Invalidation of the light clock gedanken


The following is one of the observations that we have made during
our research into special relativity. It is not *the theory* to
which several of our postings have referred.


SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

One of the tenets of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity
is its concept of time dilation - 'a moving clock runs slow'.


THE LIGHT CLOCK GEDANKEN

Some physics textbooks that deal with the subject of special theories
concept of time dilation depict this phenomenon using a device known
as a light clock. The following is a simplified version of this
gedanken (thought experiment).

Imagine a very tall glass tube - 300 000 kilometres in height - that
has, at its base (A), a light source. From the point of view of an
observer (an astronaut) who is standing next to this device a beam
of light, emitted by the source, will reach the top of the tube (B)
in one second of their time;



B


*


*


*


*


*


*


*


*


*


*


*


A

        diagram 1

However, from the point of view of an observer past whom the device
is moving, the tip of the beam moves in this fashion:

B1                                                                B2
                                                                   *
                                                             *
                                                       *
                                                *
                                         *
                                  *
                           *
                    *
             *
      *
*
A1                                                                 A2

        diagram 2

(the asterisks were placed in a straight line from A1 to B2, I hope
that they transmitted that way)

On the basis of a constant velocity of light it is said that the
tip of the beam of light moves from A1 to B2 at 300 000 kilometres
a second and, due to the fact that this distance is greater than
the height of the tube, it is said that the beam will therefore
take longer to make this journey from the point of view of the
observer than it does from the astronaut's point of view.

If the light clock is travelling at 298 500 kilometres per second
past the observer it takes ten seconds of the observer's time for
the tip of the beam of light to move from A1 to B2 (3 000 000ks.)
so, from the observer's point of view, each of the astronaut's
seconds must be equal to ten of their seconds ergo the astronaut
has, according to the textbooks, incurred time dilation.

Of course it is quite obvious that the same effect (as per dia.2)
will take place irrespective of the direction in which the light
clock is moving - from the observer's left to right as shown or
from right to left.


THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT

In 1971 Hafele and Keating took atomic clocks around the world in
the same direction as the Earth's axial spin (i.e. from West to
East). It was found that the clocks incurred time dilation -
ticking over at a slower rate than the laboratory clock. This was
said to confirm special theories concept of time dilation.

The clocks were then taken in the opposite direction (i.e. from East
to West) and it was found, as anticipated, that the clocks  incurred
time *contraction* - ticking over at a faster rate than the laboratory
clocks - however this was still said to comply with special theory.

It is axiomatic (as shown by the HKX) that if we are looking at a
clock that is travelling from West to East, the clock will indicate
time dilation, compared to our own clock, whilst an identical clock
that is moving in the opposite direction will indicate time
contraction (of course, we are only talking about nanoseconds
therefore we would not *see* these variations however they would,
according to that experiment, be taking place).


NEGATION OF THE LIGHT CLOCK GEDANKEN

If we are looking at a light clock and an atomic clock that are
moving from East to West (i.e. in the opposite direction to the
Earth's axial spin) at identical velocities the light clock
(according to the textbooks) will incur time dilation but the
atomic clock *will* incur time *contraction*!

Which of those two clocks represent *reality*?

The atomic clock experiment *has* been conducted whilst the light
clock gedanken is nothing more than a diagrammatical interpretation
of a mathematical proposition that - according to Einstein, does
*not* refer to reality.

The Hafele-Keating experiment proved that the textbook depiction
of special theories concept of time dilation as per the light
clock gedanken will not take place!

(in fact it can be shown that the textbook depiction is misleading
however this requires a series of diagrams which would be very
difficult to present in this format)

The light clock gedanken is acknowledged as being *the accepted*
presentation of special theories concept of time dilation. If, as
we suggest, the gedanken *is* nullified as indicated by the results
of the Hafele-Keating experiment it follows that special theories
concept of time dilation will not take place as claimed. Special
theories *assumption* of the constancy of the velocity of light is
fully dependant on its concept of time dilation. If clocks do *not*
slow down and lengths do not *physically* contract as presented by
special theory then its concept of light speed constancy cannot be maintained.

In our forthcoming theory we show that time dilation *does* take
place but not as depicted by special theory - simply as the result
of one reference frame moving relative to another reference frame.
............................................

Copyright  - Sydney - Australia - 26 June1995
Bill Owen   (for:  W H & G D Owen (B.App.Sc.Hons.))
wowen@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU