[butchmurray (OP)]

By Thorntone E. Murray
Houston, TX


Problem

For two identical light clocks in the same reference frame to be observed to have unequal lengths is contradictory to the constancy of light speed.

Hypothesis

Identical light clocks within a reference frame are always observed to have equal length as observed from any reference frame. Constancy of the speed of light and the formula VT=D – velocity multiplied by time equals distance – are the primary basis of this hypothesis.

Thought Experiment 

There is a sphere within reference frame K’. Within the sphere there are two identical light paths that are perpendicular to each other. One end of each light path is the center point of the sphere. The other end of each light path is its point of intersection with the surface of the sphere. The length of the light paths and the radius of the sphere are equal. The equal light paths are the equivalent of identical single cycle light clocks. The sphere as well as the light paths are absolutely stationary with respect to reference frame K’. Reference frame K’ is in motion at an arbitrary constant velocity relative to reference frame K which is > than 0 and < C (light speed). The relative velocity of K’ has no affect on the appearance of the sphere and light paths as observed from within K’. The x-axis of K’ is parallel to the direction of motion relative to K. One of the light paths, D’x, is parallel to and the other light path, D’y, is perpendicular to the x-axis of K’.

Within K’, the center point of the sphere produces a light pulse which radiates into the equal light paths. The end points of the respective light paths at the surface of the sphere reflect the light pulses back to the center point. The light pulses arrive at the center point of the sphere concurrently and cause the center point to illuminate distinctively. The time interval for the light pulses to traverse the equal light paths is equal (T’x = T’y). The distinctive illumination is observable from within reference frame K’ as well as from any reference frame from which the sphere is observable. A distinctive illumination of the center point occurs if and only if both reflected light pulses reach the center point concurrently, that is if and only if T’x = T’y.

Within the sphere within K’ it is given that D’x = D’y and T’x = T’y. C is constant.

Without exception: Emission of a light pulse from the center point of the sphere results in a distinctive illumination of the center point, verification that T’x = T’y.
Without exception: The distinctive illumination is observable from within K’.
Without exception: The distinctive illumination is observable from any reference frame from which the sphere is observable independent of the relative velocity of the reference frames.

Data

(D) D’x = light path length parallel to the direction of motion. 
(D) D’y = light path length perpendicular to the direction of motion.
(T) T’x = time interval for the D’x light pulse to radiate from and reflect back to center point
(T) T’y = time interval for the D’y light pulse to radiate from and reflect back to center point
(V) = C  = the constant speed of light

Reference frame K’ is in motion at a constant velocity > 0 but < C relative to “at rest” reference frame K. The particular relative velocity is of no consequence. A light pulse is emitted from the center point of the sphere within K’. The distinctive illumination is necessarily observed from within K’ verifying the reflected pulses arrived at the center point of the sphere concurrently. The distinctive illumination is also observed from reference frame K. Therefore as observed from “at rest” reference frame K T’x = T’y. Of course, C is constant. Time delay and/or Doppler shift have no bearing in the matter.

As observed from “at rest” reference frame K:
(V) Velocity multiplied by (T) Time equals (D) Distance or VT=D
C * T’x = D’x     substitute T’x for T’y       C * T’x = D’x      Therefore    D’x = D’y
C * T’y = D’y                C * T’x = D’y
T’ is equal for both as verified by a distinctive illumination. C is equal for both. It is therefore unequivocal that D’ is the same for both as observed from the “rest” frame.

As observed from reference frame K at relative rest, D’y, the length of the light path perpendicular to the direction of motion and D’x, the length of the light path parallel to the direction of motion are equal. Therefore, length parallel to the direction of motion did not contract relative to length perpendicular to the direction of motion. This finding directly contradicts Lorentz contraction.

The famous Michelson - Morley experiment and other experiments of the kind were considered to have failed with null results because the fringe shifts detected failed to approach the expected magnitudes. More importantly, for these intents and purposes, the lengths of the arms of the various interferometers had no detectable variations in length with respect to each other. Those results are consistent with and support the finding herein disclosed.

Conclusion

Equal lengths within a reference frame are always equal as observed from any reference frame independent of the relative velocity and/or orientation to the direction of motion.

Prediction

An actual experiment based on the one described herein will measure the rotational velocity and angle of the rotation of the earth relative to its stationary gravitational reference frame. Also, Lorentz transformation will be conclusively disproved.

[JP]

Since this post was proposing a new theory, and was not a question about mainstream physics, I've moved it to the New Theories section.

