0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Within the moving box, the photon spends most of its time travelling between the two mirrors and as such is unaffected by the movement of the evacuated glass box. In addition, when the photon is reflected perpendicularly off the moving mirrored surface, its velocity is unchanged. If it gained or lost kinetic energy during its reflection off the mirrored surface, then this would result in an increase or decrease in its kinetic energy leading to a change in the photon’s velocity, which we know is not the case. It is not possible to accelerate or decelerate a photon.
Einstein’s ‘Light Box’ thought experiment is used to explain the slowing down of the passage of time with movement.
It is classed as a ‘thought experiment’, because it is technically difficult to count the number of times a ‘visible’ photon bounces up and down between two parallel mirrors within an ‘evacuated’ glass enclosure, without impinging upon the photon’s movement.
It is here that an assumption is made in the lightbox ‘thought experiment’, which leads to the concept of time slowing down. The assumption is that ‘the photon will continue to be reflected between the central points of two parallel mirrors of the light box, regardless of the movement of the glass box.’ But this is not how the laws of ‘photon physics’ work.
If we send the light by the angle φ (tangentφ = c/v); ...
at this position the path of light will be perpendicular line according to mirrors //
Very well, this figure and explanation are persuasive almost for everybody.
However, naked science or authentic reality requires advanced questioning instead of low gear.
Please examine the figures and their explanations in attachment.
Light may be kidding with our mind.
Are you referring to the angle? tan φ = L/(vt/2)
What does "perpendicular line according to mirrors" refer to?
Quote from: xersanozgen on 29/05/2017 08:41:08Very well, this figure and explanation are persuasive almost for everybody.Its persuasive for everyone well educated in physicist.Why don't these well educated physicist analyze other options (for example, the light travels to the direction + x ; while the source travels toward the direction - x) Please try to analyze this option by the same method in accordance with SR or Lorentz mentality and confirm the inferences of SR for this option. Quote from: xersanozgen on 29/05/2017 08:41:08However, naked science or authentic reality requires advanced questioning instead of low gear.This is actually high gear as is all relativity and the correct understanding of it. Please examine the types of relativity and then repeat this phrase ( http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600 section III)Quote from: xersanozgen on 29/05/2017 08:41:08Please examine the figures and their explanations in attachment. What figures and attachment?Figure 15 (my answer 6) You may see at (b) alternative option for light's way (that total length becames the value L)Quote from: xersanozgen on 29/05/2017 08:41:08Light may be kidding with our mind. In your dreams.I don't like it. Please. We must/may talk by scientific contents.What is it with all you folks? Do you actually believe that over 100 years of relativity and countless relativists all made the exact same mistake when in fact the predictions of it all correspond to what's observed in nature? Let me clue you in - Every single poster in this forum who has ever claimed that there was something wrong with relativity used flawed arguments and as such were all 100% wrong.Why don't one of you actually think like a real physicist and point to some observation made in the lab or in nature which contradicts what's predicted by relativity? Now that would be something that I'd be impressed by.
pmbphyWhy don't we? Well, actually we do. This is a trivial exercise and its a question posed in almost all textbooks on relativity.Now I have a question for you: Why do you make accusations such as the one you just did (i.e. you made an assumption) rather than merely ask whether its done or not?
Any objection?
It is here that an assumption is made in the lightclock ‘thought experiment’, which leads to the concept of time slowing down. The assumption is that ‘the photon will continue to be reflected between the central points of two parallel mirrors of the light box, regardless of the movement of the glass box.’ But this is not how the laws of ‘photon physics’ work.Within the moving box, the photon spends most of its time travelling between the two mirrors and as such is unaffected by the movement of the evacuated glass box. In addition, when the photon is reflected perpendicularly off the moving mirrored surface, its speed is unchanged. If it gained or lost kinetic energy during its reflection off the mirrored surface, then this would result in an increase or decrease in its kinetic energy leading to a change in the magnitude of the photon’s speed, which we know is not the case. It is not possible to accelerate or decelerate a photon.