[amrit (OP)]

photon moves in space only and not in time

Relative to the photon I think that is true. Relative to us the photon does take time, therefore we observe velocity and we can confirm this experimentally in many different ways.

No motion of photon is timeless, photon moves only in space. With clocks we measure numerical order of motion.

[amrit (OP)]

Let’s take a photon that is moving on the distance d  between point A and point B of space. Distance  d is composed out of Planck distances dp1 + dp2 + dp3....dpn. The smallest distance a photon can pass on the way from A to B is dp . A unit of numerical order of photon motion from  dp1 to dp2  is the Planck time tp . The photon moves exclusively in space and not in time. The photon position dp1  is “before” position dp2  in a sense that the numerical order  n is “before” n+1 . Equivalently as the natural number 1 is “before” the natural number 2. Numerical order of material change is measured with the “ticking” of a clock where t0  represents the beginning of measurement, and  tn the end of measurement. Velocity v of a material change is derived from its numerical order:
v = d/tn. Frequency of material change is derived from its numerical order: Frequency = 1/tn

[graham.d]

Amrit, this is just special relativity and there is no contradiction here. You are making a mistake in your calculations. You MUST measure time between events. The time of flight for the photon, from the perspective of the stationary observer, is not the same in each direction. If you imagine the photon is emitted (event 1) opposite to the motion direction from the front mirror, it reaches the back mirror more quickly because the back mirror is moving towards it. Work out the time to reach that mirror (event 2). After reflection it now has further to go to reach the front mirror which is receding from it. Work out the time it takes to get there (event 3). You will see that, from the perspective of the observer the time from event 1 to event 2 is shorter than event 2 to event 3. The total time is the sum of the two intervals. I am not going to do the maths here but it works out to be the 2 x the Lorentz contracted distance between the mirrors divided by the speed of light. This is exactly as SR predicts.

Nearly all apparant paradoxes in SR are because this sort of mistake is made, including the famous twin paradox.

[graham.d]

Amrit, I thought I would show the maths anyway:

Let t1 be the first interval and t2 the second interval

c.t1 = d' - v.t1, c.t2 = d' + v.t2    where d' is the Lorentz Contracted mirror spacing

Hence t1 + t2 = d'/(c+v) + d'/(c-v)

              = (2d/c).[1/(1-v²/c²)]

Substituting the Lorentz contraction value for d'

d' = d.√(1-v²/c²) where d is the proper mirror spacing gives

t1 + t2 = (2d/c).[1/√(1-v²/c²)]

Which shows that the stationary observer sees the photon clock running slow by the anount given by the cusomary time dilation equation.

[amrit (OP)]

yes Graham, here is the point. What mathematic shows in not in accordance with experimental data. Light velocity is invariant on inertial system.
This simply means there is no length contraction in physical world.
Velocity of photon clock is invariant on inertial system as is case with C.

[Murchie85]

Isn't relativity and time dialation tested every single time we put a satellite into orbit and the fact the two actual clocks or time settings are adjusted to compensate for this?

[JP]

Hi Amrit,

It sounds like what you're claiming is that special relativity as it's usually formulated has errors.  If that's the case, it's a new theory rather than mainstream physics.  Do you mind posting about it further in the New Theories section of the board?  

Thanks,

JP (moderator)

[amrit (OP)]

Isn't relativity and time dialation tested every single time we put a satellite into orbit and the fact the two actual clocks or time settings are adjusted to compensate for this?

Yes different velocity of clocks is measured, not time. Space is timeless, space is not 3D + T, space is 4D, see my article on
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000023000002000330000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

[amrit (OP)]

Hi Amrit,

It sounds like what you're claiming is that special relativity as it's usually formulated has errors.  If that's the case, it's a new theory rather than mainstream physics.  Do you mind posting about it further in the New Theories section of the board?  

Thanks,

JP (moderator)

SR has no errors, X4 is not temporal, X4 is spatial too by the math formalism X4 = ict X4 is spatial distance ( d = v x t )where t means "tick" of clock in space that is timeless.

[graham.d]

Amrit, the maths I used is based on Special Relativity and assumes lightspeed is invariant. You may argue your point regarding gravitational effects but Special Relativity is extremely well accepted and has yet to be contradicted by any experiment. In fact the concept of the photon clock is used in many undergraduate text books as a way of demonstrating how the invariance of lightspeed leads to the conclusion that there IS time dilation and Lorentz contraction.

