Is relativity of simultaneity measurable?

[Tach]

You have refused to answer my question about the Stanford link six times in a row. If your strategy is to throw citations at me until I admit that I don't understand one, I have nothing further to say to you in this thread.

Not at all, just to point out your mistakes until you finally realize them. The citations are mainstream papers by mainstream physicists. They are examples of experiments that tested and constrained OWLS anisotropy, thus directly contradicting your fringe claim. The last one I posted is published recently, in 2012, you could learn a lot from it.
BTW, the Stanford link doesn't make the fringe claim you are making, you made it up all by yourself, so own it.

 

[Tach]

Why can't Einstein's thought experiment be performed as a real experiment? Start with a long train, traveling along a straight length of track. Instead of hoping for lighting bolts to strike simultaneously in the ground frame, flash two bulbs at the same time. Let one be co-located with the front of the train, and the other be co-located with the rear of the train. The light from those bulbs will take some time to travel to the midpoint of the train, and by that time, the train will have moved such that M' is not longer located in the same place as M. Done.

$$T'_A=\gamma(t_A+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$
$$T'_B=\gamma(t_B+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$

where $$x_M$$ is the position of the middle of your "train" and $$t_A=t_B$$ by the way you defined the experiment.

So, $$T'_A=T'_B$$, bad juju happens in the form of getting a value for RoS that is exactly....zero!

 

[Neddy Bate]

Why can't Einstein's thought experiment be performed as a real experiment? Start with a long train, traveling along a straight length of track. Instead of hoping for lighting bolts to strike simultaneously in the ground frame, flash two bulbs at the same time. Let one be co-located with the front of the train, and the other be co-located with the rear of the train. The light from those bulbs will take some time to travel to the midpoint of the train, and by that time, the train will have moved such that M' is no longer located in the same place as M. Done.

$$T'_A=\gamma(t_A+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$
$$T'_B=\gamma(t_B+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$

where $$x_M$$ is the position of the middle of your "train" and $$t_A=t_B$$ by the way you defined the experiment.

So, $$T'_A=T'_B$$, bad juju happens in the form of getting a value for RoS that is exactly....zero!

Alright so now do you admit that the experiment can be done? And do you also admit that the Lorentz transforms can be used to predict what times would actually be measured if this were a real experiment? If so, then I will be happy to show you how the math should look. If not, then none of this means anything.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Why can't Einstein's thought experiment be performed as a real experiment? Start with a long train, traveling along a straight length of track. Instead of hoping for lighting bolts to strike simultaneously in the ground frame, flash two bulbs at the same time. Let one be co-located with the front of the train, and the other be co-located with the rear of the train. The light from those bulbs will take some time to travel to the midpoint of the train, and by that time, the train will have moved such that M' is no longer located in the same place as M. Done.

$$T'_A=\gamma(t_A+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$
$$T'_B=\gamma(t_B+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$

where $$x_M$$ is the position of the middle of your "train" and $$t_A=t_B$$ by the way you defined the experiment.

So, $$T'_A=T'_B$$, bad juju happens in the form of getting a value for RoS that is exactly....zero!

You are only working with ONE event, because you have chosen only one x coordinate $$x_M$$, and one t coordinate $$t_A=t_B$$. You are only creating the illusion of two different events by assigning two different t variables which are equal to each other. You might as well just write one equation.



Here is what the correct Lorentz transforms would look like for TWO different events:

$$t'_L = \gamma(t - \frac{vx_L}{c^2})$$

$$t'_R = \gamma(t - \frac{vx_R}{c^2})$$

Where:
$$x_L$$ is the location of the LEFT light bulb turning on, as measured in the ground frame
$$x_R$$ is the location of the RIGHT light bulb turning on, as measured in the ground frame
$$t$$ is the time that BOTH light bulbs turn on, as measured in the ground frame, (as they are defined to be simultaneous in this experiment)

Please note that the experiment is set up such that:
$$x_L \neq x_R$$
Therefore:
$$t'_L \neq t'_R$$

 

[Tach]

You are only working with ONE event, because you have chosen only one x coordinate $$x_M$$, and one t coordinate $$t_A=t_B$$.

I am working with the laughable setup that you described in post 310 <shrug>

Why can't Einstein's thought experiment be performed as a real experiment? Start with a long train, traveling along a straight length of track. Instead of hoping for lighting bolts to strike simultaneously in the ground frame, flash two bulbs at the same time. Let one be co-located with the front of the train, and the other be co-located with the rear of the train. The light from those bulbs will take some time to travel to the midpoint of the train, and by that time, the train will have moved such that M' is not longer located in the same place as M. Done.

