Who came up with the Light Clock Thought Experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the origins of the Light Clock thought experiment, its historical context, and its role in Special Relativity. Participants explore who first introduced the concept and when it appeared in literature, while also addressing its pedagogical implications and connections to other theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the Light Clock is a fundamental thought experiment for understanding Special Relativity, while others contest this by suggesting it is just one of many ways to introduce the topic.
  • One participant proposes that the Light Clock was first introduced by Gilbert Newton Lewis and Richard Chace Tolman in 1909, referencing their work in "The Principle of Relativity, and Non-Newtonian Mechanics."
  • Another participant mentions that the Light Clock concept appeared in various texts, including Hewitt's "Conceptual Physics" (1987) and Mermin's "Space and Time in Special Relativity" (1968), with earlier mentions in the Feynman Lectures (1963).
  • Concerns are raised about the assumptions underlying the Light Clock, particularly regarding the equivalence of its length in different frames of reference.
  • Participants discuss Lorentz's derivation of the Lorentz factor and how it relates to the Light Clock, with one noting that Lorentz based his arguments on experimental results rather than the Light Clock concept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the origins of the Light Clock, with multiple competing views regarding its first introduction and its significance in the context of Special Relativity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of its assumptions and its pedagogical value.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the assumptions made in the Light Clock thought experiment, particularly concerning the orientation of the clock and its implications for length contraction. Additionally, the relationship between Lorentz's work and the Light Clock remains a point of contention.

Lamarr
Messages
52
Reaction score
1
Everyone is familiar with the Light Clock, a thought experiment which forms the entire basis of Special Relativity.

Through the Light Clock, the Lorentz factor can be derived.

So who was the genius who first came up with the Light Clock? Was it Lorentz himself? Or someone else?

When did it make its first appearance?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lamarr said:
Everyone is familiar with the Light Clock, a thought experiment which forms the entire basis of Special Relativity.
I wouldn't say that it "forms the entire basis of Special Relativity." It's just one way of introducing the topic. It has the advantage of being relatively nonmathematical.

Lamarr said:
So who was the genius who first came up with the Light Clock? Was it Lorentz himself? Or someone else?

When did it make its first appearance?
Interesting question. I suspect it was invented about 70 years after Lorentz's work. The first place I encountered this presentation was in Hewitt's textbook Conceptual Physics, which dates back to 1987. This paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0941 says, "The light clock is a pedagogical device used by many authors for deriving the formula that accounts for the time dilation relativistic effect," and gives two references, the earlier of which is to Space and Time in Special Relativity by Mermin, dating back to 1968. Amazon let me peek at the relevant part of the book with their "look inside" feature. (Mermin's more recent approach to the pedagogy of SR is given in his newer book It's About Time.) This paper http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505134 points to an earlier use of the idea, in 1963 in the Feynman Lectures (section 15-4).

The problem with the light clock as an introduction to SR is that it requires Einstein's 1905 axiomatization of relativity, which, with the benefit of 107 years' hindsight, inappropriately singles out light as having a special role. We have a FAQ about the different possible axiomatizations: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=534862

A more nitpicky objection to the light clock is that I think most presentations fail to justify a hidden assumption, which is that the length of the light clock is the same in both frames. This assumption would be incorrect if the light clock were oriented longitudinally rather than transeversely.

There is clearly a close affinity between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the light clock. Feynman pretty much develops it this way (and also doesn't cheat on the issue of longitudinal and transverse length contraction).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lamarr said:
So who was the genius who first came up with the Light Clock? Was it Lorentz himself? Or someone else?

When did it make its first appearance?

It was Gilbert Newton Lewis and Richard Chace Tolman in "The Principle of Relativity, and Non-Newtonian Mechanics"
Published in the year 1909 in Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1909, 44: 709–726

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity,_and_Non-Newtonian_Mechanics

See Figure 1 and explanation on page 714.
 
Histspec said:
It was Gilbert Newton Lewis and Richard Chace Tolman in "The Principle of Relativity, and Non-Newtonian Mechanics"
Published in the year 1909 in Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1909, 44: 709–726

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity,_and_Non-Newtonian_Mechanics

See Figure 1 and explanation on page 714.


Then how did Lorentz derive the Lorentz factor before the Light Clock was thought of?
 
Lorentz argued entirely from the experimental result that a moving charge does NOT have a differenti electrical field than a moving charge even though Maxwell's equation say it should.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Lorentz argued entirely from the experimental result that a moving charge does NOT have a differenti electrical field than a moving charge even though Maxwell's equation say it should.

where can i find this argument?
 
Lamarr said:
where can i find this argument?
See this excerpt from the Feynman Lectures, especially the last two pages. It show how Lorentz got the Lorentz transformations from Maxwell's equations.
 
HallsofIvy said:
a moving charge does NOT have a different electrical field than a moving charge

Well, of course... :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K