[amrit (OP)]

Graham,

“time dilatation” means only that the velocity of clock slows down.
Not as a result time running slower, because there is no time as a 4-th dimension of space.
Physical time is “ticking” if clock in space that itself is timeless.
Velocity of photon clock is equal in all inertial systems because light has same speed in all inertial systems.
More than that:
By photon clock “time dilatation” is in contradiction with “length contraction”
   We have a photon clock in a fast airplane.  Mirrors are fixed in a way that photon moves along the direction of motion of the airplane. Distance between the mirrors is shortened by the length contraction. Because of the shorter distance between mirrors a path for the photon is shorter and so photon clock on the airplane “ticks” faster than same construction photon clock on the surface of the earth.
Experimental data show that atom clock in a fast airplane ticks slower than atom clock on the earth. Solution of this contradiction is in a preposition that photon clock in the airplane do not shorten. “Length contraction” is only a mathematical calculation that has no correspondence to the physical world. “Time dilatation” has also no correspondence in the physical world. What really happens by “time dilatation” is that velocity of material change velocity of clocks including slows down. Material change clocks run included run in space only and not in time.

Experimental data shows that velocity of atom clocks change. So relativity of velocity of material change starts above photon scale.

See my last article:
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Relativistic_effects_of_felative__velocity__vixra.pdf

[graham.d]

By photon clock “time dilatation” is in contradiction with “length contraction”
   We have a photon clock in a fast airplane.  Mirrors are fixed in a way that photon moves along the direction of motion of the airplane. Distance between the mirrors is shortened by the length contraction.

OK

Because of the shorter distance between mirrors a path for the photon is shorter and so photon clock on the airplane “ticks” faster than photon clock on the surface of the earth.

No. Firstly the photon has a short path because the mirror is approaching it but then it has a long path because the front mirror is receding from it. As the plane approaches lightspeed this long path dominates and the time to get there will tend to infinity. The length contracts, but not so much that the time delay for the photon to travel in both directions gets shorter. See the maths I took the time to work out for you. The time for the photon travel is not the same in each direction.

We know that atom clock in a fast airplane ticks slower than atom clock on the earth.

Yes, and there is no contradiction as I have shown.

[amrit (OP)]

By photon clock “time dilatation” is in contradiction with “length contraction”
   We have a photon clock in a fast airplane.  Mirrors are fixed in a way that photon moves along the direction of motion of the airplane. Distance between the mirrors is shortened by the length contraction.

OK

Because of the shorter distance between mirrors a path for the photon is shorter and so photon clock on the airplane “ticks” faster than photon clock on the surface of the earth.

No. Firstly the photon has a short path because the mirror is approaching it but then it has a long path because the front mirror is receding from it. As the plane approaches lightspeed this long path dominates and the time to get there will tend to infinity. The length contracts, but not so much that the time delay for the photon to travel in both directions gets shorter. See the maths I took the time to work out for you. The time for the photon travel is not the same in each direction.

We know that atom clock in a fast airplane ticks slower than atom clock on the earth.

Yes, and there is no contradiction as I have shown.

Graham, in SR length is getting shorter into direction of motion. Suppose our photon clock is 5 cm long. Because of the “length contraction” our clock will shrink a bit.
So is will “tick” faster.
But we know atom clocks run slower.
So there is a mistake here. Solution is: C is constant and there is no length contraction in material universe

[graham.d]

Amrit you are missing the point. You have to follow the events very carefully. The light gets from the front to the back mirror quickly because the mirror is coming towards it (time t1 in the maths). But it then takes a long time to get to the front mirror which is receding from it (time t2). The sum of these two times (t1+t2) is longer, as seen from the stationary observer, than the proper time (observer on the plane). Even though the plane is Lorentz contracted the net result is still that the time is longer. You have to follow the maths carefully. If you can find an error then please point it out.

[Farsight]

If you note, Farsight, I positioned both clocks in a near zero gravitational field. The only difference is gravitational potential so I am not sure how the issue of orientation is relevant.

In SR the length contraction is in the direction of motion, and in GR via the principle of equivalence it's radial. The local strength of the gravitational field indicates the rate of change of gravitational potential at this location.

I am not sure whether is is possible to determine whether there is length change or lightspeed lowering. A proper GR treatment would simply give the result that the spacetime interval was agreed by all observers. As I said previously, the remote measurement of time intervals for light travelling has to be thought out carefully. It is necessary to define the events of emission and detection with care.

It's tricky to say what the proper GR treatment is. When you read the original it is different to what's in modern textbooks, and that brings us back to the conflict between interpretations again.  

You quote Baez who says "[...] a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity", but contradict this statement, so I don't follow your reasoning.

Einstein's interpretation was that the speed of light varies, but the modern interpretation is that it's constant. I side firmly with Einstein because IMHO this is backed up by evidence like the Shapiro delay.

