A Logical Analysis of Albert Einstein\'s Mirror-Light-Clock Gedankin by Robt Curtis Youngs

Hi Curt.

It seems to me you have confused the two frames of reference in Einsteins gedanken light clock and made it more complicated than it really is. A very strong argument for Einsteins light clock is that it works in real life. For example when an atom clock looses i few microseconds after going around the world in a jet aircraft.

The thing that you have got right is that no one has ever seen a photonic particle. Only the effects of its absorption. That fact seems to be overlooked by many physiscists.

Have ze najs day!

Andreas Bøe,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Now, I need for you to supply the details of which two reference frames I have confused! Since I think I have it right, I have no idea what you think is wrong. Please let me know, otherwise I'll remain ignorant. That is a condition that I wish to avoid!

Curt

Andreas wrote: "It seems to me you have confused the two frames of reference in Einsteins gedanken light clock and made it more complicated than it really is. A very strong argument for Einsteins light clock is that it works in real life. For example when an atom clock looses i few microseconds after going around the world in a jet aircraft.

The thing that you have got right is that no one has ever seen a photonic particle. Only the effects of its absorption. That fact seems to be overlooked by many physiscists.

Have ze najs day!"

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Andreas,

Please explain to me how not needing a fourth axis (that has to duplicate one of the existing three axes in the Cartesian coordinate system) "is more complicated?" My charts demonstrate that the zigzag and expansion compression appearance is not physical shape-shifting of matter or space, just where actual positions of detectors that have detected the pulse end up in relation to the origins of their respective coordinate systems

I'm sorry Andreas, but Einstein is not here to defend "the two frames of reference" to which you refer so I have no idea what you are thinking on this account. You have to defend for him. Reference frames are merely a system of keeping track of all the objects that are going the same speed, in the same direction. The objects within inertial reference frames are not subject to acceleration. In other words, all the objects within an inertial reference frame are at rest with each other. (the whole reference frame, and all the objects therein, move as one unit; with respect to some other reference frame.)

The emission of the light pulse is the primary event, the one indicated by "point p" in the Voigt Transform diagram. That "event" happens at the emission end of the laser. From there the light pulse moves rectilinearly away from the laser, along its extended axis. After the emission, the whole story is just about detection. Once the pulse is emitted, everything is about detection, and where the detectors are when they detect the pulse. What prevents a moving detector from being momentarily very close to the position of a "stationary with the source" detector when both detect the light pulse?

Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" is contrived because he imagined the diagonal going "photon" before determining where detectors would find the light pulse.

No detector can detect the pulse, unless the detector is in the line of the beam, and the right distance from the source at the time the pulse reaches the detector. Stationary detectors can detect the pulse as many times as it passes each one of them in bouncing back and forth.

Moving detectors, all moving as a fleet, like airplanes flying along "in formation," will only have one chance to detect the pulse, and that is when the "lucky" detectors that happen to be in the line of the pulse for a moment, also happen to be there when the pulse is there too.

For Einstein's diagonal going "photon" to defy physics and travel diagonally, in a nonphysical "reference frame," he (and you) need to explain how an infinite number of them must exist for all the reference frames full of detectors that maybe moving at who knows how many speeds, and at what ever angles to the light pulse and its emitter, simultaneously.

I show that he is mistaken.

H &K tests prove nothing:

The Hafele Keating experiment to which you refer was just a bunch of cherry picked "data." The noise in the variability of the atomic clocks far exceeded any useful readings of "time" that could be used to show the conclusions they published.

Quote from article:

"The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K, [and] give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a fairly steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests."

So, you see, the The Hafele Keating experiment does not live up to the advertising!

Looking forward to your answer, have a nice day,

Curt

Dear Robt Curtis Youngs,

I think the Mirror-Light-Clock Gedanken experiment is also applicable to describe the quantum entanglement and that is indicative of the String-matter scenario in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Curt,

"Speed cannot be determined without an outside reference. The speed of the "moving reference frame" is measured in the "stationary reference frame." i.e, how far the origin of it has moved from one point to another, in the opposite reference frame. "Moving" and "Stationary" are interchangeable. If one reference frame is "moving" to the left at 1/2c, the opposite frame is moving to the right at 1/2 c. If there were a contraction, who would know? Each reference frame would be contracted relative the other."

