A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory.

You copied the wordes "hypersurface of simultaneity" as if you understood the words,. Earlier you professed basic ignorance of all the SRT stuff. What are you Superluminal, a propagandist?

"Because the measurements were made in a self contained frame" You used this as justification for the special relativity conclusions you made. What does the self contained frame have to do with photon velocity and clocks?

Why do you use he phrase that "the results ...make sense to them"? what does this have to do with photons of light moving through space and the clocks that measure the time of arrival of the photons? The photons know nothing of the frame or the frame motion. The clocks are synchronized. When the clocks and the point of emission of the photons is invariant the clocks measure simultaneous arrival of the photons only in thje rest frame.

Now Superluminal consider for an onstant that the point of emission of the photons is invariant in the sense that when a photon is emitted from a small photon emitter in deep space the point of emission does not move, because the point is not a thing it is just a point where the photon was emited. Let us spray a light vapor in space and emit a dozen photon simultaneously in a dozen directions. Th trajectory of all the photons are straight linea and all the lines meet at the point the photons were emitted, correct? The answer is of course the trajectory lines meet at the point of emission.


Read this for your information that the point of the emitted photons is invariant.

Back on earth when the photons are emitted that point of emission which coincidentally is at the midpoint of the clocks defines an invarinat point in space. The photons that move can be referenced to that point and ergo the clocks can be referenced to that point as can the frame in its entirety. The light and photons will meet as we expect and as Yuriy properly acknowledged when he gave his C -V and C + V terms earlier in the thread. At what point does the observers have abn affect on the clocks and the photons?

You are saying that the frame motion has no affect on the arrival sequence and is effectively identical to the stationary frame experiment where "every one agrees". You are concluding this are you not? If the observer on the moving frame knows the frame is moving will the recorded arrival times vary?

You iuse a simultaneity argument in your referenced link that has only the opinion of that author who created the link's opinion. All matters in that link are phrased in what the observers see and do not address the issue of the photons moving with respect to a point in space that can be located in our scenario where photons and frame are both referenced.

A slight variation.
If the photons are emitted (or reflected) simultaneously from L and R in the moving frame will the photons meet at the midpoint simultaneously also? If a point on the embankment is colocated with the moving frame midpoint just as the photons are reflected what will be the result?
Will he photons arrive simultaneously at the two midpoints?

What does your belief have to do with photon motion and clocks?

What is counterintuitive about the double slit experiment? Just becaue you say it is counterintuitive to you then you are saying it must be counterintuitive to everyone else on the planet correct? And you are using this time worn and hardly original statement as if you just thought it up. You say you aren't a physicist, well I believe you, just what are you then? And why are you here? Simple personal interest?

I will say that you are one slick dude, with a wide eyed innocence of just wanting to know the truth, confused, but rescued by the logic of Yuriy ,which nevertheless frustrates you when he is unable to see that you support his position as if this matter were for a jury to decide. But you aren't so slick as to remain undetectable.


Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM, The thoughts are starting to generate. I will post something soon. Thaks for the reference and for E. Skyler's work also.
Geistkiesel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not quite sure of your point but yes t v is wrt the stationary frame.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everneo, your yes as lonely as it sits might be more useful with some explanation. What of the condition where the photons are reflected simultaneously from L and R back to the midpoint. Will the photons arrive at the midpoint simultaneously in the moving frame? This would follow from, your conclusion that the lights arrive at L aqnd R at the same time, woul it not?

If the photons arrive at the clocks simultabneousl then the light would reflect back tot he midpoint simultaneously?

Aren't you saying that all moving frame clocks will always record simultaneous arrival times of photons emitted simultaneously from the midpoint of the frame? If as Yuriy noted, L and the left moving photon are in a collison course and the right moving photon is chasing R, then how do the photons arrive simultaneously at L and R?

You must conclude from your answer that the photons emitted simultaneously must necessarily travel the same distance in the same time if they are to arrive at the L and R clocks simultaneously. The clocks are sycnchronized and the distances between the clocks and the emission point are identical, yet the photons still arrive simultaneously in the moving frame?

Is this your final answer?
Geistkiesel

 

Yuriy, Please make up your mind. Either the photons arrive simultaneously in the moving frame experiment or they do not, which is it?
If I have misread your posts then please forgive this note with my apologies.
Geistkiesel

 

Xgen,
I think I misread your post , but am now back on track with you. I t appears that SRT denies the reality of motion, such that in space ships that necessarily accelerated to get where they are the ships must be moving so there is nothing special about detecting different arrival times and thereopfre motion, absolute as it is, for observers on space ships. The only rational way in which an observer can assert an "at rest: consifiton is if he measured a deceleration of his space ship.

Geistkiesel.

 

Yes.

Yes.

The total distance travelled by both the photons are same when they meet at the mid point again.

In an intertial frame, whether the whole setup is moving with velocity v1 wrt another reference frame RF1 (say earth) or its moving with velocity v2 wrt yet another reference frame RF2 (say venus) etc, it does not matter IF the distance between ML & MR remains same. Accepting that there will be a difference in the time recorded in clocks L & R upon the arrival of photons in L & R clocks is akin to accept measuring 'absolute velocity'. Choosing a specific velocity v to add/subtract with c itself is BS under this setup. Why not v2 (relative velocity with venus as mentioned above) ? Would the time recorded in the clocks L & R change accordingly ?

Sorry Geistkiesel, there is no absolute velocity to be calculated from the time stamps (because they would be same) on the clocks in your setup whether it is moving with v1 or v2 or v3 or at lab.

 

So much for the SOL being measured as C from all inertial frames. If as you stated the SOL was determined from the lab frame of reference does it not appear that the measurement of C in all reference frames is not necessarily a C that is SRT imposed?
I mean if SRT has us measure C from all frames of reference, then C as a limiting velocity must be reevaluated, which would require some seriou mind manipulations for of all of us. Just as I smugly conclude I know it all something like your link arrives and I have to humble myself back to a level of human being, what drag that is. Giving up my othewise exalted state of divinity is sometimes a difficult task and very inconvenient to say the least (WHAT DO I TELL MY PUBLIC?). I ask all of you to bear with me from time to time.

Another thought that is aslo sad (for some) , is the loud clanging silence of th SRT industry in integrating the experimental results of these kinds of informaion with their precious theory, even to trash it, but then these experiments that are so close to perturbing SRT don't get brought up in discussison by SRTists, do they? Nope, that's our job and someone has to do the grunt work don't they? So here I go again, late for another dinner. Oh well. I dare not let on how much fun this stuff can be, "they" would make it illegal, sure as hell.

Hey we need the SRT industry. They offer us ample room to exert our o own mental energies and thinking power in the scientific disciplines. We get to go to places we wouldn't otherwise visit because we hadn't been pushed by the dynamics of discourse in the rhetorical exchanges.

There just might be massive space travel available to the common traveler yet. When the speed of sound was overcome theadvancement of aircraft development accelerated. When the "four minute mile" was broken the times shortened considerably and is still going down. I will bet a bundle though that we wont see a 2 minute mile for a long time, but I also predict that human speed will definitely arrive. Thirty miles an hour is nothing. All one needs is a more efficient way in which to intake and process enrgy that is intended for velocity increases instead of providing unintended inner tubes in the form of stored energy, i.e. fat, for dubious uses in emergencies when energy i s scarce.

Thnx MacM, every once in a while I find mysel making scientific progress in learning the nuances of what else is there under Mother Nature's skirt that tempts us to keep peeking other than he well turned ankles that is. The story get deeper as the story unfolds, but the cobwebs of past dogma getting purged seems very relieving like a weight lifted from the shoulders, like smoking marijuana for the first time as was described to me by a pot head friend of mine. He told me that after his first high his thoughts were, "This stuff shouldn't be illegal".
Geistkiesel

 

What I can say, reading the last page of this thread?
Is our Forum a some kind of a confessional ... in Madhouse? What all this has to do with any "frontier physics", education, or even "a discussion"?
Oh, yes, I forgot "the Freedom of Speech"...

 

In this 4th page only geistkiesel & myself posted so far apart from you. If you are not specific then i take offence to your comments. Clarify.

