A problem with time dilation help?

[harrylin]

If I knew how to calculate a Lorentz transformation I would have done it, but I don't.

Sorry for that (and I could not help looking ); but if you choose only one reference system (in which you are moving), you would not need a Lorentz transformation at all to determine your speed relative to that of a light ray - only basic vector subtraction of velocities. Einstein could also not use the LT in his section 3, as he still had to derive it!

I think the penny dropped with DaleSpam’s post [...]
I took that as meaning that at some point I would still need to synchronise two clocks to calibrate.
I am still not certain if the issue is just with synchronization or why the one way speed of light has to be different for different observers, however, as you rightly said enough is enough.

Those two issues are interdependent, that was the point.

I had no idea just how many times this issue had come up until I had time to do a bit of reading today. No wonder you guys get frustrated.

Hehe perhaps it should be reworked into an elaborated FAQ. :tongue2:

But if after reading and thinking more about it you still keep questions, don't hesitate to start a new topic on it.

Cheers,
Harald

 

[Rishavutkarsh]

hi Rishav,

seems like, somewhere in your understanding, you are mixing up frames of references.

you can draw all the 5 frames (or whatever the number of frames may be depending upon the scenario/example)

Frame 1: moving at .99c
Frame 2: photons coming towards you from right
Frame 3: photons coming towards you from left
Frame 4: Another stationery observer
Frame 5: Another moving observer ( at some fraction of c)

To do any analysis:

1. Within the same frame of reference

This is easy. The results within the same of reference are "easily/simply" consistent.

2. To compare across frames

Frames are not comparable "in a simple way", i.e. some calculations transformations have to be made to bring both the frames of reference on the same page (speed).

you have to adjust for factors (time/length/space dilation) via Lorentz transformations etc to make the frame of reference comparable i.e. same i.e. same speed etc.

Bottomline: you are somewhere jumping/swapping frames, in your analysis, without realizing it. All the five frames above will have different interpretation of simultaneity...i.e. even the events are happening at different times for each (5) frame of reference.

The only thing that will always be same across all frames of references is the speed of light (c).

oh well at last can i really do it ? i am just 13 and things like this can they be done without integration . ie does lorentz transformations include integration ?

 

[Dale]

does lorentz transformations include integration ?

The Lorentz transform is just algebra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorent...ormation_for_frames_in_standard_configuration
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html#c2

 

[Rishavutkarsh]

The Lorentz transform is just algebra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorent...ormation_for_frames_in_standard_configuration
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed...c2[/rl][/QUOTE] oh then that's good thanks

 

[Rishavutkarsh]

i have a way to measure speed of light one way

take a thick mirror and we know that how much % of light is slowed down so when the light strikes the mirror start the timer and when the light exits stop the timer that is it we measured the speed of light one way!

 

[harrylin]

i have a way to measure speed of light one way

take a thick mirror and we know that how much % of light is slowed down so when the light strikes the mirror start the timer and when the light exits stop the timer that is it we measured the speed of light one way!

You can of course "measure" its speed relative to the glass of your mirror, but you're wrong if you think that every reference system will agree with:

1. the time that it takes to go through the glass
2. the distance that the light covers in that time

- Look at the discussions above;
- Make a sketch of your set-up.

You cannot escape the issues that we discussed.
But if you could do it, then you'd disprove relativity and you'd get the Nobel prize for sure!

Harald

 

[HallsofIvy]

i have a way to measure speed of light one way

take a thick mirror and we know that how much % of light is slowed down so when the light strikes the mirror start the timer and when the light exits stop the timer that is it we measured the speed of light one way!

How is this "one way"? You have measured the time it takes light to go from the front of the mirror to the back of the mirror and return to the front.

 

[Rishavutkarsh]

How is this "one way"? You have measured the time it takes light to go from the front of the mirror to the back of the mirror and return to the front.

oops i mean't a thick piece of glass not mirror sorry

 

[Rishavutkarsh]

i have a way to measure speed of light one way

take a thick glass and we know that how much % of light is slowed down so when the light strikes the mirror start the timer and when the light exits stop the timer that is it we measured the speed of light one way!
this ain't wrong now right?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

i have a way to measure speed of light one way

take a thick glass and we know that how much % of light is slowed down so when the light strikes the mirror start the timer and when the light exits stop the timer that is it we measured the speed of light one way!
this ain't wrong now right?

What do you mean when light strikes the mirror? And how exactly are you going to monitor that the light has struck anything?

The point is to measure the speed of light you need to measure it traveling from A to B. It doesn't matter if A to B is via a mirror i.e. shine light at a mirror and monitor it when it get's back or if is in one direction i.e light a torch pointing at a detector. However what you can't do is just have a detector and measure the speed of light, that tells you no more information about the speed of light than a on/off button tells you about the speed of the pressing finger.

 

[ghwellsjr]

i have a way to measure speed of light one way

take a thick mirror and we know that how much % of light is slowed down so when the light strikes the mirror start the timer and when the light exits stop the timer that is it we measured the speed of light one way!

oops i mean't a thick piece of glass not mirror sorry

i have a way to measure speed of light one way

take a thick glass and we know that how much % of light is slowed down so when the light strikes the mirror start the timer and when the light exits stop the timer that is it we measured the speed of light one way!
this ain't wrong now right?

