On the idea of time in physics-relativity

[Pete]

It was gauge invarient.

That doesn't means what you think that means.

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. You could not rotate a MME in order to determine your direction of motion or relative motions to the beams of light.

Right, the measured change was essentially zero.

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.

The train thought experiment in Einstein's book did not disagree with the result of the MME.
They are different scenarios.

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.

SR agrees with the result of the MME, and agrees with Einstein's train thought experiment.

This is all based on thinking that the beams of light would arrive at different times.

This is all based on thinking that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames.

Look at the spacetime diagrams.
The blue flashes show the MME.
The red and yellow flashes show the train thought experiment.

 

[Neddy Bate]

I guess I will let you kiddos run along now and play with your Lorentz Transformations.

Good idea, let's play with some Lorentz transformations. I will use Pete's chosen relative velocity:

$$v = 0.6c$$

$$\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = 1.25$$

Pete's chosen coordinates for the right lighting strike:

$$(t,x) = (0.0,10.0)$$

Transform to the train frame as follows:

$$t' = \gamma(t - \frac{vx}{c^2}) = -7.5$$

$$x' = \gamma(x - vt) = 12.5$$

or

$$(t',x') = (-7.5,12.5)$$

Now let's see if that matches his spacetime diagram:

Yep. sure enough.

And Pete's chosen coordinates for the left lighting strike:

$$(t,x) = (0.0,-10.0)$$

Transform to the train frame as follows:

$$t' = \gamma(t - \frac{vx}{c^2}) = 7.5$$

$$x' = \gamma(x - vt) = -12.5$$

or

$$(t',x') = (7.5,-12.5)$$

Which also matches his spacetime diagram.

 

[Prof.Layman]

Good idea, let's play with some Lorentz transformations. I will use Pete's chosen relative velocity:

The blue lines in the first diagram of the platform frame do not reach the ends of the train at the same time. It takes longer to reach the front of the train, and a shorter amount of time for it to reach the back of the train.

The blue lines in the train's frame do not take different amount of times for the beams to reach the front and the back of the train.

So then how could two beams reach two different locations at three different times?

The diagrams assume that an outside observer would see a MME in motion then get different results. It would be like saying NASA could peep into a MME from the international space station, and then see scientist freaking out on Earth because they found gravitational waves.

I have read many times over and over that a MME viewed from an outside observer would then give the same results. And I still agree with this statement, because I think the Laws of Physics are not dependent on outside observers. If an outside observer could change the Laws of Physics then we wouldn't have Laws of Physics.

 

[Neddy Bate]

The blue lines in the first diagram of the platform frame do not reach the ends of the train at the same time. It takes longer to reach the front of the train, and a shorter amount of time for it to reach the back of the train.

The blue lines in the train's frame do not take different amount of times for the beams to reach the front and the back of the train.

Yes, that is true. Relativity of simultaneity means that events which are simultaneous according to one frame will not necessarily be simultaneous according to a different frame.

The diagrams assume that an outside observer would see a MME in motion then get different results. It would be like saying NASA could peep into a MME from the international space station, and then see scientist freaking out on Earth because they found gravitational waves.

I have read many times over and over that a MME viewed from an outside observer would then give the same results. And I still agree with this statement, because I think the Laws of Physics are not dependent on outside observers. If an outside observer could change the Laws of Physics then we wouldn't have Laws of Physics.

There is nothing in the MME to detect whether or not the two light signals arrive simultaneously at the mirrors at the far ends of the arms. The experiment depends on the light being reflected back to the same place, where the fringe pattern is measured. So, even though an observer on the space station would say that the light does not arrive simultaneously at the mirrors at the far ends of the arms, he would still say that the light arrives simultaneously back at the place where the fringe pattern is measured. (Actually, even that is not quite correct, as Aqueous Id has noted.)

 

[Aqueous Id]

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.

Who's this "they"? Einstein showed, via Maxwell and Lorentz, that two events occurring simultaneously in one frame can not be co-located with the same observation (the events occurring simultaneously) in a second frame moving with respect to the first. Your continued absence of references to frame dragging as defined in the Lorentz transformation is what keeps your posts so far afield from the actual way nature works.