 

everneo,
check this link and you will find out who should worry about my post...
http://www.crank.net/day.html
Little by little our forum becomes ... a lectorium of members of crank.net!

 

Everneo, I think Yuriy is referring to my comments regarding the MacM post where he referred to an experiment where photons were measured emitted from pions travelling a v ~ c. There they foind, apparently c+v and c -v values measured from the lab. Read the MacM post a must for every serious SRTist and sissident alike. MacMasked for comments and thoughts and I to drifted off the road a tad. It was 4 or 5 AM my time. I didn't hog anything excessively were not so lengthy , as I view it, that the progress of the thread or the forum was jeoprodized.

And by teh way Evereno, hypothetically speaking where would you prefer youraself in the case where SR was unabkbiguously "terminated" with proof? A die hard embittered with defeat or a recognized part opf a truly momentous event? When SR goes, as I predict the ultimate fate, probably different from yours, are you gracious enough not to admit defeat, but to recognized the error in your understanding of the matter. We are assumed to be mature adults after all. There aren't victors and losers here, only science.?
Go for it, your post I mean, and look out for Y who sneers at "Freedomo of Speech" freaks.
geistkiesel.

 

You answered yes to the question of whether the photons would arrive at L and R . You answered "Yes".
You anwered 'Yes' to the question whether the photons would arrive simultaneously back at M.

Then the following exchange took place:

IYou did not explain how the photons arrive simultabneously at L and R, even though the LM and RM distances are equivalent, the frame observers assume a state of rest and you arsserted the final trajectories if the photons is the same, which I agree with. You stated at the beginning of this thread that the photons would arrive simultaneously at L and R in the moving frame.

Is this still your answer?

Very specifically: Are you asserting here that any reference to how much faster or slower the frame is moving wrt C is irelavant, or of no physical significance?

Here are Yuriy's figures for the same question which he posted at the beginning of the thread.

Do you have any comment?

The moving frame is distinguished by Yuriy and in fact he makes two velocity additions in doing so (However, Y did deny his "additions" were of any SRT significance).

Everneo,
If I never ask for your indulgance again please bear with me this one brief time.

Let us briefly think in terms restricted purely to two photons and three synchronized photon sensitive clocks.

When a photon is detected by a clock a printout of the current number of clock ticks is immediate. We make the assertion, or restriction, that our data pool will be restricted, limited, to the numbers on the three printouts, only. These numbers are the current number of synchronized clicks on the clocks. OK?

We can always edit our intellectual concerns at will, so let us be extraordinarily careful in keeping the system as clean and unfettered as possible. After the system is unaqmbiguously described, it shall remain invariant thereafter regardless of any analytic attack. If we need any edited system, we shall do so when we dispose of he current one ok"

Photons and three clocks only.

The clocks are arranged in a row alined left to right as - to +/- to +, where the +/- clock is the rigidly invariant midpoint between the - and + clocks. This point is also the source of simultaneously and oppositely directed photons, -p, and +p. The time of emission is printed out at the midpoint +/- clock. The -P and +p photons are directed at the - and + clocks respectively.

Thee is no other physical apparatus significant to the dynamics of the activity that is observable. We have two photons and three synchronized clocks.

For the prposes of describing the system we may arbitrarily assign the point the photons are emitted as the origin of our photon trajectory line. We notice that the photons move along the line at a constant rate. The restriction that the distances between clocks and the midpoint remain invariantly equal. The emission point is merely an abstract point with no current physical attributes (though it was once briefly occupied by the emmitted photons). The midpoint location is invariant in our photon-line and three-clock-system. After all we designed the system specifically as described.

Now we will make some assumptions:
1. The photons move equal distances in equal number of synchronized tick counts.
2. The photon line is calibrated in 1000 tick increment distances. As there is no physical object to mark, we simply assume a mark every 1000 ticks.
3. While maintaining the ivariance of the equal clock-to-midpoint distances, the clocks can move along the clock line in the - to + direction only.
4. when the - and + clocks are at rest wrt an arbitrary tick increment at all clock locations this condition is defined as v = 0, or in words, velocity = zero for all three clocks, oherwise v > 0.

