A fallacy of time dilation. A model widely used to explain time dilation is either Contradictory on its face, or Blatantly interpreted erroneously as a mistaken interpretation of physical law. Reflecting photons – reradiated LED stimulations The reflections of a photon oscillating between parallel mirrors in a stationary frame with respect to a preferred frame Vp = 0 is seen below left. These photons show a repeated up/down trajectory where each cycle traces the previous trajectory. The saw-toothed trajectory represents motion in the mirror frame that is moving to the right with respect to the preferred frame. According to SR the observers on board will see the picture on the left where the photons continue to reflect as if no motion were incurred. A stationary observer will see the saw-toothed pattern where each reflected photon would take the extended trajectory. The stationary observer will see a time dilation due to the extended path that the moving observer perceives sees as a continuation of the vertical motion. Code: _________________________ | \ /\ /\ /\ | \ / \ / \ / \ [U]___|_ \/ \/_ \/_ _\________[/U] Who sees the proper dilated time?Who is correct? According to SR both observers are correct. However, let us review the postulate of light that motion of a photon is independent of the motion of the photon source. Therefore the straight up/down pattern will definitely be seen as continuing and not the saw-toothed pattern. Alternatively, we can replace the mirrors by LEDs, or equivalent, that is timed to provide the same effect as reflected photons. Radiated side lobes. We have all seen a flash light beam pointing to a distant target. From any angle the light beam is visible which means the photons are not all heading in the direction of the pointed beam. We may expect similar side lobe radiation in our model here. However, were we to maintain steadfast in our assertion that the motion of the light is invariant under motion changes of the sources, we come to the conclusion that the saw-toothed version is fatally flawed, and is constructed from effective chaff. We expect scattering at the photon/mirror interface, which doesn’t justify using the side-lobe radiation as a substitute for the up/down trajectory of the stationary platform. As shown the vertical trajectory is about to be swept from the picture as the frame catches up with the vertical trajectory, as it appears to slide down the surface of the mirrors to the left. Replacing the mirrors with LEDs triggered by the incoming photon we can technically adjust the LED absorption and emission rates to be equivalent to the photon reflection scenario. SR Ambiguities The dilation does not show any process that can be taken to slow down everything, or anything. Certainly nothing other than a clock slowing down because ioof a repeated mistake of observing the wrong photon packet. Time that uses the photon reflections is merely the extended path taken by the photons radiating from side lobes of the light beam. Thee is no process slowing. There is nothing even hinting at an effect that is frame wide. Likewise, as the mirrors are parallel and even though the mirrors shrink along the left-right axis, the up/down distance remains invariant.Asm longf as we are asked to rev8iew the material explaining SR timedilation etc, we should get some thing substrantial to consider This is as substantial as it gets. Error repeated in Michelson-Morely ExperimentsThe side lobe selection is identical to the intrinsic error of Michelson-Morely experiments. The perpendicular reflections should have been used which would have laced all the error in the leg parallel to the direction of motion of the frame. What Michelson-Morely showed was an expected wave shift less than ¼ of the measured velocity, or so claimed MM. The results were an 8km/sec aether drag while expecting to measure at least 30km/sec. But this does not explain any facet of time dilation in the present model. Also, historically, the MM results have widely been advertised as “null”, clearly not verified from an examination of the experimental result. D Miller confirmed MM in the circa 20’s – 30’s, to a high degree of precision.
I do not understand what you mean by "side lobes". If I used laser light, it would not be true that the light would be visible "from any angle". Does this not invalidate your argument about "side lobes"? What is a side lobe?
Side lobes are the result of diffraction when you have a non ponctual source. For example, you know that when you let monochromatic light pass through a single slit, you will have a diffraction pattern that goes on the screen like sin<sup>2</sup>(x)/x<sup>2</sup>.The function between the firsts minima on each side of the center is named the main lobe. The other "bumps" of the function are called side lobes. These are names used in Radar. When you have an antenna that emits em waves, the power as a function of the angle relative to the axis of the antenna has a main lobe and side lobes. This comes from the fact that the wavelength is large (when compared to the size of the antenna). However, in light, when you do experiments like the MM experiment, your source is far enough (you also use lenses to put your source at infinity) so that the light in MM experiment is a plane wave, and there are no side lobes problem as suggested in this thread. As you also said, when you use a laser, you can conisder it as a plane wave. At the mirrors, the reflections do not add side lobes to your ligh.
1100f: I'm not sure that geistkiesel is using the term "side lobes" in the same way you or I might use it. I'd still like to hear his explanation.
If you shine a flash light into the sky people all around can see the beam. Those light rays radiating off the main beam trajectory are side lobes. It is these lobes used to measure time dilation in this example. The single line invariant trajectory is the invariant "lobe" from which absolute zero velocity can be measured. SR forgot that the motion of light is independent of the motion of the source of the light. But not to worry, right James R? Einstein and Galileo said it was OK to do that, right?
If people off to the side can see the beam, it is because the light is being scattered off particles in the air, or reflected off something else the beam hits. This is not due to some intrinsic feature of the light.
If you point a laser and stand back and look at it you can see the thin line of the laser can't you? What you see then are the side lobes.
I understand, I was merely rreferring to when you look at a thin laser beam what you see are the side lobes to which I was referring. Nothing technically sophisticated. In this regard 1100f, when Michelson Morely calculated the different paths for the transverse and parallel light beams, the transverse path is alweays treated as a triangle as if the light was pointed ahead in order to properly bounce the light beam ahead. If the beam were truly perpendicular the beam would bounce back along its incoming trajectory would it not? Isn't light motion independent of the motion of the sopurce? If so isn't the MM vague and ambiguois? This drastically changes the diffeence in path lengths that are being scrutinized.
