- #1
pmb
I don't recall seeing this derivation anywhere but its probably somewhere in the relativity literature since most things are.
A poster at sci.physics.relativity posted what he thought was proof that the Lorentz contraction doesn't exist. See the Fig. 1 in Lorentz Contraction - Version 2 -- www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/lorentz_contraction_2.htm
Here is the poster's claim
(note: He got the angle of the mirror wrong)
I requested a proof of his claim. In fact I repeated the request many times but he refused to post a proof.
It was kind of fun to write this up so I posted it on the web. It turned out to be another way to derive the Lorentz contraction relation.
In my derivation all that is assumed is the Lorentz transformation.
So the person thought he found proof that there is no Lorentz contraction when in fact all he did was to find another derivation and he didn't even know it! :-D
Ya got to love that! :-)
Pete
A poster at sci.physics.relativity posted what he thought was proof that the Lorentz contraction doesn't exist. See the Fig. 1 in Lorentz Contraction - Version 2 -- www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/lorentz_contraction_2.htm
Here is the poster's claim
Consider (in this rest frame) an EM Emitter, and a detector placed 10 feet away from said emitter. A mirror, placed 10 feet above the emitter, is angled @ 45 degrees so it will strike the detector . The emitter is on and is sending a continuous beam. The detector has a light that shows it is detecting the EM Wave.
Now consider a relatively moving observer wrt the above frame, he also sees the detector light on that shows the detector is receiving the beam from the emitter continuously.
If length contraction was actually physical, the beam would not strike the detector in any frame. For all frames are said to view the same events, only at different times according to SR. If one frame sees the detector light on, all frames will too eventually. If one frame does not see the detector light on, no frames will ever see it on.
We all know, in this scenario, that all frames will view the detector light on. So length contraction doesn't occur period.
(note: He got the angle of the mirror wrong)
I requested a proof of his claim. In fact I repeated the request many times but he refused to post a proof.
It was kind of fun to write this up so I posted it on the web. It turned out to be another way to derive the Lorentz contraction relation.
In my derivation all that is assumed is the Lorentz transformation.
So the person thought he found proof that there is no Lorentz contraction when in fact all he did was to find another derivation and he didn't even know it! :-D
Ya got to love that! :-)
Pete