You seem very definite but there seems varying opinions.

I am. Einstein started with the constant speed of light as a postulate in 1905, but in 1911 he wrote On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, where he gives the expression c = c0(1 + Φ/c²). Here c is varying with gravitational potential. Then in 1912 he said "On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential". He repeated this in 1913 when he said this: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis". There it is again in 1915 when he says " the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned."  That’s on page 259 of Doc 21, sorry, I’m not sure what the original paper is called. He says it again in late 1915, on page 150 of Doc 30, within The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein says "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified.". He spells it out in section 22 of the 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory where he says this:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust..."

People see the word velocity in the translations without seeing the context and without noticing that he’s repeatedly referring to “the principle” and "one of the two fundamental assumptions". That's the SR postulate, which is the constant speed of light. And it's important to note that what he actually said was in German. it was die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. It translates into the speed of light varies with the locality. The word “velocity” in the 1920 Methuen translation was the common usage, as in “high velocity bullet”, not the vector quantity that combines speed and direction. He was saying the speed varies with position, and it causes the curvilinear motion. It causes the light to follow a curved path, like a car veers when the near-side wheels encounter mud at the side of the road.

If you read my lengthy description of a local and distant observer measuring the photon clock, I would be interested to know if you see anything wrong in the reasoning.

I read your post. What's wrong with it is that the Lorentz contraction in SR corresponds to the radial length contraction in GR. If you say your distant observer up in space isn't moving with respect to your observer at the centre of the earth, and if both observers hold their clocks flat, there is no length change. You can then remove redshift with a single observer who leaves a light-clock in space and takes another synchronised light-clock down to the centre of the earth for a while. When he goes back up into space the clocks are no longer synchronised. So the speed must be different.    

A light pulse going around lots of coils of fibre optic might be a practical photon clock too. With enough coils the time delay can be significant and measurable with low errors.

Sounds good to me graham.

[amrit (OP)]

Amrit you are missing the point. You have to follow the events very carefully. The light gets from the front to the back mirror quickly because the mirror is coming towards it (time t1 in the maths). But it then takes a long time to get to the front mirror which is receding from it (time t2). The sum of these two times (t1+t2) is longer, as seen from the stationary observer, than the proper time (observer on the plane). Even though the plane is Lorentz contracted the net result is still that the time is longer. You have to follow the maths carefully. If you can find an error then please point it out.

Graham

GPR corrections of velocity are equal for all observers.
There is no such a thing as “proper time”.
There is only a change of velocity of clock on the orbit that is valid for the observer on the orbit and for the observer on the surface of the earth.

In classical example of SR clock run slower on the fast train for the observer on the station and for the observer in the train. This is what shows experimental data.

In Relativity is relative velocity of material change and velocity of clocks and is valid for all observers.  Observer is not even necessary. Clock runs slower on the orbit without watching it.

Relativity is a very nature of the universe. Just it starts above photon size. Constancy of c point that out clearly.

Yours amrit
PS read my article on
http://www.vetrnica.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=23

[amrit (OP)]

If you note, Farsight, I positioned both clocks in a near zero gravitational field. The only difference is gravitational potential so I am not sure how the issue of orientation is relevant.

In SR the length contraction is in the direction of motion, and in GR via the principle of equivalence it's radial. The local strength of the gravitational field indicates the rate of change of gravitational potential at this location.

I am not sure whether is is possible to determine whether there is length change or lightspeed lowering. A proper GR treatment would simply give the result that the spacetime interval was agreed by all observers. As I said previously, the remote measurement of time intervals for light travelling has to be thought out carefully. It is necessary to define the events of emission and detection with care.

It's tricky to say what the proper GR treatment is. When you read the original it is different to what's in modern textbooks, and that brings us back to the conflict between interpretations again.  

You quote Baez who says "[...] a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity", but contradict this statement, so I don't follow your reasoning.

Einstein's interpretation was that the speed of light varies, but the modern interpretation is that it's constant. I side firmly with Einstein because IMHO this is backed up by evidence like the Shapiro delay.

You seem very definite but there seems varying opinions.

I am. Einstein started with the constant speed of light as a postulate in 1905, but in 1911 he wrote On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, where he gives the expression c = c0(1 + Φ/c²). Here c is varying with gravitational potential. Then in 1912 he said "On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential". He repeated this in 1913 when he said this: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis". There it is again in 1915 when he says " the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned."  That’s on page 259 of Doc 21, sorry, I’m not sure what the original paper is called. He says it again in late 1915, on page 150 of Doc 30, within The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein says "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified.". He spells it out in section 22 of the 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory where he says this:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust..."

