Lorentz Contraction: A Misunderstood Phenomenon with a New Derivation

M*O*R*O*N".I kid you not! :-DPeteIn summary, the conversation involved a poster on a sci.physics.relativity forum who claimed to have found proof that Lorentz contraction does not exist. However, upon further investigation, it was discovered that the poster had actually stumbled upon a new derivation for Lorentz contraction. The conversation also touched upon the importance of deriving velocity transformation rules first and the difficulty of engaging in productive discussions on the internet.
  • #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
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yes I've seen it before, though not in a textbook, it's actually quite a good way of demonstrating length contraction.
 
  • #3
Obviously one needs to derive the velocity transformation rules first.
Why does that poster say the following?

If length contraction was actually physical, the beam would not strike the detector in any frame.

Was the poster assuming the X-Y orientation of the mirror was the same in S and S'? So there was no contraction of the X component of the mirror width?
 
  • #4
Obviously one needs to derive the velocity transformation rules first.
Yes. If you take a look right above Eq. (1) I provide a link to that derivation.

Why does that poster say the following?

If length contraction was actually physical, the beam would not strike the detector in any frame.
I'm not sure. I guess he thinks that the layout is exactly the same in the frame in which the layout is moving and that the only thing different is the length of the rod and thus the emitter-detector disatance. I kept asking him to back that claim up but he refused to. In fact I think I asked him to provide a proof almost every single day. All I got was insults - as usual! :-)


Was the poster assuming the X-Y orientation of the mirror was the same in S and S'? So there was no contraction of the X component of the mirror width?

I don't recall. The thread is called "Length contraction doesn't occur period." - check it out if you have the time.

Pete
 
  • #5
Originally posted by jcsd
Yes I've seen it before, though not in a textbook, it's actually quite a good way of demonstrating length contraction.

Excellant! If you recall where you've seen that can you let me know?

Thanks

Pete
 
  • #6
I'm pretty sure that a simlair example is in Brian Greene's elegant universe.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by jcsd
I'm pretty sure that a simlair example is in Brian Greene's elegant universe.

Thank you.

Pete
 
  • #8
Pete,

Are you going to send that poster a link to your new second Lorentz contraction derivation after you publish it?
Or just leave the growler lie?

quart
 
  • #9
Originally posted by quartodeciman
Pete,

Are you going to send that poster a link to your new second Lorentz contraction derivation after you publish it?
Or just leave the growler lie?

quart
I posted the link in a new thread and I posted the link to him directly in the old thread.

But you know how the internet is. They love to divert attention away from the physics. One jerkoff notice that I made an error in my original Lorentz contraction page at

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/lorentz_contraction.htm

At the bottom I showed that lengths perpendicular to motion do not contract. But I made an error in three places an instead of writing "
perpendicular" I wrote "Parallel" . However it was very clear what I was writing about since I gave a diagram and clearly wrong

However if the rod is aligned perpendicular to the velocity then we can take another, rather easy, approach.

However someone was unable to prove me wrong in another thread and they made some very dumb comments. So to hide their embarassment they wrote
Would *you* put your kids in the hands of a teacher who makes errors like that?
I responded with the most obvious answer
So if you're asking me if I'd put my kids in the hands of a person who makes mistakes I'd say of course. I have no choice since people who don't make mistakes don't exist.

Oy! :-)

In fact that thread was interesting. I should post that one too. It's on relativistic mass as an invariant. See thread I'm starting on this for details

Pete
 
  • #10
Originally posted by jcsd
Yes I've seen it before, though not in a textbook, it's actually quite a good way of demonstrating length contraction.

FYI - the standard derivation is here

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/lorentz_contraction.htm


Do you recall that nut that was tossed out for flaming tom? He was the one who couldn't understand that a scalar was a tensor of ranks zero? Well that same nutcase now claims that anyone who posts such a derivation as in the link above is plagerizing him.

So many nuts on the inernet. Where do they all come from?