Thank you 1100f. I didn't mean to stir such a rucu8s. I was merely referring toi the fact that one can see the thin laserfbeam even if pointed away from he observers, from the light of "radiated side lobes". Sorry about the confusion. I am aware of the term in radiated signals in secure networks.
What ever the nature of the light one can see the beam line, and can use these reflections or whatevr they are in error.
The reason you can see the "flash light" or the "laser beam" from any angle is due to scattering. Specifically Rayleigh scattering. It is Rayleigh scattering that causes the sky to appear blue. The particular molecules in the atmosphere (ozone etc) effectively scatter blue photons and therefore the sky appears as if blue light is coming from all directions when in fact it all cam from the sun. Calling this "side lobes" is confusing and not helpful as the fact that the photons may undergo Rayleigh scattering is independent to the experiment. The described situation (moving mirrors) could be achieved using one single photon which never undergoes any scattering (perhaps it is performed in a vacuum such that the likelihood of Rayleigh scattering is low enough for the photon to reflect many times before undergoing any interactions).Here, the observer "watching" the mirrors move past would not actually "see" any beam of light because, as I said, no scattering has occurred. The purpose of this scenario is therefore as a thought experiment. Let's imagine that the mirror has a digital clock which is programmed to change every time the photon is reflected. If the observer was "watching" the clock (clearly this requires photons to be emmitted from the clock display and further complicates the problem) they would observe the frequency with which the clock changes to be lower than an observer moving with the system.
Don't forget to factor in The Headlight Effect when looking at a light source in a moving frame. Whether or not you can look at a mirror as a source is a good question. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hello Montec, Could you (or someone) please help me to understand this "Headlight Effect", I read the link, but, for some reason, I still don't really understand. Also, how it pertains to the topic of relativity. I always assumed that a mirror would be a sort of "clone" of the light source. Much obliged. Thank You! P.S. Wow, a Geistkiesel thread returns from the past! :m:
Hello Neddy Bate Basically an emission source radiates in a dipole radiation pattern in its rest frame but a relativistic emission source in a lab frame will have a radiation pattern that tilts (no longer a symmetric dipole pattern) in the forward direction of the source. This is the "headlight effect" and the amount of "tilt" is dependent on the relativistic (lab frame) speed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi, bit short on time at the moment so I'll just point out that this: is incorrect. Since requiring the velocity to be an invariant obviously leads to contradictions, why would anyone entertain such a theory? On the other hand, if you only require that the speed of light is invariant, there aren't any problems. EDIT: Nevermind. Thread necromancy.
Sun, how does this not make sense? What fuckin 'ear lobes' are you talking about? Imagine a light beam shot up in a vehicle or train or whatever moving very close to the speed of light. a light beam is shot up to a mirror from the ground to the top and back down to another mirror which keeps the light beem reflecting up and down. Following laws of Euclidean geometry which describes light we get a scenario similar to one like this: Code: _____________________ /\ /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ [U]/ \/ \/ \__[/U] But the triangles relating the light beam's path looking more like right triangles. fuck, Im high and Im too lazy to write this right now, but Ima quit smokin soon. quicker version: the mathematics You label the graph and you get the equation: \((ct)^2 = (vt)^2 + (ct_0)^2\) the you simplify \(c^2t^2 = v^2t^2 + c^2t_0^2\) bring the last term to the other side \(c^2t^2 - c^2t_0^2 = v^2t^2 \) factor out \(c^2\) \(c^2(t^2 - t_0^2) = v^2t^2 \) cross multiply both sides \({(t^2 - t_0^2) \over t^2} = {v^2 \over c^2} \) this is the same as \(1-{t^2 \over t_0^2} = {v^2 \over c^2} \) bring the speeds to the right side and the times to the left side \(1-{v^2 \over c^2} = {t_0^2 \over t^2}\) solving for \(t^2\) we get \( t^2 = {t_0^2 \over 1- \over {v^2}{c^2}}\) taking the square root of both sides \( t = {t_0 \over sqrt{1- \over {v^2}{c^2}}\) and thats it. where t is the moving clock and \(t_0\) is the stationary clock. This indicates that \(t < t_0\) for all instances, and the implications are that the moving clock will run slower than the stationary clock. So when your velicoty is equal to the speed of light, then your time would be multiplied by zero, so that's why the say "time would stand still" if you move at the speed of light. And moving faster than light would make the moving clock's time mathematically imaginary, which may be interpreted in physical theory as traveling backwards in time, because your clock would run backwards. Thats were all the time travel speculation stems from, but that's enough for a whole new topic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okay, that makes sense. In the lab frame, it seems almost as if the moving emitter is imparting some kind of momentum to the light. But I have doubts about this "momentum explanation", because light that is travelling exactly along the axis of motion would not change angle or speed, so where would said "momentum" go in that case? I think a better explanation might be to consider what I call the "relativity of space". Please bear with me as I attempt to explain. In the rest frame of the emitter, the light pulse travels up to the mirror, and then back down, over and over again, through the same space. Whereas in the rest frame of the lab, the light pulse is always travelling through new, different space, and never retraces the same path more than once. Does anyone know the correct explanation? Were either the "relativity of space" explanation or the "momentum explanation" that I have proposed above correct, or is there a better explanation than both of these? Thanks.