So, here is , in mathematical terms, the description of your so-called "experiment":


$$T'_A=\gamma(t_A+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$
$$T'_B=\gamma(t_B+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$

where $$x_M$$ is the position of the middle of your "train" and $$t_A=t_B$$ by the way you defined the experiment (the signals arrive simultaneously at the middle of the train, point M).

So, $$T'_A=T'_B$$, bad juju happens in the form of getting a value for RoS that is exactly....zero!

You are only creating the illusion of two different events by assigning two different t variables which are equal to each other. You might as well just write one equation.

I am going by the laughable setup you described in post 310. <shrug>

Why can't Einstein's thought experiment be performed as a real experiment? Start with a long train, traveling along a straight length of track. Instead of hoping for lighting bolts to strike simultaneously in the ground frame, flash two bulbs at the same time. Let one be co-located with the front of the train, and the other be co-located with the rear of the train. The light from those bulbs will take some time to travel to the midpoint of the train, and by that time, the train will have moved such that M' is not longer located in the same place as M. Done.

Here is what the correct Lorentz transforms would look like for TWO different events:

$$t'_L = \gamma(t - \frac{vx_L}{c^2})$$

$$t'_R = \gamma(t - \frac{vx_R}{c^2})$$

Where:
$$x_L$$ is the location of the LEFT light bulb turning on, as measured in the ground frame
$$x_R$$ is the location of the RIGHT light bulb turning on, as measured in the ground frame
$$t$$ is the time that BOTH light bulbs turn on, as measured in the ground frame, (as they are defined to be simultaneous in this experiment)

Please note that the experiment is set up such that:
$$x_L \neq x_R$$
Therefore:
$$t'_L \neq t'_R$$

First off, this is NOT what you described in post 310. Second off, it is painfully obvious that you are unable yo produce a mathematical description of your own so-called "experiment> Now, to refresh your memory, this is what you described in post 310 (practically a rehash of "eram's experiment"):

Why can't Einstein's thought experiment be performed as a real experiment? Start with a long train, traveling along a straight length of track. Instead of hoping for lighting bolts to strike simultaneously in the ground frame, flash two bulbs at the same time. Let one be co-located with the front of the train, and the other be co-located with the rear of the train. The light from those bulbs will take some time to travel to the midpoint of the train, and by that time, the train will have moved such that M' is not longer located in the same place as M. Done.

You see, "eram's experiment", laughable as it is, is , at least attempts to measure RoS .
Yours, in its new incarnation, is even more laughable, how do you measure any RoS with the above?
In this thread, I have cited a lot of papers that treat experiments, at least have a little respect for how a paper on experiment is being written and try to describe your experiment properly. What you have above, is caricature, not a description. Try again.

While you are at it, have you given some thought why there is no "RoS test" in the master list of SR tests? Eh?

 

[OnlyMe]

I am working with the laughable setup that you described in post 310 <shrug>


So, here is , in mathematical terms, the description of your so-called "experiment":


$$T'_A=\gamma(t_A+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$
$$T'_B=\gamma(t_B+\frac{vx_M}{c^2})$$

where $$x_M$$ is the position of the middle of your "train" and $$t_A=t_B$$ by the way you defined the experiment (the signals arrive simultaneously at the middle of the train, point M).

So, $$T'_A=T'_B$$, bad juju happens in the form of getting a value for RoS that is exactly....zero!



I am going by the laughable setup you described in post 310. <shrug>






First off, this is NOT what you described in post 310. To refresh your memory, this is what you described there (practically a rehash of "eram's experiment"):



You see, "eram's experiment", laughable as it is, is , at least attempts to measure RoS .
Yours, in its new incarnation, is even more laughable, how do you measure any RoS with the above?
In this thread, I have cited a lot of papers that treat experiments, at least have a little respect for how a paper on experiment is being written and try to describe your experiment properly. What you have above, is caricature, not a description. Try again.

While you are at it, have you given some thought why there is no "RoS test" in the master list of SR tests? Eh?

Tach, I think you are nit picking and thus deliberately reading Neddy's intent out of context. Einstein developed the conditions of his hypothetical over many pages of his 1920 book. Neddy, by your own quotes began his question with,

"Why can't Einstein's thought experiment be performed as a real experiment?"​

Which implies the flashes take place in the ground frame and consistent with Einstein's, more rigorous description of the hypothetical. To then read his intent as being anything other than consitent with Einstein's hypothetical is dishonest. You don't really expect everyone to start posting 4 or 5 pages of background set up, when a simple reference like his first sentence establishes the background under which the abbreviated stated portion should be evaluated.

