Understanding Relativity: A Blind Man's Perspective on Time and Physics

[JesseM]

No.He is observing light beam and mirror moving together in x direction.So the relative position of light beam and the mirrors will be such that it will be always on a line which is perpendicular with the mirror.He will always see the light beam moving perpendicular to the mirror.I will agree that It is traveling diognaly with respect to fixed space.

Of course at any given instant the position of the photon is always along the line between the two mirrors, but because the mirrors are moving in his coordinate system, the direction of motion of the photon in his coordinate system is not perpendicular to the line between the two mirrors.

 

[newTonn]

Of course at any given instant the position of the photon is always along the line between the two mirrors, but because the mirrors are moving in his coordinate system, the direction of motion of the photon in his coordinate system is not perpendicular to the line between the two mirrors.

Then he can easily say that the other clock is wrong,instead of telling the time is dilated.
For example,You have a sand clock(the old one),which is working purely with gravity.You designed it to work at ground level.If you take it to a high altitude, there is no logic in expecting it to work as it was in the ground level .
Similarly a light clock designed for a rest frame will not work same in a moving frame,isn't it the whole thing? or there is anything more?

 

[Dale]

But the observer will always see the light traveling in a straight line perpendicular to the mirrors,because there is no relative motion of the mirrors(in x,y and z direction) at any point of time.

No, all observers in all inertial frames will always see the light traveling in a straight line between the event where it leaves one mirror and the event where it reaches the other mirror. That line will only be perpendicular to the mirrors in the clock's rest frame. If the light were to travel perpendicular to the mirrors in any other frame then it would miss the other mirror.

 

[newTonn]

No, all observers in all inertial frames will always see the light traveling in a straight line between the event where it leaves one mirror and the event where it reaches the other mirror. That line will only be perpendicular to the mirrors in the clock's rest frame. If the light were to travel perpendicular to the mirrors in any other frame then it would miss the other mirror.

The diognal movement of light will be identified by the observer only if there is a reference object in the background,which is still in the observers frame.
In the absense of this third reference,the observer will see a perpendicular motion of light beam with respect to mirrors.
if the observer,measure the distance from him to the beam at each minute fraction of a second and plot the position of the beam,he will get a diognal line.
But then he should be honest enough to tell that a light clock designed in a still frame will not work properly in a moving frame,because the principle- basis of measurement in this clock,depends on the distance traveled by the light.
So in a moving frame time will be misunderstood as dilated,instead of understanding correctly that the light has to travel more distance(and hence more time) to reach the other mirror.

 

[Dale]

The diognal movement of light will be identified by the observer only if there is a reference object in the background,which is still in the observers frame.
In the absense of this third reference,the observer will see a perpendicular motion of light beam with respect to mirrors.

You are really stretching here. No "reference object" is required. The light leaving one mirror is one event, the light reaching the other mirror is another event, the light travels a straight world line between the two events. No external reference object is required.

The distance between the two events is, in general, not d.

 

[newTonn]

You are really stretching here. No "reference object" is required. The light leaving one mirror is one event, the light reaching the other mirror is another event, the light travels a straight world line between the two events. No external reference object is required.

The distance between the two events is, in general, not d.

If i agree with your last statement,If the distance is not d,why should i say time is dilated,instead of saying the basic principle of measurement of time in the moving clock is wrong?

 

[Dale]

If i agree with your last statement,

Do you agree with the last statement? I don't want to start a new discussion when we still disagree about the geometry. I already feel like we left the vacuum discussion prematurely.

 

[JesseM]

The diognal movement of light will be identified by the observer only if there is a reference object in the background,which is still in the observers frame.
In the absense of this third reference,the observer will see a perpendicular motion of light beam with respect to mirrors.

Are you completely unfamiliar with the notion of inertial coordinate systems in relativity? Each observer is assumed to use a network of rulers and clocks at rest in their own frame to assign coordinates to events, and it is only relative to these rulers and clocks that statements like "light moves at c in every frame" are meaningful.

 

[newTonn]

Are you completely unfamiliar with the notion of inertial coordinate systems in relativity?

You have ignored part of my post where i stated"if the observer,measure the distance from him to the beam at each minute fraction of a second and plot the position of the beam,he will get a diognal line." to show that i am unfamiliar with the co-ordinate systems.

Each observer is assumed to use a network of rulers and clocks at rest in their own frame to assign coordinates to events, and it is only relative to these rulers and clocks that statements like "light moves at c in every frame" are meaningful.

Does this directly implies that there is no physical change,but only the difference in rulers and clocks?