Sharing my viewpoint on relativity type effects:

Einstein's special theory of relativity, in my opinion, was an example of applying a single truth, the local nature of the constant c as represented by Maxwell's speed of light equation, and misrepresenting it as having a remote nature. By mistakenly replacing the local nature with a remote nature, the physical basis for the speed of light was removed. The physical properties at any point at which the light is located is analogous to a stationary point for a fulcrum. Without that stationary point the fulcrum is not a fulcrum.

With regard to the assignment by Einstein of a remote nature for the speed of light the local physical cause for the speed of light, was eliminated causing the reason for the speed of light to become relative to the observer. It lost its 'stationary point'. I see irony in the application of special relativity properties as the basis for interpreting general relativity type effects. What I see having occurred is that that attempt to apply special relativity properties to gravity actually reinroduced the 'stationary point'. The cause for relativity type effects was returned to being a local physical condition.

Still there was an error that was not corrected by the introduction of general relativity. That error was carried over from special relativity theory. The error was that the speed of light has a remote nature. The velocity of light is given by v=(d/t). As d changes so should v change. However, if v is declared to be c even for remote observations, then as d varies so must t vary. This erroneous substitution of a variable nature for time was carried over uncorrected into general relativity theory.

Obviously the speed of light is determined by local conditions as is predicted/confirmed by Maxwell's equation. Maxwell's v=(1/(mu*epsilon)^1/2) is incompatible with the relativistic conclusion that the speed of light is constant while time varies. For stable conditions, both mu and epsilon, magnetic permeability and electric permittivity, change with position and not with time. The speed of light changes with mu and epsilon. Therefore, the speed of light changes with position. The return of the cause of the speed of light to correlate with position re-introduces the 'stationary point' in the form of the local medium.

My work suggests that: If I am an isolated observer in a massless gravity free environment, and, I hypothetically see a light signal sent from a second observer who is closing in on my position there will be no relativity type effects for either of us. If I am an observer on the surface of the Earth and an object whizzes by me horizontally to the Earth, I will observe relativity type effects for that object. I will not undergo any such effects myself.

The relativity type effects that I will observe are that the object length physically shortens and that the local speed of light immediate to and within the object will have slowed. If there was an observer traveling with the object, that observer would measure the surrounding conditions, including myself, as expanding. There would be no such expansion. The object, the observer, and the observer's measuring rod would have shortened.

James

Curtis

Clear logical and important better view of inertial frames. I can say that with some confidence as it's in almost complete agreement with my own essay. I do give the origin of the word 'photon', agree SR was actually superfluous, and also the following in particular;

"Speed cannot be determined without an outside reference."

"Conventional wisdom never contemplates the approaching light pulse."

"...lost in ambiguity with respect to the speed of light emitted from a source in one reference frame and detectors located in another "moving" frame."

and that the Mirror-Light-Clock Gedanken is nonsense, indeed I also analysed it similarly in last years essay. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Jackson_Essay2020BaseText.pdf Einstein's original mirrors were never angled, but I agree the logic of your version, and also consider the quantum mechanisms.

Ref H&K, I again agree, and point out there was also much propaganda by the 'gatekeepers', and the real results were subverted. see Hafele's own quote and my paper; http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers/1920871/SUBJUGATION_OF_SCEPTICISM_IN_SCIENCE

The implications are quite vast, and I've been a little bemused how few people can grasp the kinetic logic. Your position is ridiculously low and a top mark is on the way. I'll also put a good word about.

Please do read my essay and comment. You may be among the few who already comprehend it's dynamics. I have a few other papers, including exploring the exciting cosmology implied, if you're interested. This year I go deeper into the quantum mechanisms, because it actually unifies the Classical and Quantum physics. There's also a little theatre just for fun.

Very best wishes

Peter

Peter:

Well glory be! I can not imagine that I am the only one on Earth to see the sophomoric logic of Einstein's fiction. From the comments so far, to my essay, I gain hope for common sense among scientists and those interested in science/physics. I shall proceed as you request, and review your entry.

Thanks for making my day,

Curt

Also, please review my new post at Space-Time Transformations vs. Motion Transformations

James quoting Curt:

"Speed cannot be determined without an outside reference. The speed of the "moving reference frame" is measured in the "stationary reference frame." i.e, how far the origin of it has moved from one point to another, in the opposite reference frame. "Moving" and "Stationary" are interchangeable. If one reference frame is "moving" to the left at 1/2c, the opposite frame is moving to the right at 1/2 c. If there were a contraction, who would know? Each reference frame would be contracted relative the other."