[imatfaal]

I havent read your post in detail - but I worry that you are making a mistake with simultaneity.  You are assuming simultaneity for moving and steady frames when in fact you cannot.

[butchmurray (OP)]

In a nutshell, I'm only saying that the reflected pulses arrived at the center point concurrently; verification that time is the same for both light paths. The speed of light is, obviously, the same for both light paths. Therefore, the lengths of the light paths are the same.

[imatfaal]

And I am saying that simultaneity (concurrency) varies across moving reference frames - and your statement that these events are simultaneous to both frames is a fact you need to prove rather than assert. 

[butchmurray (OP)]

The following should make this matter clear for most:

1. The sphere and the light clocks are absolutely stationary within a reference frame.

2. The light clocks are identical and synchronized.

3. The light clocks are not at all affected by the velocity of any external reference frame in relationship to this reference frame. The light clocks remain synchronized.

That being said:

If one of the light clocks appears to be contracted, the light pulse in that light clock has to appear to be slower because the light clocks remain synchronized. This is an obvious contradiction to the constancy of the speed of light.

Or

The light clocks have to appear to maintain equality of length because the light clocks remain synchronized.

Thank you,
butchmurray

[butchmurray (OP)]

Imatfaal,

I apologize. It just struck me that you said proof of simultaneity was necessary.

That proof is that within reference frame K’ a “distinctive illumination” will occur at the center point if and only if the reflected pulses reach the center point concurrently. Therefore if the distinctive illumination can be observed from an external reference frame, the round trip time for the pulses are the same as observed from that reference frame. Time is equal per the distinctive illumination; the speed of light is, of course, equal for both light paths. Then the distance has to be equal for both.

[imatfaal]

Butch

The distinctive illumination is observable from within reference frame K’ as well as from any reference frame from which the sphere is observable

This is the bit that I have trouble with.  The distinictive illumination may well be visible within the moving reference frame (ie the frame in which the observer is steady wrt the sphere.  But in any other reference frame you have to perform lorentz transformations to be able to properly describe the results - and you will find different results.  At non-relavistic speeds the ratio of velocity squared to speed of light squared is so small as to make the lorentz boost so small that it wasnt even noticed for thousands of years - but it is there and it changes distance and time to proper distance and time.  At high speeds (still no where near the speed of light) this is noticeable - gps satellites are the most obvious example; their clocks need to be adjusted for time dilation through velocity and gravitational effects. 

Your thought experiment 'works' because the human mind struggles to cope with concepts of alternative simultaneity - understanding that constancy of light speed was more important than our concept of standard time was one of the great leaps forward of SR

[butchmurray (OP)]

Imatfaal,

I’m familiar with the light cone and its application to simultaneity. The two observers disagree as to the location of the light pulse source. However, the light source is visible to both observers. With that in mind in this case the local observer may disagree with the observer in the other reference frame as to the point of origin, but they both see the light (distinctive illumination). The exact location of the light or distinctive illumination is immaterial. The fact that it is observed at all verifies that from wherever it is observed the time for the light to be produced and reflected back to the center point is equal for both light paths. That along with the fact that the speed of light is constant results in equal speed for an equal time, which can only be accomplished in an equal length or distance.

I thank you for your indulgence and making me think,
butchmurray

[Geezer]

Pardon my ignorance, but how does a light clock actually work?

Am I right in thinking that if the experiment was repeated with some sort of atomic clock, the hypothesis is that we would get a different result?

[imatfaal]

Unfortunately Butch your "results" of the thought-experiment directly contradict SR - both the time and distance along the direction of movement will be altered when viewed from a reference frame with a relative velocity.  AS SR has been experimentally verified again and again there is little to justify your claims

[butchmurray (OP)]

Geezer,

Thank you for your interest.

A light clock is an imaginary construction consisting of two parallel mirrors that reflect a non-decaying light pulse between them.

My understanding of an atomic clock is that the period of the vibrations of a given atom is known. A given number of vibrations will always occur for a given increment of time.

An atomic clock works on an entirely different principle and would not be suitable.

However, an apparatus that produces a light pulse with a width in the low 10’s of nanometers, a super fast counter and a reflector could be applied as follows:

The light pulse is produced and aimed at a reflector. The counter counts for the duration of the pulse when it leaves the source and stores that count. The duration of the reflected pulse is then counted. When a statistically viable number of pulses are measured the orientation of the light path is incremented. Ideally not just circular orientation, but spherical orientation would be ideal.