You repeated the same scenario but changed the word "mirror" to "glass" one time but not the second time.

I have no idea what you are describing. I know you have a thick piece of glass but is there also a mirror somewhere? Is the light entering/striking the glass/mirror in the same location where it is exiting the glass/mirror?

Please start over and describe you experiment so someone could actually builld it from your description and not from some other ideas you have in your head and haven't written down. We can't read your mind.

It might help if before you submit your posts you showed them to someone else who is there with you and asked them if they make sense or at least proofread them yourself and ask the question, "Would this make sense to someone else?"

 

[Dale]

i have a way to measure speed of light one way

take a thick glass and we know that how much % of light is slowed down so when the light strikes the mirror start the timer and when the light exits stop the timer that is it we measured the speed of light one way!
this ain't wrong now right?

You are making the same mistake that rede96 made above. All you have done is transform a problem measuring the one-way speed of light in vacuum to a problem measuring the one-way speed of light in the glass. You still have to measure a one-way speed, which requires two synchronized clocks.

 

[rede96]

You are making the same mistake that rede96 made above. All you have done is transform a problem measuring the one-way speed of light in vacuum to a problem measuring the one-way speed of light in the glass. You still have to measure a one-way speed, which requires two synchronized clocks.

Rishavutkarsh, how I eventually came to understand is this:

Firstly, the reason it is not possible to time anything accurately between two points without having two synchronized clocks is that unless you can capture the time that the light (or anything else I guess) is at the start point instantaneously AND the time it is at the end point instantaneously, then you are in effect adding another 'trip' in getting the signal from whatever point back to your clock(s).

And to do that, you would need to know how long that signal would take to get from that point back to your clock, which you can't know because you can't measure that time without having two synchronized clocks again.

Secondly, in order to synchronize two clocks you have to pass a signal between them and so you would need to know how long that signal takes. And as above, you can't know how long that signal takes without having two synchronized clocks.

Now I don't know if that is 100% accurate but it helped me to understand the problem better.

The bigger question I am trying to understand now is why do we need to know the one way speed of light? I thought we already knew through experiment that light travels the same speed in all directions?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Rishavutkarsh, how I eventually came to understand is this:

Firstly, the reason it is not possible to time anything accurately between two points without having two synchronized clocks is that unless you can capture the time that the light (or anything else I guess) is at the start point instantaneously AND the time it is at the end point instantaneously, then you are in effect adding another 'trip' in getting the signal from whatever point back to your clock(s).

And to do that, you would need to know how long that signal would take to get from that point back to your clock, which you can't know because you can't measure that time without having two synchronized clocks again.

Secondly, in order to synchronize two clocks you have to pass a signal between them and so you would need to know how long that signal takes. And as above, you can't know how long that signal takes without having two synchronized clocks.

Now I don't know if that is 100% accurate but it helped me to understand the problem better.

It's not an issue of being able to "capture the time" accurately at any point; we are assuming that we have very fast and accurate sensors and clocks but they don't help when the thing you want to time is located at a distance from the clock.

The bigger question I am trying to understand now is why do we need to know the one way speed of light? I thought we already knew through experiment that light travels the same speed in all directions?

No, we don't know from experiment that light travels the same speed in all directions. That is Einstein's second postulate.

Here is the first definition of a postulate given by dictionary.com:

something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning​

 

[rede96]

It's not an issue of being able to "capture the time" accurately at any point; we are assuming that we have very fast and accurate sensors and clocks but they don't help when the thing you want to time is located at a distance from the clock.

Yes I agree, what I was saying is that we need to capture it instantaneously, i.e. we don't send a signal from the detector to a clock, which was pointed out to me in an earlier post.

No, we don't know from experiment that light travels the same speed in all directions. That is Einstein's second postulate.

Didn't the Michelson interferometer type experiments demonstrate a maximum anisotropy for C?

 

[ghwellsjr]

MMX worked on the two-way speed of light.

 

[Rishavutkarsh]

You repeated the same scenario but changed the word "mirror" to "glass" one time but not the second time.

I have no idea what you are describing. I know you have a thick piece of glass but is there also a mirror somewhere? Is the light entering/striking the glass/mirror in the same location where it is exiting the glass/mirror?

Please start over and describe you experiment so someone could actually builld it from your description and not from some other ideas you have in your head and haven't written down. We can't read your mind.

It might help if before you submit your posts you showed them to someone else who is there with you and asked them if they make sense or at least proofread them yourself and ask the question, "Would this make sense to someone else?"

well consider this-
we have a thick piece of glass and a stopwatch , we know how much % of light is slowed in the glass so do this-
when the light enters the glass start the stop watch
when light exits stop it .
now we know -
time took by light in the glass
we of coarse know the length of the glass
and % of light slowed by the mirror

this ends now we calculated one way speed of light right?
am i still unclear?

