an absolute ether rest frame in which light propagated at the same constant speed in all directions. Imagine a very brief bright flash of light being set off in this stationary frame. It will create an ever-expanding spherical shell of light, centered on its point of origin with respect to the stationary ether. They believed that if the source of light were moving with respect to this stationary ether frame, the source would not remain in the center of this expanding spherical shell but would move off-center.

But the question is: how can we tell if the light source remains in the center of this expanding shell or moves off-center? By analogy, we could visualize what would happen if we were observing an expanding ring of waves on the surface of a pool after dropping a pebble in the water because we use light to observe the water, but how can we observe a lightwave once it has started moving away from us? Therein lies the problem: we cannot directly observe the propagation of light so we do the next best thing which is to set up an array of mirrors to reflect the light back to us.

Now the best way to "observe" an expanding spherical shell of light is to set up a whole bunch of mirrors, all an equal distance from the source and in all possible directions. Then when we set off the flash it will expand until it simultaneously hits all the mirrors which turn the expanding spherical shell of light into a contracting spherical shell of light which will eventually collapse on the source simultaneously from all directions.

For purposes of illustration, we will consider a two-dimensional subset of mirrors and an expanding ring of light, much like the expanding ring of waves on the surface of a circular pool of water as it simultaneously strikes the entire pool wall circumference, reverses direction and simultaneously collapses on the source in the center of the pool.

I realize this is pretty simple so far, but I want to make sure you grasp all the concepts before moving on so if there is anything that is ambiguous or confusing, please let me know before we continue.

 

[Ymyk]

What if, in the simplest form that the recorded time of emission of a pulse of light directed at one mirror at the far end of the train where this mirror has event time recording capabilities also, that is when the time of light arrival is recorded and imbeded in the return/reflected signal. Then the distance of light travel of the outbound and inbound trajectories can be calculated, or it appears so (let C=1 a unit SOL). If both trajectories are equal the attached frame has no motion, otherwise, the frame is moving. I do not intend to divert the direction of this very interesting thread and I only came upon it by accident, having just registered in early December.
There has to be a simple correction to this simplistic intervention.

 

[ghwellsjr]

What if, in the simplest form that the recorded time of emission of a pulse of light directed at one mirror at the far end of the train where this mirror has event time recording capabilities also, that is when the time of light arrival is recorded and imbeded in the return/reflected signal. Then the distance of light travel of the outbound and inbound trajectories can be calculated, or it appears so (let C=1 a unit SOL). If both trajectories are equal the attached frame has no motion, otherwise, the frame is moving. I do not intend to divert the direction of this very interesting thread and I only came upon it by accident, having just registered in early December.
There has to be a simple correction to this simplistic intervention.

The act of setting the time on the distant event time recording device will result in getting whatever answer you want when you "make" this measurement. If you follow Einstein's method for setting the time on your distant device, then you will determine that your frame has no motion--that's exactly what Special Relativity is all about.

 

[roineust]

ghwellsjr,
So far so good,
Please continue.

Roi.

 

[Ymyk]

The act of setting the time on the distant event time recording device will result in getting whatever answer you want when you "make" this measurement. If you follow Einstein's method for setting the time on your distant device, then you will determine that your frame has no motion--that's exactly what Special Relativity is all about.

Let A0 be the emission time from A at which time the B clock is Bu, unknown.
The pulse arrives at B at Bu + B1 where B1 is the TOF of the pulse from A to B and Bu + B1 is a recorded value.
The pulse returns to A at A2 at which time the B clock is Bu + A2 = x1 (recorded).
At A2 another pulse is emitted arriving at B at Bu + A2 + B1 = x2 (recorded)
Subtracting x2 - x1 = Bu + A2 + B1 - A2 - Bu = B1 the TOF of the pulse from A to B. and where this time is the used to synchronize both clocks, perfectly.

Now the outbound and inbound trajectories are B1 - A0 and A2 - B1 respectively with C = 1 the unit SOL. The difference in the distances are B1 - A0 - (A2 - B1) = 2B1 - A2 + A0 which is the distance of travel of the two transponders which remain a constant distance D apart.

D = Vab(A2 - A0) = 2B1 - A2 - A0

Hence Vab = [2B1 - (A2 + A0)]/(A2 - A0); or for A0 = 0 ,

Vab = 2B1/A2 -1

AE had never had the opportunity to consider transponders which are standard air traffic control devices used world wide and where the emission and receipt/reflection times are imbeded in the pulse signal.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Ymyk, it is very difficult to understand your scenario. It appears that you are using some of your nomenclature to refer to absolute times (A0, Bu, A2?) and others for delta times (B1). But whatever you are doing, it is not legitimate. You cannot measure the one-way speed of light. You cannot tell how long it takes for light to go from A to B or B to A without some previously defined answer to the question. I'm sure that transponders are relying on a previously defined timing conventions and so cannot be used to measure the times of receipt/reflection as you are proposing. You should be able to figure out what is wrong with your idea if you understand Special Relativity. In fact, you wouldn't even attempt to find a way around the problem. You do realize that if what you are proposing is legitimate, that you have just dethroned Einstein and you will be able to take his seat. Is that what you really believe?