This really is not a simple question. It would require a number of modern technological methods to even approach the ideal Einstein presented. Even then there would be limits on the accuracy associated with the limits of the technology. The real question is, would the results be defined or contained, by or within the limitations, or could those limitations be controlled or accounted for as they are in almost all scientific experiments.

 

[Tach]

Tach, I think you are nit picking and thus deliberately reading Neddy's intent out of context.

Nah, I am just pointing out that ;

-he tried to move the goalpoasts
-even with the moved goalpoasts, his so-called "experiment" is nowhere close to measuring anything
-his post doesn't even begin to describe an experiment
-he's unable to produce a mathematical description of his own "experiment"

Which implies the flashes take place in the ground frame and consistent with Einstein's, more rigorous description of the hypothetical. To then read his intent as being anything other than consitent with Einstein's hypothetical is dishonest.

You managed to completely miss the point, no wonder brucep dismisses your posts out of hand.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Tach,

The whole point of Einstein's thought experiment in chapter 9 is that the train frame will measure the lightning strikes to occur at two different times. You said you thought Einstein was completely correct in chapter 9. So any correct calculation of this scenario would have to solve for two different times (two different values of t') in the train frame. That is what I calculated for you.

Your calculation only shows one time in the the train frame. If you think the train frame measures the lighting strikes to occur at one time, then you are in disagreement with Einstein. That is all. Good luck with your "studies".

 

[Tach]

Tach,

The whole point of Einstein's thought experiment in chapter 9 is that the train frame will measure the lightning strikes to occur at two different times. You said you thought Einstein was completely correct in chapter 9. So any correct calculation of this scenario would have to solve for two different times (two different values of t') in the train frame. That is what I calculated for you.

Your calculation only shows one time in the the train frame.

Nah, I simply demonstrated that you couldn't write the appropriate math describing your own "experiment".
Besides, you are wrong, contrary to your claims, I produced the correct math description from both frames. It is clear that you don't understand your own scenario.

If you think the train frame measures the lighting strikes to occur at one time, then you are in disagreement with Einstein.

There are no "lightning strikes", you are getting confused, here is the description you posted in post 310:

Why can't Einstein's thought experiment be performed as a real experiment? Start with a long train, traveling along a straight length of track. Instead of hoping for lighting bolts to strike simultaneously in the ground frame, flash two bulbs at the same time. Let one be co-located with the front of the train, and the other be co-located with the rear of the train. The light from those bulbs will take some time to travel to the midpoint of the train, and by that time, the train will have moved such that M' is not longer located in the same place as M. Done.

 

[OnlyMe]

Nah, I simply demonstrated that you couldn't write the appropriate math describing your own "experiment".
Besides, you are wrong, contrary to your claims, I produced the correct math description from both frames. It is clear that you don't understand your own scenario.

There are no "lightning strikes", you are getting confused, here is the description you posted in post 310:

Tach, you are nit picking again. Even when there are valid arguments that could be pursued...

The way you are treating this issue seems like you are placing the light bulbs on the train, and you are measuring the speed of light in the train frame. There is a discussion there, but it is not an issue of this hypothetical. If passive recall serves, it is one of the phylosophical arguments against an isotropic one-way light speed. (Not that I am arguing that case.)

Can you explain the valid argument(s) against a pratical experimental reconstruction of Einstein's hypothetical?

 

[Undefined]

Maybe this reference...

Seriously? Your above referenced "study of lightspeed anisotropy in the“absolute” inertial frame at rest defined by null dipole of the Cosmic Microwave Background(CMB) radiation" is a theoretical exercise base on data with reference to an absolute frame?

When others argue a point of their own "alt theory" using that very same "absolute CMB radiation pattern" as a reference point, you and brucep and other "experts" laugh and call them "cranks". But now you link that paper using the very same CMB pattern as an "absolute" frame for its point of departure for the theoretical manipulation of data, and it's suddenly OK for you to link to such a reference using such a "absolute frame" to support your claims? Does the phrase Double Standards mean anything to you, at all? Just who is the "crank" in all this gameplaying linking to references which make your "case" look ridiculous as any crank's? Don't you read or understand what your own references are all about before you claim they support you?

 

[Tach]

Seriously? Your above referenced "study of lightspeed anisotropy in the“absolute” inertial frame at rest defined by null dipole of the Cosmic Microwave Background(CMB) radiation" is a theoretical exercise base on data with reference to an absolute frame?

When others argue a point of their own "alt theory" using that very same "absolute CMB radiation pattern" as a reference point, you and brucep and other "experts" laugh and call them "cranks". But now you link that paper using the very same CMB pattern as an "absolute" frame for its point of departure for the theoretical manipulation of data, and it's suddenly OK for you to link to such a reference using such a "absolute frame" to support your claims? Does the phrase Double Standards mean anything to you, at all? Just who is the "crank" in all this gameplaying linking to references which make your "case" look ridiculous as any crank's? Don't you read or understand what your own references are all about before you claim they support you?

