Timeline for Case of moving longitudinal light clock with no time dilation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2023 at 12:57 | comment | added | robphy | @Markoul11 thanks. | |
| Sep 3, 2023 at 11:19 | vote | accept | Markoul11 | ||
| Sep 3, 2023 at 11:18 | comment | added | Markoul11 | @robphy "...also the length of the longitudinal light clock must dilate at the same manner" last paragraph before the References. arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1103/1103.0445.pdf | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 19:56 | comment | added | robphy | @Markoul11 In the Doppler effect, it's not necessary to see the color of light vary... it's sufficient to measure the ratio of the periods between consecutive receptions and consecutive emissions. So, using a sequence of "[short-lived] light pulses" is sufficient. | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 19:51 | comment | added | robphy | @Markoul11 Where specifically in the paper that you reference does it say "length dilation"? (I could not find it.) | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 19:30 | comment | added | Professor Sushing | @Markoul11 if my transverse clock ticks n times in my frame it will also have ticked n times in yours. If my LLC ticks n times in my frame it will also tick n times in yours. Your theory about LLCs not conforming to SR is unjustified and incorrect. | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 18:04 | comment | added | Markoul11 | In the transverse light clock I am not so sure if this the case. Running the experiment say for 15 minutes for the stationary reference clock and immediately bringing to stationary the moving clock because time dilation the moving clock will have less number of ticks registered. But yes repeating this process for the longitudinal light clock the number of ticks recorded will be the same. | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 14:46 | comment | added | Professor Sushing | The number of ticks is always the same in every frame. What counts is the duration of the ticks. | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 12:57 | comment | added | Professor Sushing | I don't understand what point you are trying to make. The case for SR is rock solid. The paper you cited was not peer reviewed, talks nonsense, and has gained no serious interest since it was published. So what exactly is the problem? | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 10:58 | comment | added | Markoul11 | IMO in the described case of the moving clock registering only as a clock tick when the reflected short light pulse hits the trailing clock leg (where the pulsed light source is located), the number of clock ticks counted after the moving clock stops moving will be the same with that of a synchronized stationary reference light clock. Thus, there will be no overall time dilation effect for the stationary observer. But then this is unacceptable in SR since there can be no preferred frame of reference. | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 10:41 | comment | added | Markoul11 | "The paper contains mistakes..." Yes I agree because his findings are very strange like "length dilation". | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 10:39 | comment | added | Markoul11 | Referring to the above previous comment Arxiv paper after reading it I found that this is a very strange special case where when the light pulse is very short in duration and not a continuous wave therefore there is no Doppler shift observed, then the two-way speed symmetry postulate of light is broken and can be restored only if length dilation is assumed which is an impossibility in SR. | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 10:35 | comment | added | Professor Sushing | The paper contains mistakes. The second principle of relativity dos not say that it is impossible to detect motion, but that it is impossible to detect absolute motion. | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 9:53 | comment | added | Markoul11 | I found this related Arxiv paper arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1103/1103.0445.pdf | |
| Aug 31, 2023 at 5:05 | history | answered | Professor Sushing | CC BY-SA 4.0 |