Code:

When v = 0 the photons arrive at the - and + clocks simultaneously, at the same number. 

When v > 0 the -p photon arrive at the - clock before the +p photon arrives at the +clock.

Do you agree?

Geistkiesel

 

Not intending to push this off topic or interrupt the train of thought but it seems we should also be considering the Skyler Test Data and what it means. That is we are talking about hypothetical photon travel and perhaps we should be asking questions about what appears to be actual photon travel.

In the following sketch there are four (4) drawings. 1 & 2 represent the current conversation where light is assumed to carry the lateral motion of its source as viewed by observers at rest and observers in motion (at rest relative to the emitter source) an SRT view.


In #1 an observer moving with the system sees light move laterally in a short orthogonal path but in #2 where the observer is at rest he sees the light cover a longer distance along a pathagorean path represented by (1 - v²/c²)^1/2 and it is argued and advocated that this path is real and is the basis for SRT.

In #3 based on Skyler's test data if the observer is at rest he will see the photon actually travels orthogonally and carries no momentum of its emitting source. While emitted at t1 across from "A" it impacts at "B" but in the short direct path. In this case if the observer is in motion with the emitter he would see the photon appear to move in a negative pathagorean path, being emitted at "A" but moving diagonally to impact at "B".

It seems to me that we would be more inclined to talk in terms of the "Proper Path" of the photon (#3) and would view #4 as being perception, not reverse SRT.

But in any case I think the proper path is always the short orthogonal path and the diagonal path is one of perception. That doesn't mean it doesn't actually traverse those coordinates, it does.

But I think what is being missed is the velocity component of the system contribution to the path (motion of the system). That is the photon still only travels 'c' in the orthogonal direction of emission and the forward component of motion has nothing to do with speed of light, time or dimension. It is inherently due to the duality of velocity input components to the photon or observer.

That is SRT is dealing with an illusion caused by external velocity components systemically and not part of the photon and its properties.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3748&stc=1

If you time t1 to t2 interval, it is the same regardless of the observer view of path taken by the photon. In the pathagorean path view, being made in the same delta 't' means the photon in that view must have exceeded v = c to go further in the same amount of time. But that is an illusion due to the secondary source of velocity and is not a photon going v > c. The photon is still moving at v = c orthogonally only. The added distance has to do with the secondary velocity input of the system and not the photon velocity.

I hope this is clear.

 

Yuriy,

Still waiting for an explanation or clarification of your comment:

I can't believe you said this or meant this.

Are you saying you reject "Particle Entanglement"? The testing and data seem rather strong in favor of that unique feature of nature. What is your basis for such rejection? (Other than gut belief).

 

If I am following correctly I basically agree MacM, with a possible reviso. If the frame is at rest the photon trajectory will be where the lighjt beam is pointed. When we asnchor a light beam source to the side of the ship pointing pi/2 rad from line of assumed motion then any variation from a pi/2 beam wiould be immediate information describing the the motion of the ship, where y-axis velocity (the ships bow directioon) can be calibrated from test data. Assuming the full thrust of Skyler's findings, we must not keep our focus exclusively on the measurement of the speed of light. Light has many more useful purposes than being measred for its speed.

I know your post made no such inference MacM I am just tying to keep it all into some coherent perspective.

Try this as a compromise basic model where O is the photon and | the observer during a time span when the photon beam
was "on"

Code:

                O
             O
          O
       O
    O      theta    
 O
 |  |  |  |  |  |
 6  5  4  3  2  1 = n 

<--- increasing tn Where the pi/2 velocity is C and the measured angle theta proportional to the frame velocity. Can not we keeo track of a developing angle (nonconstant) and apply it in cases of acceleration of he frame?

If you used golf balls emitted in the same direction in scpace the balls would form a nice straight pi/2 line with respect to the observer as momentunm would be conserved.

In the current post/thread the focus is exclusively on photons moving in the line of motion of the frame to preculde analysis of conditions such as you have shown us until a favorable time. I supose that now is that time,

MacM this is of a level of complexity that transcends the extremely limited black box of SRT. I get a buzz when contemplationg the systematic levels of a rationally constructed physical system. It cerainly bodes no caveats of predicted limitations to develiopment of the laws of physics. Preferred frames aren't dirty words any more, nor are absolute time and space and simultaneity of events, and absolute velocity = 0. When I say "MacM your clock is slow" I mean you need a trip to WWV for a time hack.