 

[ghwellsjr]

OK, when the light first enters the glass, some of the light has to find its way to the location of the stopwatch in order to start it counting, correct? And when the light exits the glass on the other side, some of that light has to find its way by a different path to the same stopwatch in order to stop it counting, correct? So now you can see that two (or more) directions are involved in making this measurement, correct? In any case, if you trace all the light paths from when it first enters the glass, including the path to the stopwatch, through the glass and including the path where it exits the glass and goes to the stopwatch, it will trace out a roundtrip.

To see this more clearly, assume that the stopwatch is located right near where the light enters the glass so that the stopwatch starts immediately when the light enters the glass. Then in order to stop the count, you have to have the light come from the exit point outside the glass back to the stopwatch. The light goes first through the glass and then back through the air so it is a round trip that your stopwatch measures.

 

[TrickyDicky]

No, we don't know from experiment that light travels the same speed in all directions. That is Einstein's second postulate.

Here is the first definition of a postulate given by dictionary.com:

something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning​

Yes, it is postulated in SR (assumed, not derived), but in GR needs not be postulated as Einstein realized that the existence of the constant c presupposed the presence of a system of absolute measuring rods and clocks (aka spacetime, the subject of curvature), that is his "synchronization convention" didn't come out of nowhere, and in this sense light traveling properties are derived from the properties (curvature, isotropicity...) of spacetime.

 

[harrylin]

Yes, it is postulated in SR (assumed, not derived), but in GR needs not be postulated as Einstein realized that the existence of the constant c presupposed the presence of a system of absolute measuring rods and clocks (aka spacetime, the subject of curvature), that is his "synchronization convention" didn't come out of nowhere, and in this sense light traveling properties are derived from the properties (curvature, isotropicity...) of spacetime.

Not exactly: if you carefully check his 1905 paper,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ ,
then you will notice that a standard reference system is set up in such a way that the one-way speed becomes equal to the two-way speed of light due to the Poincare-Einstein synchronization convention. As Einstein emphasised, this so "by definition"; IOW, it's made that way by human convention. That definition makes the one-way speed of light equal to the two-way speed of light, which was assumed to be "a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space".

He formulated is as follows in 1907:

"We [...] assume that the clocks [of a certain reference system] can be adjusted in such a way that the propagation velocity of every light ray in vacuum - measured by means of these clocks - becomes everywhere equal to a universal constant c, provided that the coordinate system is not accelerated."

Obviously one has the free choice to adjust the clocks differently, in which case the one-way speed of light becomes different from c; the light postulate isn't affected by such a choice as it only makes a claim as to what we will measure if we set the clocks as prescribed. For example, the speed of light wrt GPS receivers on Earth is c-v.

I won't elaborate on this subtle issue in this thread (it's off-topic); but if it pops up again, then I'll start a topic on it.

PS: The essential point, perhaps, is that in SR physical concepts such as "speed" are purely operationally defined; they have no ontological meaning.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Your disagreement must indeed be subtle as I fail to see where you think I'm incorrect.

The only part of my post about SR is where I agree that the second postulate is indeed a postulate, do you not think the second postulate is a postulate?

 

[harrylin]

Your disagreement must indeed be subtle as I fail to see where you think I'm incorrect.

The only part of my post about SR is where I agree that the second postulate is indeed a postulate, do you not think the second postulate is a postulate?

Sure a postulate is a postulate.
However, you agreed that a definition is a postulate. :tongue2:
My point was that a mere definition isn't a postulate.

A postulate may be open to falsification (as is the case with both SR's postulates); and to be precise it should relate to definitions (as is also the case with both SR's postulates). In contrast, a definition is a human choice that can't be falsified (although it can be poorly chosen).

Is that too subtle?? :uhh:

Cheers,
Harald

 

[TrickyDicky]

Sure a postulate is a postulate.
However, you agreed that a definition is a postulate. :tongue2:
My point was that a mere definition isn't a postulate.

Nope, I agreed with the definition of postulate, which is not the same as agreeing that a definition is a postulate. Hope this is not too subtle. :tongue2:

A postulate may be open to falsification (as is the case with both SR's postulates); and to be precise it should relate to definitions (as is also the case with both SR's postulates). In contrast, a definition is a human choice that can't be falsified (although it can be poorly chosen).

Is that too subtle?? :uhh:

Ugh, I'd say it is, but I think I can agree with this.

 

[harrylin]

Nope, I agreed with the definition of postulate, which is not the same as agreeing that a definition is a postulate. [..]

Evidently it's still not clear to you that you called a mere definition a postulate... Thus I'll have to start it as a topic. Anyway, it should become a FAQ.

Cheers,
Harald

 

[harrylin]

Evidently it's still not clear to you that you called a mere definition a postulate... Thus I'll have to start it as a topic. Anyway, it should become a FAQ.

Cheers,
Harald

PS: On second thought I do agree with you that the way it was formulated here does fall under the second postulate: there was another subtlety in formulation that I overlooked!
I now reiterated this topic in the new thread by rede:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=518005&page=2

Harald