Quote James:

"Sharing my viewpoint on relativity type effects:

"Einstein's special theory of relativity, in my opinion, was an example of applying a single truth, the local nature of the constant c as represented by Maxwell's speed of light equation, and misrepresenting it as having a remote nature. By mistakenly replacing the local nature with a remote nature, the physical basis for the speed of light was removed. The physical properties at any point at which the light is located is analogous to a stationary point for a fulcrum. Without that stationary point the fulcrum is not a fulcrum."

"With regard to the assignment by Einstein of a remote nature for the speed of light the local physical cause for the speed of light, was eliminated causing the reason for the speed of light to become relative to the observer. It lost its 'stationary point'. I see irony in the application of special relativity properties as the basis for interpreting general relativity type effects. What I see having occurred is that that attempt to apply special relativity properties to gravity actually reintroduced the 'stationary point'. The cause for relativity type effects was returned to being a local physical condition."

"Still there was an error that was not corrected by the introduction of general relativity. That error was carried over from special relativity theory. The error was that the speed of light has a remote nature. The velocity of light is given by v=(d/t). As d changes so should v change. However, if v is declared to be c even for remote observations, then as d varies so must t vary. This erroneous substitution of a variable nature for time was carried over uncorrected into general relativity theory."

Curt's Comment:>>>>>>

When you write "the speed of light" are you referring to a pulse of light? Unless one catches the leading edge or trailing edge of the emitted train of light, one cannot determine where and when said portion of the light train was emitted.

"The velocity of light is given by v=(d/t)" Yes, the velocity of anything is given by the formula "v=(d/t)" It is a ratio of distance to a given unit of time. Velocity times the duration of elapsed time equals the distance traveled. If one is given a distance traveled or to be traveled, and the velocity of the moving object; the elapsed time of the trip is obtained by dividing the velocity by the distance traveled.

Quote James:

"Obviously the speed of light is determined by local conditions as is predicted/confirmed by Maxwell's equation. Maxwell's v=(1/(mu*epsilon)^1/2) is incompatible with the relativistic conclusion that the speed of light is constant while time varies. For stable conditions, both mu and epsilon, magnetic permeability and electric permittivity, change with position and not with time. The speed of light changes with mu and epsilon. Therefore, the speed of light changes with position. The return of the cause of the speed of light to correlate with position re-introduces the 'stationary point' in the form of the local medium."

Curt's Comment:>>>>>>

The far field speed of light is isotropic as measured from the source, in the "at rest with the source" reference frame. A pulse of light expanding from a strobe is a spherically expanding shell, centered upon the source. The pattern from a dipole is a cardioid; from many dipoles randomly oriented and located close together, as in a strobe; the pattern is an expanding spheroid. There is evidence that the near field speed of light is much higher than the impedance matched far field speed that we measure. As I think you suggest, more research needs to be done, if it hasn't already, upon whether the permittivity and permeability are actual properties of the aether, and not of matter. (My current opinion is that both light and matter are made of waves in the aether.)

I am not sure what "time" you are referencing, unless it is the contrived "relativistic time" slowed by Einstein's imaginary diagonal going "photon."

Quote James:

"My work suggests that: If I am an isolated observer in a massless gravity free environment, and, I hypothetically see a light signal sent from a second observer who is closing in on my position there will be no relativity type effects for either of us. If I am an observer on the surface of the Earth and an object whizzes by me horizontally to the Earth, I will observe relativity type effects for that object. I will not undergo any such effects myself."

Curt's Comment:>>>>>

The closing source will have a Doppler blue shifted spectra when viewed from your position. The effect upon a clock signal sent from the source is that the clock appears to be regulated fast, or that time seems to be passing faster in the approaching observer's reference frame. (it is not) The opposite (red shifting spectra, and time passing slower) will occur as the said source recedes from you. (The observer in relative motion with you will likewise see Doppler shift from any light you emit.) Of course, you will not experience anything just because you view a passing object.

Quote James:

"The relativity type effects that I will observe are that the object length physically shortens and that the local speed of light immediate to and within the object will have slowed. If there was an observer traveling with the object, that observer would measure the surrounding conditions, including myself, as expanding. There would be no such expansion. The object, the observer, and the observer's measuring rod would have shortened."

James"

Curt's comment: >>>>>>>

As I pointed out in my paraphrased recitation of Einstein's "Measure the Length of the Moving Train from the Platform Gedanken," the train measures shorter when the measurement is initiated from the front of the train, and measures longer when the measurement starts from the caboose . . .

"Curt's Comment:>>>>>>

When you write "the speed of light" are you referring to a pulse of light? Unless one catches the leading edge or trailing edge of the emitted train of light, one cannot determine where and when said portion of the light train was emitted."