Then they found there was no aether because the beams in the MME arrived at the same time.

That is a bald faced lie. You are portraying phase interferometry as a time measurement. For the 99 millionth time, phase interferometers do rely on the same time of arrival of the two legs of light. Phase measurement is a comparison of the crests and valleys of the two waves regardless of how long it took either to "arrive". Furthermore, since there is only one reference frame in MME, is has zero relevance to this thread topic.

I don't get what you see wrong with these two statements.

Yes you do. You're simply pretending not be trolling here.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The diagrams assume that an outside observer would see a MME in motion then get different results. It would be like saying NASA could peep into a MME from the international space station, and then see scientist freaking out on Earth because they found gravitational waves.

Typical moronic, irrelevant, lying BS. Without specious fallacies to rely on, you have nothing whatsoever to say, do you?

MME is irrelevant to this thread no matter how many ways you pretend that it is.

Phase interferometry can not be converted into a demonstration of simultaneity no matter how incessantly you insist that it is. Just keep lying and pretending not to troll.

 

[Prof.Layman]

Who's this "they"? Einstein showed, via Maxwell and Lorentz, that two events occurring simultaneously in one frame can not be co-located with the same observation (the events occurring simultaneously) in a second frame moving with respect to the first. Your continued absence of references to frame dragging as defined in the Lorentz transformation is what keeps your posts so far afield from the actual way nature works.

If you are saying this in response to me saying, "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 you just might be an incompetent troll.

That is a bald faced lie. You are portraying phase interferometry as a time measurement. For the 99 millionth time, phase interferometers do rely on the same time of arrival of the two legs of light. Phase measurement is a comparison of the crests and valleys of the two waves regardless of how long it took either to "arrive". Furthermore, since there is only one reference frame in MME, is has zero relevance to this thread topic.

If you are saying this in response to me saying, "Then they found there was no aether because the beams in the MME arrived at the same time." Then you just might be an incompetent troll.

Yes you do. You're simply pretending not be trolling here.

If you are saying this in response to me saying, "I don't get what you see wrong with these two statements". Then you actually are an incompetent troll, and have no intentions of explaining your position, and you just insist on trolling.

 

[Prof.Layman]

There is nothing in the MME to detect whether or not the two light signals arrive simultaneously at the mirrors at the far ends of the arms. The experiment depends on the light being reflected back to the same place, where the fringe pattern is measured. So, even though an observer on the space station would say that the light does not arrive simultaneously at the mirrors at the far ends of the arms, he would still say that the light arrives simultaneously back at the place where the fringe pattern is measured. (Actually, even that is not quite correct, as Aqueous Id has noted.)

I wouldn't listen to anything Aqueous ID says about this topic. He obviously knows nothing about the interpretations of the MME, and he has just decided to troll me because he didn't like some of the things I have said. I don't think he is even capable of having a real discussion about this.

The MME showed that there wasn't a difference in the travel time of the two beams. They know this because there wasn't a difference in the frequency between the two waves in the detector. If one traveled slower or faster, or a longer distance than the other, then the two waves wouldn't match up. Aqueous ID, pretends to know about the experiment, but then he has his own interpretations that are not accepted science. He is just making up what that means. It is just comparing the two beams with each other, and then they act like they are completely under the same conditions.

Also, the MME as observed from an outside frame in relative motion will look the same to that outside observer. That is just the way it is, TE or not will not change that basic fact. Aqueous ID will most likely be able to crank out some new ideas that do not agree with that. I am just telling you what really happens in the actual experiments.

 

[Prof.Layman]

That doesn't means what you think that means.

That is the way Sean Carroll, Ph.D. described it, in the book I just got done reading the other day. Why don't you go tell him what it means. Ironically he even used the example as in a train. But, he says gauge invarience doesn't work if you stick your hand out of the window.

 

[Prof.Layman]

This is all based on thinking that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames.

That is what happens when every popular physics book at the library describes the same MME and they all say they have the same results when looked at from an outside observer. An outside observer wouldn't notice the doppler shift affecting objects that it traveled with.

