I beleive that delta's or change in a value all come from the light clock thought experiment. I hope to show that these values are not necessary or valid when they come from that derivation, even though I am not sure how to show the value in the proper font so please bear with me. In the light clock derivations I see two problems that deal with this problem. For one, the change is time is supposed to represent the amount of time a clock measures as it ticks. But does it actually do this? They say that as the photon hits the bottom mirror and comes back up that is one secound, but there is no information involved about the height of the clock or how many times that the clock would ticked because of its height. For example, the simple inference of time dialation on the wiki page "time dialation" In this example the L or length of the height of the triangle has been removed from the equation completely. So then it is saying that this solution should work for any triangle of any height, and the height of the triangle is no longer relavent. So then it is easy to say that the change in time of one secound would be the same as one tick on a clock. But then what have we done here? We have set the change in time equal to the amount of time that has passed. So then when you put the amount of time that has passed into the equation for the change in time you get the wrong value. You get an answer that is greater for the object in motion, not less than the clock that was at rest. So then you have to take the inverse of that value since it was the change in time and not the actual time even though you inserted a value that was just the amount of time that had passed by to get a value that shows that time for a moving object runs slower. In classical physics a unit of time was the amount of times a clocked ticked not the change in time. So then what would be the real solution that could be used for the actual time that had passed? It is simple, all you have to do is get rid of the delta's altogether and assign the time variables correctly. Just forget about the clock, and think in terms of the distance light has traveled over time. The object in motion would measure a photon to travel in a straight line perpendicular to its direction of motion a distance (ct'). The dialated time only needs to be used here for A in the pythagorean therom. This is because he uses his clock that would in turn measure a shorter length of time that would allow him to measure the same speed of light if he assumed he was at rest. Then the observer at rest would use his own clock to measure the distance the object traveled (vt). He would also measure the photon to travel at an angle a distance (ct) the hypotenus. Both of these measurements come from the observer at rest using his own clock that he assumes in not dialated in respect to time. So then (ct')^2+(vt)^2=(ct)^2 c^2t'^2=c^2t^2-v^2t^2 c^2t'^2=c^2t^2(1-(v/c^2)) t'^2=t^2(1-(v/c)^2) t'=t^2 sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) Does the last equation look familar? t' is the same as tau or the proper time. I have just derived a simple inference to the proper time or tau. I have done this by only assuming that time dialates so that both observers will measure the same speed for light as though it traveled a certain distance, not according to how many times a clock would be seen to tick. Then the problem is then if tau is the proper time it does not give the same values for dialeted time as the equation on the wiki page described previously. They do not equal each other, so then one is wrong and the other is correct. But they are both taught in physics. Then if tau is correct and it is not the same as the change in time calculations then delta's would no longer be valid since it is derived without them. So then what implications or changes would have to be made to modern physics? This is the theory that started it all, and I have seen versions of the 1905 paper Einstein made use tau for time dialtion. Has our inability to descibe mathmatically clocks in motion failed us? Then wouldn't any clock expereince some sort of "time dialation" even though it didn't use light as a pendelum? It could after all assume that it was at rest while in constant motion and any pendelum would act in the same manner as though it was at rest. But, with tau it only deals with the measured velocity of light to keep it the same. And the difference between the two equations is practically switching the variebles and taking the inverse of it.
Is this a continuation or split off from another thead, because I don't see any links but the comments seem to need some introduction. There are a variety of light clock thought experiments so do you recommend a link to start with? Why is there a need to get rid of the deltas anyway? Is the design of the clock important or do your comments apply to any means of measuring time passing. For example, the human body acts like a clock in some circumstances where a space traveler ages slower than his twin who stays home? I guess the invitation from the link you gave in my thread was a good idea, because this thread does need some activity. I hope this post will spark the result of bringing in some comments that might help me get on board or result in comments from others.
No, I started this thread when I first came to sciforums. In the original light clock experiment, time is measured by a photon traveling up and down between two mirrors. Then delta t would be how much time that clock has measured. But, there is no relation to the size of the clock to determine how many times it has actually ticked, and I think that the number of ticks has been replaced with how much time it would take for the clock to reach one tick. The amount of time for the clock to reach one tick is the same as the amount of time light would be seen to travel a certain distance, in this case the unkown size of the clock. So then I calculated the proper time, by showing how much the variebles themselves would have to change in order to measure the speed of light as a photon is just seen to travel a distance, not how many times the clock ticks. I then get the value of tau or the proper time, that is the amount of time an object in relative motion would actually experience. I think the design of the clock is very important. I think I have designed the clock in the correct manner, so that you could then use the equation, c=d/t, and then get the actual speed of light by the distance and the time it took for light to travel inside of the clock itself. The orignal light clock example does not do this, and here is why. If you assume that an observer in motion is measuring the speed of light as traveling the longer path, then they would have to measure a greater value for time to measure c along this greater path. d has increased so then t would also have to increase in order to have the same value c. But, then this explanation of the object in constant motion observing this longer path is used to explain why time slows down for the object in motion. The clock ticks slowly having its pendelum having to transverse a greater distance. I am saying that because he observes the photon to travel a greater distance, then he would have to experience more time in order to measure the same speed of light. Then the observer watching the clock tick straight up and down would then have to experience less time in order to see the photon travel this shorter distance, that is moving along with the clock. So then in my derivation, time actually slows down and distance actually contract the same as according to tau. It is not an illusion by watching clocks tick differently as their pendelums are affected by relative motion. Then this all comes from thinking about the actual measurment of the speed of light inside of the clock itself. The measuring rods have to actually contract in order to measure the speed of light inside of the clock. I am claiming that the orginal light clock is in error, as it does not allow for the speed of light to be measured accurately inside of it. I think this error comes from the assumption that the light clock represents a change in time, but in order for everyone to measure c in the example, it would be better to just use time, that someone would input into an equation that is the change in time. So then our concept of change in time should actually just be the amount of time that has passed that is the same as just using time. I did talk about this a bit in the myspace forums, but since then those forums have been deleted. So then I got rid of my myspace account. I am still new to these forums, so I don't have any links to light clock examples. I could explain the original version for you if you like.
In the original post I seem to have misplaced a paretheses in the third equation, c^2t'^2=c^2t^2(1-(v/c^2)), is supposed to be c^2t'^2=c^2t^2(1-(v/c)^2). This is because I factored out a c^2t^2 out of the previous equation. Kind of hoping for a link to learn how to write all those fancy maths. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