I am referring to the speed of any single photon.

""The velocity of light is given by v=(d/t)" Yes, the velocity of anything is given by the formula "v=(d/t)" It is a ratio of distance to a given unit of time. Velocity times the duration of elapsed time equals the distance traveled. If one is given a distance traveled or to be traveled, and the velocity of the moving object; the elapsed time of the trip is obtained by dividing the velocity by the distance traveled. "

The point of mentioning such an obvious relationship has to do with emphasizing that Einstein forced an incorrect result by his incorrect choice of which two terms are variables. If the choice of variables is different, then the result is different. My choice is that the speed of light is variant, distance is variant, time is not variant.

James

James,

My intent was not to get pedantic with you, I was just writing while thinking to myself. Anyway, the GPS system works because they use "Universal Time." The pseudocode that is transmitted by each satellite in the GPS constellation essentially encodes the "universal time" that that particular pulse was transmitted from that particular satellite. The pulses expand into spheres, each centered upon its respective satellite. The "time stamps" of a given time are all transmitted synchronously from all satellites; no problem with relativity of simultaneity. Thus the user on the ground can locate the receiver by discovering the radius of each sphere as it intersects the other spheres at the receiver's location gaining a three dimensional location. (it is the difference in arrival times of a given time stamp from the various "birds" that determine each radius's length.)

My point being that you are obviously right. There is a Universal Time, and it is constant and consistent.

Curt,

Thank you for your positive feedback. It is quite rare for me to receive approval on any point whether from professionals or non-professionals. My opinion is that several of the points I have put forward for consideration in each of the four essay contests are very strong. This latest one concerning the proper interpretation of mass is the key one. As you can see, my essays are always rated low. It does not matter.

Removing the many guesses upon which physics theory is formed seems to me to offer a good probability for getting things right. Anyway, I like what I put forward and I keep putting fresh material out there there. It all comes from work that shows unity right from its beginnings and continues each step along the way of its extensive development. It is very empirically based. Good luck in the contest.

James

Curt,

Common sense physics! You should enjoy my essay then. But don't try to rush it, It's a bit more dense than was wise. And the intuition only emerges after removing the old hidden assumptions. I shall point out the sense of yours to others. Do please ask any questions about mine. And perhaps comment on my discussion with Petcho, who seems as 'belief bound' as any.

Your link only sent me to the Alvarez essay, with no post visible!?

Best of luck.

Peter

Dang it, the link to my new post should be:

Questioning the Foundations: Space-Time Transformations vs. Motion Transformations

I can't get every detail just right! I meant to link to this:

Questioning the Foundations: Space-Time Transformations vs. Motion Transformations

I can't figure out how to include his diagram into the comment. It is a good diagram of conventional wisdom. I tried to show that it is not just an out take of one instant in time, but actually three instants. It is similar to the slight of hand with which Einstein's STR is rife and riddled.

Congratulations, I just figured out what you are saying. Your comment at Rafael Castel's essay clicked in my mind to connect that the passage of time is revealed by the length of his light rays. What time it is in the moving reference frame has no bearing on where the moving frame detectors are placed in that frame, as each one coincides with a respective detector in the what you call the source reference frame! With this insight, I see no reason for Einstein's need to have a fourth axis for time. Do I have this right?

I have always been curious about the fantastic sounding attributes scientists, and astronomers claim are seemingly caused by relativistic motion. A friend sent me the link to your essay, and I read it several times. Then I decided to try to make my own charts following your directions. I used tracing paper for the moving reference frame. I had trouble at first making sure that I moved the paper in a straight line in relation to the original drawing, but when I finished, my charts look just like yours. In the process of doing the drawings, I began really getting it.

I have since done some reference frames moving diagonally to the original source-mirror reference frame, and one moving at c longitudinally. Very interesting results!

Thanks

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Sergey Fedosin,

I certainly agree with you on this point. I suppose some system of rating is necessary. The site needs to have peoples' interest, and apparently FQXI does get a goodly amount of traffic.

However I doubt that the understanding of reality, i.e. versus reality itself, is changed by voting on it. IMHO, the greatest weight of the judges' prerogative should be placed upon the consistency of logic, and whether the challenges to existing evidence is creditable, rather than "votes" that have "who knows what" agenda attached.

I wish your essay well in the quickly approaching "Judgement day," as I hope for mine as well.

Here is a toast to the discovery of reality. Salute!