baffledMatt said:
Ok, so we have these film strips and after the experiment they will have two little dots on them corresponding to the points A and B when the photons were emitted. In the moving frame we measure the distance between these points using a metre ruler and come up with a length.
No we use reflected light pulses and set the ps-strips the same way that M was established as the midpoint od A and B. As we have an excess of ps-strips whose width << lamba(photon), i.e. sub micron ranges, SR shrinking is not a concern. We can rig it so that the number of ps-strips are two or three orders of magnitude less than the photon wave length. Overlap and overmesure o an overkill degree.
baffledMatt said:
We have (using my previous notation) that in the stationary frame the distance between A and B is 2L. However, due to Lorentz contraction the stationary observer will observe the moving observer to measure this distance to be 2L\gamma
\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2})} > 1
This is because he sees the moving observer trying to measure a distance of 2L with a shorter (contracted) measuring stick. So he is observing the moving observer making a measurement larger than 2L.
Not quite. As we have an excess of ps-strips, we assure ourselves that whatever shrinking occurs, one strip will be colocated at A and B within a minimum acceptable errror. The numbered ps-strips guarantees the location of mesurements being equal distant from M' established by relected laser measurements. The frame knows nothing of stationary observers, perceptions or even that an experiment is being conducted. What the stationary observer sees does not imply the use of gamma for any useful purpose. WE want to deermine if the simultabeous emission of photons mitted in the stationary frame are emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. And this is all is it not?
The moving and stationary observers each have the planet's best SR and Dissident SR physicists to assure the most rabid sceptic, either way, that A = A' , M = M' and B = B' when the photons are emitted and detected by the ps-strips to a resolution << perturbations due to shrinking effects. Remember, we are only verifying simultaneous emission of photons in the moving frame or not. We need not concern ourselves what observes are noting about the frames cordinates.
baffledMatt said:
The moving observer on the other hand sees the distance between A and B contracted. Hence, naively you might think he will measure a length of 2L/\gamma. This cannot be because what each observer sees must be the same (remember that we just had the stationary observer seeing the moving observer measure a longer length), so somehow the moving observer must also measure 2L\gamma.
No quite. We are not concerned with what observers see. The human element is totally irrelevant. No one is making corrections based on seeing another across the way doing anything like making a measurement.
baffledMatt said:
This happens because he does not observe the photon emissions to be simultaneous. Hence there is a little bit of time between the first and the second photon, which makes his measured length larger. This will ensure that his observation coincides exactly with that of the stationary observer.
I don't see this at all. If the stationaray observer, knowing the photons are emiotted simultaneously in his frame, as a given, (OK for this we'll put a stationary observer at A and B, temporarily,), how pray tell can the stationary obsever also see the photons emitted a little time later, just to stay synchronuzed to SR theory?in between? It can't be done baffledMatt, there is no such stationary observer in the universe. this cannot be done.
If you insist on this as strenuously as you are able look what you are arguing. The mere fact that the moving frame is present as we described it places a physical delay in photon emission where if no moving frame passes, the photons are emitted simultaneously. They are still emitted simultabneously, but again, two times. Do you suspect a conservation of energy problem here baffledMatt,? A physical event forced on the physical laws by postulated imperative? Is there any phsyical law, such as that SR descriibed that is invariant under all this? You are left with a shrug of the shoulders and " that's the way it is", arent't you? Also, the stationary observer has a certificate of the experimental conditions that the photons are emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame. How can the mere presence of the moving frame alter the sequence? Can it be both ways? Human observers within eyelashes of each other see the same physical event occurring at different times? When the observers see the photon and raise their hand in recognition, you say each observer raises their hand at diffeent moments, and the stationary observer sees this? Incredible, isn't it baffledMatt? While they are staring each other in the face? Bam, the photons are emitted, then bam, they are emitted again? This is SR theory applied to force experimental observation being consistent with theory, it is called a mathematical contrivance with no physical analog attached. These results are looked at weeks after the experiment. No observer has "seen" any other observer measure anything. read some post of those supporting SR theory. Sk oyuself which ae useful, and which are useless, which ae supportinmg for pure professional or personal reasons only. Which haven't a clue to what is occurring.
baffledmatt said:
Only the ps_strips and ergo their mutual distance to M' when the photons were emitted at t = 0 are of concern.
baffl4ed Matt, you keep referring o what " . . . the stationary observer sees the moving observer.." etc
If you agree that when M' is at M and this is the instant the photons are emitted from A and B is it not allowable to either insert the value '0' in a clock located at MM', a colocated coordinate set, say 0,0 in both frames? For confifdence we would want to 0 all clocks at all observation points. But for the ps-strip exposures I see no need for any clocks.
Certainly we can minimize the error sufficiently to negate any shrinking or time dilation problems.
I will accept your professional sense of honesty and let you iron out the engineering technicalities, it is your budget.
You want to go over this again, so be it. there is a ton of stuf in here baffled matt, a on. too much for mortals to digest in so short a time, unless one has an ephiphonous variance in their outlook. I have to tell you I am not equipped to take any prisoners.
