I thought you said you used the Lorentz Transformations to graph them that depict the arrival times in Einsteins TE.
On the idea of time in physics-relativity
- Thread starter ash64449
- Start date
Correct. The red and yellow flashes depict Einstein's train thought experiment.
Did you ever notice that they don't arrive at the same time? Or that they do arrive at the same time in the MME?
The blue flashes (which represent the MME) arrive back at the detector at the same time.
The red and yellow flashes have nothing to do with the MME.
Ok. I agree!!
Can you show me the space-time diagram of an observer who is moving uniformly?an observer is placed in the middle.he has two flash light.He lights both flash light simultaneously.Mirrors are placed in the extreme parts. Show me whether the light will reach the observer in train at the same time. also show me what will an observer outside will see.
I am saying to show me space-time diagram because i don't know how to do it!! Hope you will help me..
Sure, just look at the blue and black lines in these diagrams.
The solid black lines are the ends of the train. The dotted black line is the train observer.
The blue lines are the flashes of light.
I have time on the horizontal axis and distance on the vertical, because I forgot the usual convention (sorry).
One diagram has the train at rest, the other has the platform at rest and the train moving past.
Sure, just look at the blue and black lines in these diagrams.
The solid black lines are the ends of the train. The dotted black line is the train observer.
The blue lines are the flashes of light.
I have time on the horizontal axis and distance on the vertical, because I forgot the usual convention (sorry).
One diagram has the train at rest, the other has the platform at rest and the train moving past.
Just curious, what program did you use to draw those diagrams?
They are charts in Microsoft Excel. You don't want to see the spreadsheet. Ugly doesn't begin to describe it.
Pete, this is really really good stuff! Thanks. Unfortuantely, I will bet you $5 that PL never gets it (he doesn't want to get it).
Pretty awesome. By the way, the best graphing software I've seen is a teaching aid called Autograph Maths.
I bet you won't be able to find a single person to bet against you.
Or I could collude with the Prof., and give him $2.50
enough to buy some french fries.
Last edited:
You are continuing to repeat-post nonsense, BS and lies.
There is only one reference frame in MME, and still they do not arrive at the same time because it is impossible to calibrate an interferometer to within one wavelength. Nor does anyone care to try to do that. It isn't necessary, it isn't relevant, and it has nothing to do with searching for the luminiferous ether . Phase interferometry works with signals that do not arrive at the same time. It is simply operating with phase, and it works the same if the signals are nanoseconds apart, years apart, or billions of years apart. The only principle that matters is that the frequency of the light is constant. Therefore, all phase differences are reliable. If an ether wind had been present, the phase difference between the two legs would have changed when they rotated the turntable, regardless of the actual length of the legs.
Furthermore, your statement
reveals that you have not understood one iota of this entire thread. Time is relative. Time difference of arrival in a moving reference frame cannot be equivalent to time difference of arrival of a different frame, except at a coordinate that does not coincide with both frames. This is a basic principle of relativity which you are refusing to even try to understand.
Pete's diagram illustrates the Lorentz transformation, which is an immutable law of nature. None of your irresponsible posts can overturn the laws of nature, no matter how long you sit here like a mockingbird squawking about it. Until you can repeat back what the Lorentz transformation is, how it works and why, until you can explain what Pete's diagram explains and why, you are simply continuing to paint yourself as the fool.
And until you can explain how an interferometer works (i.e. the difference between time difference of arrival vs phase difference) and why time difference of arrival has nothing to do with measuring the velocity of the luminiferous ether, all of your posts about MME continue to paint you as the fool.
When you stop acting out like a child, you can take off the dunce hat and come out of the corner. But you have to promise to actually pay attention in class and stop throwing spitwads.
Lessons for today:
1. Time difference of arrival
2. Phase measurement
3. Lorentz transformation
That should keep you busy. Now go crack the books and see how trolling yourself helps you get anywhere.
But, they said the beams in Einsteins TE didn't arrive at the same time, so then no two events could be seen as being simultaneous. Then they found there was no aether because the beams in the MME arrived at the same time.
I don't get what you see wrong with these two statements.
....in different locations (the endpoints of the train car).
....in the same point.
Do you see the difference? STILL no?
I don't know where you are getting this from.
No, maybe you could try explaining it in more detail.
From the description of TE and MME. This kind of crass ignorance must make your life tough
I can only waste that much time.
Well, the only explaination I have gotten so far is some complete nonsense from Aqueous ID that is supposed to show that the MME is not a valid experiment in determining the arrival times of photons.
I see why now people in forums hate mind experiments. I guess I will let you kiddos run along now and play with your Lorentz Transformations.
Aqueous ID is on a confusing sidetrack.
The actual implementation of the MME did not measure whether two photons that left at the same time returned at the same time because they couldn't determine the path lengths precisely enough to make them perfectly equal.
It measured the change in the difference between light travel times in the two paths as the apparatus was rotated.
But that's a sidetrack. In this thread, we're talking about the simplified toy version of the MME you read about in layman books, which is simpler to describe and understand, is theoretically equivalent, and means that:
- Two flashes of light that start
- from the same emitter/detector
- at the same time
- and return back to that emitter/detector
- after bouncing off two mirrors that are
- at rest with respect to the emitter/detector
- and equal distances away from the emitter/detector
- will return to the emitter/detector at the same time
- Even if the whole apparatus is moving
This is crudely demonstrated by the blue flashes of light in the spacetime diagrams, although they only show beams of light emitted in opposite directions, not perpendicularly as in the MME.
This experiment only says that the flashes will meet at the original emitter at the same time, and only if the emitter is at rest with respect to the mirrors.
If some other emitter/detector moved closer to one mirror between emitting and detecting, then we would not expect the flashes to be detected at the same time.
The experiment also says nothing about when the flashes bounce off the mirrors.
Special Relativity says if the device is moving (ie according to the platform clocks), the flashes bounce off the mirrors at different times. This time difference isn't measured in the MME, and is the subject of the train thought experiment.
The theory says that two events that occur at the same place at the same time (like the red and yellow flashes arriving at the platform observer) are simultaneous in all reference frames:Layman said:
- The platform observer says that the red and yellow flashes reach the middle of the platform at the same time
- The train observer says that the red and yellow flashes reach the middle of the platform at the same time
Events that occur in different places at the same time are only simultaneous in some reference frames:
- The platform observer says that the red and yellow flashes started at the same time
- The train observer says that the red and yellow flashes started at different times
This was done in order to determine if there was a difference in the travel time of the beams of light in relation to the motions of the Earth. There was no difference in travel times due to different relations relative to the motions of the Earth. It was gauge invarient. You could not rotate a MME in order to determine your direction of motion or relative motions to the beams of light.
I thought we where talking about the TE published in Einsteins book, that did not agree with the results of the MME as it was expected. I have read a lot of layman books on theoretical physics, and I don't really know any that describe SR in this fashion. They always describe light behaving in the same way as the MME. It is really just reading the same book over and over again, when it comes to this topic.
The only reason why the MME would not work in this case is because motion doesn't change the speed of light it only changes the frequency. So then it would just introduce another variable that would make the experiment faulty. The speed of the beams would not change, so then their arrival times would not change. Only the frequency would change from a doppler shift so then it would give incorrect results that the arrival times had changed, since that would be determined by a difference in frequency.
This is all based on thinking that the beams of light would arrive at different times. I don't see it as an issue of just receiving a transmission at a different time. I see it has they actually experience different passages of time, so then their clocks will not agree with each other. This makes it sound like if you compensated for the time of the transmission, their clocks would agree with each other. This wasn't what is found in experiments, their clocks actually end up reading different times when you put them back together.