Is "length contraction" an illusion?

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

Being very blunt, you are on the verge of being banned from this site.

Seriously?

That seems rather extreme; I don't see how I'm in any violation of any rules. I didn't start this thread with the desire for someone to play devils advocate, that desire merely emerged as a result of the responses.

But the fact that I feel like I can gain more from understanding the method of deduction that comes from deriving at least a conceptual understanding of relativity rather than having someone walk me through it makes me a crackpot? Really.

That's interesting D H, and not something I would expect from a mentor. I'm sorry for having the desire to work through a problem and not be spoon-fed the answer, then the proof, then have someone say "Hey, now that you know this because we told you so, what's the answer to this question" (as is the method with most textbooks in my opinion).

I'm sorry I asked this forum for help.

Lock this thread D H, because it's clear you think this thread is in some way, shape, or form, in violation of the forum rules (which I have read and don't believe it is [maybe it evolved to be more relevant in the HW questions... beside the point]), but I don't think it is, and I'm not really looking to get banned because I had a question that I asked, got answers that (to my understanding) aren't necessarily in coincidence with each other, and that arose to new questions and an evolution of this thread.


Peace out
-Tyler

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

Also, before this thread gets locked down, I want to add one thing.

Nobody HAS to respond to this thread, if you don't want to respond, don't.

But to everyone that has sincerely responded, I want to thank you, because at the very least you got me thinking, and that is precisely what I was looking for upon starting this thread (and ultimately joining this forum) and I thought that we had (for the most part) a good discussion going.

@stevendaryl, I want to point out that somethings you say seem to agree with what I have been trying to do, and some things disagree. It is very likely that this stems from my broken understanding of relativity (a broken understanding of almost nothing hehe). So I want you call you out in particular and thank you.

@pervect, I'm sorry for confusing you about what I was after with this, I do, however, appreciate your help, you've (perhaps indirectly or unintentionally) played the "devil's advocate" roll I was looking for, and at the very least given me a few good topics to research without looking up a detailed explanation of relativity (which is my whole goal with this, in case you haven't caught on).

To everyone else who helped, WannabeNewton, bhobba, and others, I'm sorry if you got left out. Thank you.

So I leave this thread with this: to MOST, I thank you.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

I know I've already thrown in my last words, but...

Right. While the mirrors are accelerating, the angle of the mirror has to be adjusted slightly so that the light is aimed ahead of the current location of the other mirror. When the mirrors have stopped accelerating, they can return to being perpendicular to the direction of motion.

accelerating or moving?

What do you mean? Light always travels in a straight line at a constant speed. But think about it: If I aim a light toward a mirror, and while the light is traveling, the mirror moves, then the light will miss the mirror. In order for the light to hit the mirror, I have to aim slightly ahead of where the mirror is.

yes

The constancy of the speed of light is both experimentally verified, and is predicted by the equations describing light (Maxwell's equations).

just for my knowledge, do you have any experiments that I could look at that demonstrate the constancy of the speed of light within a greater accuracy than a $\delta$ equal to a relevant fraction of the speed of light relative to the velocity of the objects involved in the experiment (I hope that makes sense, I wasn't really sure how to word it)...
I'm sure there is a margin of experimental error in the speed of light. What I'm curious of is this: is the margin of error proportional (or approximately proportional) to the velocity of the objects used in the measurements. I'm sure this has all been thought of before, but again, I'm really trying to see if I can reach certain conclusions deductively.

I know everything that I'm trying to do has been done before.

I'm not trying to come up with any new theories.

I'm not trying to debunk any existing theories.

Where I'm coming from is this: At one point in time, these theories were not established nor conceived. At some later point in time they were. That was done through logical deduction, experimentation, and analysis of the results.

I feel I have more to gain by learning the method rather than learning the theory. (however, learning the theory is a consequence of learning the method)

After all, (in my opinion) being a successful physicist is less about what you know and more about how you think. I'm trying to improve the latter.

 

[Nugatory]

just for my knowledge, do you have any experiments that I could look at that demonstrate the constancy of the speed of light within a greater accuracy than a $\delta$ equal to a relevant fraction of the speed of light relative to the velocity of the objects involved in the experiment (I hope that makes sense, I wasn't really sure how to word it)...
I'm sure there is a margin of experimental error in the speed of light. What I'm curious of is this: is the margin of error proportional (or approximately proportional) to the velocity of the objects used in the measurements.

In a classical Michelson-Morley experiment, we measure the difference in travel time for light traveling crosswise to the Earth's motion through space and parallel to it. We use an interferometer to measure this difference, and the margin of error is independent of the speed of light or the speed of the earth.

 

[Dale]

Where I'm coming from is this: At one point in time, these theories were not established nor conceived. At some later point in time they were. That was done through logical deduction, experimentation, and analysis of the results.

It sounds like you are asking a historical question. The problem is simply that most people on this forum, including myself, consider the historical account of little direct value. People went through several dead-ends and wrong turns and even once they were on the current road they wandered a bit.

I heartily agree with bhobba's recommendation to think about it from a symmetry perspective. Modern physics is built on symmetry, it is an incredibly powerful means to understand.

You can also understand it from Einstein's postulates, which I think remain valuable despite the existence of more elegant formulations.

You can understand it in terms of experimental results, which is an approach that I like also.
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11476/1/ROBrmp49.pdf

With that, I think that it is time to close the thread. There are many ways to understand relativity, but devil's advocate is not one of them. Also, it is difficult to learn the basics from a forum since you will continually run into what seem like contradictions. Sometimes they are actual contradictions because one or more of the respondents are wrong, but more often they are not contradictions at all either because they are talking about different things or because you have a conceptual error. In either case, a more coherent presentation from a single source will be more likely to help you understand.