People see the word velocity in the translations without seeing the context and without noticing that he’s repeatedly referring to “the principle” and "one of the two fundamental assumptions". That's the SR postulate, which is the constant speed of light. And it's important to note that what he actually said was in German. it was die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. It translates into the speed of light varies with the locality. The word “velocity” in the 1920 Methuen translation was the common usage, as in “high velocity bullet”, not the vector quantity that combines speed and direction. He was saying the speed varies with position, and it causes the curvilinear motion. It causes the light to follow a curved path, like a car veers when the near-side wheels encounter mud at the side of the road.

If you read my lengthy description of a local and distant observer measuring the photon clock, I would be interested to know if you see anything wrong in the reasoning.

I read your post. What's wrong with it is that the Lorentz contraction in SR corresponds to the radial length contraction in GR. If you say your distant observer up in space isn't moving with respect to your observer at the centre of the earth, and if both observers hold their clocks flat, there is no length change. You can then remove redshift with a single observer who leaves a light-clock in space and takes another synchronised light-clock down to the centre of the earth for a while. When he goes back up into space the clocks are no longer synchronised. So the speed must be different.    

A light pulse going around lots of coils of fibre optic might be a practical photon clock too. With enough coils the time delay can be significant and measurable with low errors.

Sounds good to me graham.

Farsight gravitational red shift shows light velocity c is constant. Only frequency changes. If c is not constant connection betwen SR and GR is broken. This would be a bit to much....I do not think in Relativity there is a mistake....Relativity is perfect. The case is that there is no time there. With clocks we measure numerical order only...
http://www.vetrnica.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=23
yours amrit

[Farsight]

An oscillator produces microwave energy that causes the caesium to fluoresce. The detector measures the amount of fluorescence. Maximum fluorescence (photon emissions I suppose) is achieved when the microwave energy is tuned to 9.1xxx GHz. The clock makes very small adjustments to the oscillator to maintain maximum photon emission.

Noted Geezer, but remember that this is defining the second. Hertz is cycles per second, so we're finding the maximum then defining the frequency to be 9.192631770 GHz.

The clock is really comparing the natural oscillation of the caesium atom with the frequency of a microwave resonator and adjusting the resonator to match the frequency of the caesium. So, it's not really measuring a property of light at all.

The oscillation is a hyperfine transition, and electron spin-flip. The event is electromagnetic, as is the emitted light. If the gravitational potential is lower, all electromagnetic phenomena occur at a slower rate. We call it time dilation, but that rather misses the obvious fact that electromagnetic spin flips are happening slower and the emitted light is moving slower too.

[Farsight]

Farsight gravitational red shift shows light velocity c is constant. Only frequency changes. If c is not constant connection betwen SR and GR is broken.

This isn't true I'm afraid, amrit. The frequency of the light isn't relevant. Start with two synchronised light clocks, leave one up in space, take the other down to the planet for a while taking care to avoid radial length contraction, then take it back up to space. The two clocks are no longer synchronised. Yes, the local speed of light is always measured to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but those two different clock readings tell you that 299,792,458 metres per second up in space is not the same as 299,792,458 metres per second down on the planet. People say the difference is because of "time dilation", but you and I know that clocks clock up motion rather than "the flow of time". Hence we know that a light clock clocks up the motion of light. Those two different readings are crystal-clear evidence that down on the planet, the light goes slower.   

[amrit (OP)]

An oscillator produces microwave energy that causes the caesium to fluoresce. The detector measures the amount of fluorescence. Maximum fluorescence (photon emissions I suppose) is achieved when the microwave energy is tuned to 9.1xxx GHz. The clock makes very small adjustments to the oscillator to maintain maximum photon emission.

Noted Geezer, but remember that this is defining the second. Hertz is cycles per second, so we're finding the maximum then defining the frequency to be 9.192631770 GHz.

The clock is really comparing the natural oscillation of the caesium atom with the frequency of a microwave resonator and adjusting the resonator to match the frequency of the caesium. So, it's not really measuring a property of light at all.

The oscillation is a hyperfine transition, and electron spin-flip. The event is electromagnetic, as is the emitted light. If the gravitational potential is lower, all electromagnetic phenomena occur at a slower rate. We call it time dilation, but that rather misses the obvious fact that electromagnetic spin flips are happening slower and the emitted light is moving slower too.

Farsight,

I’m not expert for clocks. As far as I know atomic clock works on atom frequency. Photon clock works on photon motion in space. Difference is quite clear. I’m emotionally tuned with c as a constant. It has its own elegance this idea. As far no experiment will prove opposite I stay with it.