If all of the counts are statistically identical, that says one thing. If there is a statistically valid difference, that says something else entirely.

Imatfaal,

You are absolutely right. It does contradict SR.

All,

We must realize that when SR and the Lorentz transformations were formulated, the universe was thought to be static. The only bodies in the entire universe considered to be in motion were in our solar system.

That static universe had to be explained in terms that accounted for the consistency of light speed that did not vary with earth’s orbital position relative to the sun.

The concept of the universe as the one and only coordinate system that light speed is measured in relationship to in moribund. More than a hundred years have elapsed since those beliefs were formed. Our quantum leaps in technology must be used to discover new knowledge with deep and everlasting gratitude to those who gave us the best understanding possible with the tools they had to work with.

We must now pull up the anchors that are preventing progress. Of course, put new ideas through the wringer. There will be many false starts. There will be a few earth shattering discoveries that were not crushed in their infancy. The true facts must determine the legitimacy of an idea, not the fact that it does not fit with what we already know.

Thank you,
butchmurray

[Geezer]

Thanks Butch.

If I have it right, it's used to try to identify any difference in the transmitted and reflected pulse widths relative to orientation? When you use the term "length" are you referring to the pulse duration?

[butchmurray (OP)]

Thank you Geezer,

I visually scanned all the previous posts. Generally when I used the term length I was referring the length of the light clocks – the distance between reflectors.

In the pulse width experiment I didn’t use the term “length”.

In the experiment the each out going pulse width will be compared to the incoming pulse width. If the lower limit of detection cannot discern a difference in the individual pulse widths then the accumulated counts from a number of pulses from each direction can be compared for each orientation. There are definitely ways of looking at the compiled data that haven’t been thought of yet. It would be cool to see the data displayed in the form of a tomography scan…

Sorry, dreaming.

The short answer is yes relative to orientation.


Thank you,
butchmurray

[Geezer]

Thanks! I understand now.

[Geezer]

Butch,

What about the dilation effect on the counters? They would have to be running on some sort of oscillator. The oscillator would not be immune to dialtion, or does that not factor into the measurements?

[butchmurray (OP)]

Geezer,

If time dilation affects the counter, the effect will be consistent for the duration of the experiment and therefore would be of no consequence. By definition the counters would be, in essence, counting the oscillations of something, an atom for instance.

You may be alluding to time dilation for the apparatus being dependent on its orientation. In that case I offer the following:

Relativity: The Special and General Theory  - Albert Einstein’s 1920 translation
Section VIII paragraph 7
“This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity of which will hardly be doubted without empirical evidence to the contrary. It has been assumed that all these clocks go at the same rate if they are of identical construction. Stated more exactly: When two clocks arranged at rest in different places of a reference-body are set in such a manner that a particular position of the pointers of the one clock is simultaneous (in the above sense) with the same position of the pointers of the other clock, then identical “settings” are always simultaneous (in the sense of the above definition).”

In other words, the clock or timers measure time and time is not directional in a reference frame. Either time is dilated in the frame or it is not. Think about it. If time depended on which way the clock was pointed there would be a huge problem. Time for you when you are lying down is the same as it is when you are standing notwithstanding your relative velocity to anything. Note that He mentioned nothing about orientation.

Thank you for making me think.
butchmurray

[Geezer]

Thanks Butch.

If I have it right then, what this device would do is to compare the durations of the transmitted and reflected light pulses in various directions to see if it's possible to detect a consistent difference in certain directions. Does that sound about right?

[butchmurray (OP)]

Geezer,

That is very close. I’ll just edit it a bit.

What this device would do is to compare the durations of the transmitted and reflected light pulses in various directions to detect and quantify any differences that are attributable to direction.

This is closer. But, if there are differences who knows what that data could reveal?

To put icing on the cake: the apparatus can be built with off the shelf gear, it wouldn’t be very expensive, not overly complex and the results can be seen very quickly depending on the desired resolution. Maybe low res to see if it’s worth the time and effort. If it is, then high res and go for the gold.

Thank you again Geezer,
butchmurray

[Geezer]

Butch,

I think you are correct. I don't think it's very difficult to construct a device like this, although I think that's going to depend a lot on the resolution required.

Can you give me a sense of what that would need to be in order to produce a conclusive result? I suppose short term stability of the oscillator would also be important, but I don't think that would present much of a problem.

I suppose I should also ask if anyone has done this and, if not, why do you think that is?