 

[Pete]

The blue lines in the first diagram of the platform frame do not reach the ends of the train at the same time. It takes longer to reach the front of the train, and a shorter amount of time for it to reach the back of the train.

The blue lines in the train's frame do not take different amount of times for the beams to reach the front and the back of the train.

So then how could two beams reach two different locations at three different times?

Because we are using different time standards. The times the flashes reach the ends of the train are measured using four different clocks.
Let's say there are clocks all along the train, and all along the platform.
When the blue flash reaches the front of the train, we tell what time it occurred by looking at the clocks at that location.
We see that the train clock at that location reads t'=12.5, and the platform clock at that location reads t=25.

When the blue flash reaches the back of the train, we tell what time it occurred by looking at the clocks at that location.
We see that the train clock at that location reads t'=12.5, and the platform clock at that location reads t=6.25.

The platform clocks say that the flashes arrived at different times.
The train clocks say that the flashes arrives the same time.

The diagrams assume that an outside observer would see a MME in motion then get different results.

I have read many times over and over that a MME viewed from an outside observer would then give the same results. And I still agree with this statement, because I think the Laws of Physics are not dependent on outside observers. If an outside observer could change the Laws of Physics then we wouldn't have Laws of Physics.

The result is the same - the flashes arrive back at the detector simultaneously.

The experiment does not measure when the flashes meet the mirrors, it only compares when the flashes return to the detector.

 

[Pete]

That is the way Sean Carroll, Ph.D. described it, in the book I just got done reading the other day. Why don't you go tell him what it means. Ironically he even used the example as in a train. But, he says gauge invarience doesn't work if you stick your hand out of the window.

What book? Can you quote the actual words?

 

[Aqueous Id]

If you are saying this in response to me saying, "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 you just might be an incompetent troll.

You might be trying to flame after inciting me to correct your inane posts. But then that would be a violation of the rules, wouldn't it, troll? So instead you like to play the quasi-undercover troll, all while painting yourself as a crank with a deliberate refusal to learn even one iota the actual science being discussed here.

You continue to insist that the MME demonstrated a simultaneous arrival of waves which is now a deliberate lie after all the adults wiped your nose and led you by the hand to the picture books that drilled home the fact that your claim is utterly bogus.

If you are saying this in response to me saying, "Then they found there was no aether because the beams in the MME arrived at the same time." Then you just might be an incompetent troll.

Or to anyone without learning disability, it's pretty evident that you're baiting me to join your little flame game. The beams do not arrive at the same time, troll. They simply propagate at the same frequency and speed, which is entirely different. Except, of course, under the troll bridge where you live with that pile of discarded library books which you either are incapable of reading or understanding, or which you simply refuse to. You continue to use this lame excuse as a cop out to finding the answers to your obvious errors right now, in real time, using the search engine of your choice.

If you are saying this in response to me saying, "I don't get what you see wrong with these two statements". Then you actually are an incompetent troll, and have no intentions of explaining your position, and you just insist on trolling.

Or, as is evident to all who are reading your posts--minus the knuckleheads living under the bridge with you--it should be amply evident that:

(1) you continue to refuse to address frame dragging as per the Lorentz transformation;
(2) you continue to refuse to connect the relativity of simultaneity to (1);
(3) you continue to rely on your fabricated lie that MME uses simultaneous arrival of light waves as opposed to phase difference after repeatedly being proven that your claim is flat wrong;
(4) you continue to refuse to connect (3) to (1) and (2).
(5) you continue post filler BS rather than to answer the mail about (1)-(4).

Therefore, your posts are pure unadulterated BS, irrelevant and meaningless, which makes you a troll by definition, one that the general readership can ascertain for themselves regardless of how many times and how many ways you try to blame me, everyone else who corrects you, Einstein and just about anyone else you feel like blaming for your own recklessness and pathetically deliberate ignorance of the subject matter here. Begone, troll.

 

[Pete]

I wouldn't listen to anything Aqueous ID says about this topic. He obviously knows nothing about the interpretations of the MME, and he has just decided to troll me because he didn't like some of the things I have said. I don't think he is even capable of having a real discussion about this.