Pete
 
  • #11
Well this was rather humerous. Here is the response from that person
(poster) Wrote: 1. In my example, does the laser emitter and mirror remain vertical wrt each other in every frame in relative motion, that shares the laser frame's x axis?

Pmb responded: I clearly stated - "Emitter and mirror - Yes. neither is moving so the connecting line remains perpendicular to the motion"
Didn't you understand that? The emitter-mirror forms a line which is
parallel to the y' axis. That axis is parallel to the y axis. The y and y' axes are in relative motion. The direction of motion is the
x-direction. So YES the emitter-mirror is perpendicular IN EVERY FRAME IN RELATIVE MOTION WHICH SHARES THE FRAME'S X-AXIS

(poster) Wrote: 2. In my example, does the laser beam remain vertical between the laser emitter and mirror in all frames in relative motion, that share the laser frame's x axis?

Pmb responded: I've changed my mind on this. The energy of the beam
remains parallel to the y-axis. The direction the light is moving is not parallel to the y-axis.
***********************************************
(poster) : You are wrong and refuse to admit it.
How do you split the energy of the wave from the wave?

Also, since you agree all frames in relative motion with coinciding x-axis wrt the laser frame will see the laser and emitter vertically
in line, how can the laser beam not also be vertically in line between emitter and mirror?
Oh yes, please explain.

(poster)...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
I had, of course, explained this to him before and he ignored it.

I explained that in each frame the photons coming out of the laser are aligned parallel to the y'-axis in S' and are also aligned parallel to the y-axis in S. While the photons move in the y' direction they do not move in the y direction.

I've posted this diagram to explain

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/sr23-im-04.gif

However I think his moton says it all. Seems that he doesn't like to reason since he thinks he'll miss the truth! LOL

Pete
 
  • #12
Watch out for this kind of trap:

you agree all frames...will see...vertically
in line
.

Terrell rotation
 
  • #13
Originally posted by quartodeciman
Watch out for this kind of trap:

you agree all frames...will see...vertically
in line
.

Terrell rotation

Yep. That one caught me for a moment. But so long as particles are "simultaneously" measured to have the same x-component on one frame then they will "simultaneously" have the same x-component in all other frames in standard configuration with the first.

Pete
 
  • #14
Originally posted by 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


You forgot to account for error of parallax.
 

1. What is Lorentz Contraction and why is it important?

Lorentz Contraction is a phenomenon in which an object appears shorter in the direction of its motion when observed from a different frame of reference. This concept is an integral part of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and plays a crucial role in understanding the effects of time and space in the presence of high velocities.

2. How is Lorentz Contraction different from regular length contraction?

Regular length contraction, also known as Galilean contraction, is a concept in classical physics that states that the length of an object decreases when it is in motion. However, Lorentz Contraction takes into account the principles of special relativity and shows that the observed length changes are relative to the frame of reference of the observer, rather than an absolute decrease in length.

3. Can you explain the mathematical derivation of Lorentz Contraction?

The mathematical derivation of Lorentz Contraction starts with the Lorentz transformation equations, which describe how time and space coordinates change between two frames of reference in relative motion. From these equations, the expression for length contraction can be derived by considering the time interval between two events in the moving frame and the time interval between the same events in the observer's frame.

4. Is Lorentz Contraction a real phenomenon or just a mathematical construct?

Lorentz Contraction has been observed in many experiments and is considered a real phenomenon. It has been confirmed by numerous experiments, including the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, leading to the need for Lorentz Contraction in explaining the effects of special relativity.

5. What are some practical applications of Lorentz Contraction?

Lorentz Contraction has practical applications in fields such as particle physics, where high-speed particles are studied, and in engineering, where it is essential to take into account the effects of high velocities on structures and machines. It is also crucial in the development of technologies such as GPS, which relies on the principles of special relativity to function accurately.

Similar threads

  • Electromagnetism
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
952
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
83
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
911
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
60
Views
2K
Back
Top