RealityCheck

This paper was published. In a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal. You are not competent to pass judgement on it, period.

 

[Undefined]

Undefined

This paper was published. In a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal. You are not competent to pass judgement on it, period.

I recall somewhere someone saying that "publication is not an automatic assurance of validity"? I wonder who that someone could have been?

Anyhow, you fail to address the point made in my post, about both your double standards regarding "absolute frame" of CMB pattern and about the theoretical "study" of data based on same by your linked researchers. They do nothing to support your claims, so your linking to such papers seems like a mindless (in that you apparently haven't read or understood them) attempt to bury others in "papers" so that you appear "correct" while distracting from the actual points under discussion. No wonder you use this tactic often; understandable if you are the "crank" in this discussion with no support for your "crank" claims? That tactic is almost as much used as your "personal incitements" ones to get people banned after you troll them and insult them into reacting. Won't work with me. Sorry. Try elsewhere. And stay on-topic in future please?

 

[Tach]

I recall somewhere someone saying that "publication is not an automatic assurance of validity"?

Anyhow, you fail to address the point made in my post, about both your double standards regarding "absolute frame" of CMB pattern and about the theoretical "study" of data based on same by your linked researchers. They do nothing to support your claims, so your linking to such papers seems like a mindless (in that you apparently haven't read or understood them) attempt to bury others in "papers" so that you appear "correct" while distracting from the actual points under discussion. No wonder, if you are the "crank" in this discussion with no support for your "crank" claims?

RealityCheck

The use of the CMB frame is standard in both test theories of SR : RMS and SME. So, contrary to your protestations, the paper is perfectly mainstream. You can find this approach in all the papers on the subject dating back at least to 1977, when M&S published their 3 seminal papers.

 

[Undefined]

Undefined

The use of the CMB frame is standard in both test theories of SR : RMS and SME. So, contrary to your protestations, the paper is perfectly mainstream. You can find this approach in all the papers on the subject dating back at least to 1977, when M&S published their 3 seminal papers.

If so, then why do you, brucep and other "expert" mainstream "defenders" treat anyone who uses that same CMB absolute frame of reference as "cranks"? So you admit that some people you and brucep maligned were not cranks for using such an absolute reference frame as the CMB pattern?

Anyway, how accurate is the CMB pattern for use in the referenced "theoretical study" you linked to? And how exactly does that "study" support your crank claims in your discussion with Fednis48 and others here? Please clearly explain exactly. No more generalized "references" which do not support your claims so far?

Edit/: It is against site rules to call people by other than their registered username in attempts to incite off-topic personal exchanges. Please stop it or you will be reported for it.

 

[Tach]

If so, then why do you, brucep and other "expert" mainstream "defenders" treat anyone who uses that same CMB absolute frame of reference as "cranks"? So you admit that some people you and brucep maligned were not cranks for using such an absolute reference frame as the CMB pattern?

RealityCheck,

I do not remember you using the CMB frame. What post in your previous incarnation as RealityCheck did you use the CMB frame? Can you point out the post(s)?

Anyway, how accurate is the CMB pattern for use in the referenced "theoretical study" you linked to?

The question does not make sense, suffice to say that the experiments based on the test theories are extremely accurate.

Edit/: It is against site rules to call people by other than their registered username in attempts to incite off-topic personal exchanges. Please stop it or you will be reported for it.

Everybody on this website knows that you are RealityCheck's sockpuppet, so why not call you by your real name?

 

[Undefined]

did you use the CMB frame? Can you point out the post(s)?

The point you evade using more tactics is that you have in the past ridiculed anyone using that very same CMB pattern as an "absolute frame" reference point for their theoretical discussion points. So you now admit they were correct to use that same CMB frame as an absolute reference frame, and that they were not "cranks" after all? Your position has reversed on that?

 

[Tach]

The point you evade using more tactics is that you have in the past ridiculed anyone using that very same CMB pattern as an "absolute frame" reference point for their theoretical discussion points.

Point at the post(s). If you cannot, you will need to retract.

 

[Undefined]

Point at the post(s).

Do you deny ever calling anyone a "crank" for using that CMB pattern as an absolute reference frame? Just say whether you ever have or not and that will be that, yes?

 

[Tach]

Do you deny ever calling anyone a "crank" for using that CMB pattern as an absolute reference frame? Just say whether you ever have or not and that will be that, yes?

Point to the post(s) or retract.