Aqueous ID knows what he's talking about. The actual MME is more complex that the simplified toy way it's described in beginner books. But the details are not really relevant to the main discussion, and I hesitate to engage in a sidetrack.

The MME showed that there wasn't a difference in the travel time of the two beams. They know this because there wasn't a difference in the frequency between the two waves in the detector. If one traveled slower or faster, or a longer distance than the other, then the two waves wouldn't match up.

If one beam has a path length an integer number of wavelengths longer than the other, then the two waves match up perfectly.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The MME showed that there wasn't a difference in the travel time of the two beams.

That's meaningless BS. It showed there was no aether because the phase difference did not change as they rotated the turntable.

They know this because there wasn't a difference in the frequency between the two waves in the detector.

Wrong again. You continue to refuse to say "phase".

If one traveled slower or faster, or a longer distance than the other, then the two waves wouldn't match up.

Liar. If the propagation velocity changed in either leg, the phase interference pattern would visibly shift, and if a luminiferous aether were present, the phase difference would plot as one cycle of a sinusoid over the 360 azimuth rotation of the turntable. All rest you you are claiming is just pure BS..

Aqueous ID, pretends to know about the experiment, but then he has his own interpretations that are not accepted science.

Even that statement doesn't make sense. Understanding what "phase difference" means isn't a matter of "accepted science". It's nothing more than an elementary definition from trig. Which of course you never paid attention to or bothered to study, or else you would be trying to address "phase interferometry" somewhere in your moronic posts.

He is just making up what that means.

Since you have less than a 6th grade education in math and science, the entire high school and college curricula evidently appear to be "made up" to you.

It is just comparing the two beams with each other, and then they act like they are completely under the same conditions.

Another meaningless statement on the same irrelevant topic that you can't understand since you have no idea what phase difference means, and you've decided to stay stuck the 5th grade rather than to even try to understand the materials being presented here.

Also, the MME as observed from an outside frame in relative motion will look the same to that outside observer.

There is no "outside frame" in MME. It's a one-frame experiment, is does not involve simultaneous arrival of light rays, and is therefore irrelevant to this thread.

That is just the way it is, TE or not will not change that basic fact.

It's the other way around. PL does not alter the laws of nature. The Train thought experiment of Einstein's very effectively reverses everything PL is droning on about.

Aqueous ID will most likely be able to crank out some new ideas that do not agree with that.

Except, as you will note, none of my posts have done anything except to reaffirm the laws of nature, including the proofs against your bogus anti-science claims.

I am just telling you what really happens in the actual experiments.

On their face, your posts simply reveal not only that you have no clue what the experiments reveal, but that you have no desire to overcome your ignorance of them.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The MME showed that there wasn't a difference in the travel time of the two beams.

That's meaningless BS. It showed there was no aether because the phase difference did not change as they rotated the turntable.

They know this because there wasn't a difference in the frequency between the two waves in the detector.

Wrong again. You continue to refuse to say "phase".

If one traveled slower or faster, or a longer distance than the other, then the two waves wouldn't match up.

Liar. If the propagation velocity changed in either leg, the phase interference pattern would visibly shift, and if a luminiferous aether were present, the phase difference would plot as one cycle of a sinusoid over the 360° azimuth rotation of the turntable. All rest you are claiming is just pure BS..

Aqueous ID, pretends to know about the experiment, but then he has his own interpretations that are not accepted science.

Even that statement doesn't make sense. Understanding what "phase difference" means isn't a matter of "accepted science". It's nothing more than an elementary definition from trig. Which of course you never paid attention to or bothered to study, or else you would be trying to address "phase interferometry" somewhere in your moronic posts.

He is just making up what that means.

Since you have less than a 6th grade education in math and science, the entire high school and college curricula evidently appear to be "made up" to you.

It is just comparing the two beams with each other, and then they act like they are completely under the same conditions.

Another meaningless statement on the same irrelevant topic that you can't understand since you have no idea what phase difference means, and you've decided to stay stuck the 5th grade rather than to even try to understand the materials being presented here.

Also, the MME as observed from an outside frame in relative motion will look the same to that outside observer.