Geistkiesel

 

Wow, Hmm. Don't quite know what to say. Quite a lot of activity since last night. I have trouble addressing such a flurry of accusations and inuendo at once.

Geistkiesel, et al:
For the record, I am a 43 year old electronics design enginner, currently working on free-space laser communications equipment. I have been interested in relativity since I can remember, and am interested only in honing my understanding of it. I respect a professional physicists opinion as much as I do my family doctor. However I will debate either if I seriously think they have made mistakes. I am not "swayed" by their authority alone. There may be very subtle chinks in the armor of relativity, but the gross, large-scale phenomena all appear to me to be well explained by SR and GR.

As a non-professional in physics, I trust the best wisdom of the brightest physicists of the day. I also trust that there is one sure way to get to Stockholm, and that is to find a real flaw in a major theory and prove you are correct. There are main stream physicists prying at every conceivable crack in relativity. I suspect no one here has the time or the funding to acheive this kind of breakthrough.

So my position is that I would rather spend my time learning as much about the way the universe really works, given current state-of-the-art knowlege, than pursuing what others - far smarter than me - have already settled.

As for "hypersurfaces of simultenaeity", this was the phrase the author used and I understand it to mean the imaginary spherical region surrounding a point in space-time where events propagating along the light cone of an observer at that point in that frame, will appear to occur simultaneously. As viewed from outside that frame, this surface will appear skewed (non-spherical) by relativistic effects and thus result in outside observers trying to kill relativity with a vengance. If I'm significantly wrong, I'm sure Yuiry or someone else will correct me.

And Geistkiesel, I am a slick dude, with nothing to hide. Hopefully what I wrote above will make me a little more "detectable" to you. Not that I especially care.

A final question to all here: Why do you have such an apparently vested and intense interest in seeing SRT proven wrong? Are you dissatisfied with your current universe? Pissed that you can't go faster than c? Or just plain ticked that the universe may [be] fundamentally and utterly indifferent to what you think?

PS: Geistkiesel, if you do not find the results of the double-slit experiment to be profoundly odd, I would love to here your take on it, in another thread. Seriously. Thanks.

 

You make far to many assumptions. At least speaking for myself. I have no bent or ambition to prove Relativity wrong. I do have a bent to follow logic and data where ever it leads in the advancement of knowledge and understanding or the real universe.

I am amazed in fact that you can be expert in lasers and do not realize just how inexpensive, quick and easy it would be for you to conduct your own test either supporting Relativity or disproving it.

Science is the issue, not Einstein or Relativity. Your comfort level about the validity of Relativity is only because you have failed to also consume and consider all the facts.

ALL data to date does not prove SRT, it only supports the Gamma function and they are entirely different animals based on one common factor and it was developed by Lorentz and etherist, not Einstein (I do not by this mean I am advocating an ether as such). There is ample evidence to suggest infact that SRT is indeed an invalid concept.

 

I sit on an embankment with my light-controlled clocks and my light in the middle.

A light pulse occurs, the two clocks stop when the photons hit them, and they read the same.

My embankment and I are suddenly moving at 0.8c. I light my light and the same thing happens.

I park my embankment and show my friends "Look! My clock printouts read the same!"
"Yep. Ok" they say. "Do it again while we watch."

I fire up my embankment, and as I pass my friends, I trigger my light. After returning, I show them my clock printouts. They look smug and tell me "We measured your photons and saw them hit your clocks at different times! In fact the rear one hit long before the front one. What are you up to?"

"Well, did you consider the fact that the light from the front of my setup was travelling a longer path to you compared to the back? Due to my forward motion? Hmmm?"

"Huh?"

"Yep. You saw things occur sooner at the rear, than at the front. If you had examined my clocks closely, you would have also seen the front one appear to lag behind the rear one. Same tick rate, but apparently delayed by geometrically different light paths."

Hope you like my story.