There is no "outside frame" in MME. It's a one-frame experiment, is does not involve simultaneous arrival of light rays, and is therefore irrelevant to this thread.

That is just the way it is, TE or not will not change that basic fact.

It's the other way around. PL does not alter the laws of nature. The Train thought experiment of Einstein's very effectively reverses everything PL is droning on about.

Aqueous ID will most likely be able to crank out some new ideas that do not agree with that.

Except, as you will note, none of my posts have done anything except to reaffirm the laws of nature, including the proofs against your bogus anti-science claims.

I am just telling you what really happens in the actual experiments.

On their face, your posts simply reveal not only that you have no clue what the experiments reveal, but that you have no desire to overcome your ignorance of them.

 

[Prof.Layman]

What book? Can you quote the actual words?

The Particle at the End of the Universe: Chapter 8 Through A Broken Mirror

This is called "rotational invarience," for obvious reasons.

In fact it goes farther than that. Let's say I'm doing my experiment in the parking lot outside my office, and a friend is doing another experiment a few feet away, completely unconnected to mine. We could both rotate our equipment by some angle and expect to get the same results. But even better, I can rotate my equipment and she could keep hers just as it was, or we could both rotate by some arbitrary angle. In other words, the symmetry is not just a single rotation of the world (it doesn't matter whether we're all facing north, or some other direction), but separete rotations at every single point (it doesn't matter what direction any of us is individually pointing in).

That's an enormously larger amount of symmetry. In the trade this kind of megasymmetry is called a "gauge invarience"." The name was given by German mathematician Hermann Weyl, who likened the choice of how to measure things at different points to the choice of gauge (distance between rails) in railroad tracks.

 

[eram]

The Particle at the End of the Universe: Chapter 8 Through A Broken Mirror

This is called "rotational invarience," for obvious reasons.

In fact it goes farther than that. Let's say I'm doing my experiment in the parking lot outside my office, and a friend is doing another experiment a few feet away, completely unconnected to mine. We could both rotate our equipment by some angle and expect to get the same results. But even better, I can rotate my equipment and she could keep hers just as it was, or we could both rotate by some arbitrary angle. In other words, the symmetry is not just a single rotation of the world (it doesn't matter whether we're all facing north, or some other direction), but separete rotations at every single point (it doesn't matter what direction any of us is individually pointing in).

That's an enormously larger amount of symmetry. In the trade this kind of megasymmetry is called a "gauge invarience"." The name was given by German mathematician Hermann Weyl, who likened the choice of how to measure things at different points to the choice of gauge (distance between rails) in railroad tracks.

So you saw the words "mirror" and "train" and made the connection?

Sorry Prof, he's talking about a different thing here.

 

[Prof.Layman]

Aqueous ID knows what he's talking about. The actual MME is more complex that the simplified toy way it's described in beginner books. But the details are not really relevant to the main discussion, and I hesitate to engage in a sidetrack.

IDK, sounds like just ranting to me, I think you would be surprised at some of the things you would find in a pop science book. Would learn a lot more than useless ranting on the internet. I think he just said every popular science book was complete BS. It isn't even that woo woo of a subject.

If one beam has a path length an integer number of wavelengths longer than the other, then the two waves match up perfectly.

I think there may be a lot more too it than just saying it is just a comparison of waves. I think real scientist unlike Aqueous ID, have a few tricks up their sleeve that could show what they say is true. There could be a lot to be said about particles, just by knowing that their waves match up, like if they traveled the same relative distance.

 

[Prof.Layman]

So you saw the words "mirror" and "train" and made the connection?

Sorry Prof, he's talking about a different thing here.

The book kind of really leaves you hanging. It doesn't really say what's wrong with the Higgs Boson, I think it is more like his journey to try to figure that out. Sometimes you got to put two and two together, that was why I thought maybe the new particle they "found" was a goldstone boson, but he doesn't say it outright. I think he went to a lot of trouble to look into it, hehe.

The photon is a gauge boson, they normally don't give a definition of gauge invarience, but that is how photons are described. They will never say that this photon doesn't gain as much as this other photon, blah blah blah.