Cf. "Einstein's light-clock."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc
If we transfer the argument to the Einstein- train embankment thought experiment, in which two rays are emitted simultaneously from each end, then because these rays have to reach the middle M' simultaneously, the aft ray has to travel a greater distance, and the fore ray a lesser distance to reach M' on the carriage, as it journeys to the right.
Cf . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxfxhJBm4g
And Figure 1 (below.)
So the resultant lengths traveled, by the aft and the fore ray will be different in the "really moving" frame, to the same frame considered to be "stationary" -- in which both aft and fore rays will have the same length.
Since the carriage can journey to the right at near light speed, so then the distance the light ray has to traverse becomes indefinitely large for the aft ray, and indefinitely small for the fore ray.
And so the length of the aft ray becomes indefinitely large, and the length of the fore ray becomes indefinitely small.
Reversing the direction of the carriage, switches which ray is indefinitely long and which ray is indefinitely short.
And so, by the Relativity of Motion, each ray, aft and fore, has an indeterminate length.
And since the train carriage has an indeterminate absolute speed (due to the Relativity of Motion,) it follows that the lengths of the optical rays inside the carriage, are indefinite. They can both be anything or nothing.
Since these light rays can have enormous lengths-- galactic distances, or nothing, it is not hard to understand why these light rays reach M' simultaneously, on the moving carriage, with ease.
And so,-- is this why all trains everywhere, have the light arriving at the middle M or M' simultaneously ?
The length of a light ray-like any length-depends on the reference frame, it’s not invariant under Lorentz transformations. The phase of a light ray, however, is invariant under Lorentz transformations. That’s why it makes sense to’focus on the phase and not on the length.
All this is now the topic of university courses, it’s not a research topic anymore. It doesn’t make sense pretending to live along with Einstein.
Your question – although it represents the classical point of view – is about non-locality. Thus it is about the influence of everything that influences everything at exactly the same moment (instantaneous influence).
It is not difficult to imagine that the velocity of figure 1 – Einstein’s light clock in relation to the structure of the electromagnetic field – must be about 368 km/s (CMBR dipole). But the velocity of the electromagnetic waves itself is a constant (c). However, we cannot hypothesize that electromagnetic waves are not affected by the influence of non-locality because of the experiments with entangled photons with opposite polarization (Noble prize Physics 2022).
Suppose that our universe has a regular structure, a kind of universal metric. That means that the properties of the basic quantum fields are directly related to this universal metric. And because it is a metric all the observable/detectable phenomena are in motion in relation to this metric. But the observable/detectable phenomena are manifestations of local energy, actually configurations of fixed amounts of energy. Thus the maximum velocity of the observable/detectable phenomena is limited by the speed of light (the propagation velocity of the quantum of energy).
Non-locality as an instantaneous influence seems to be something like an underlying universal “equalizer” in relation to position and time (law of conservation of momentum). While probability is an underlying universal “distributor” of local electromagnetic magnitudes (law of conservation of energy). Thus probability isn’t instantaneous like non-locality (about 1 x 1024 energy fluctuations every second from 1 “point” in space because of the proposed size of the metric).
If Einstein’s light clock is in rest in relation to the metric of the universe we can describe the position and time of the electromagnetic waves with the help of the constant of (quantum) time. But the light clock moves in relation to the metric and the metric itself isn’t symmetrical either. You can search all the mathematical papers that exist but you will not find a geometrical structure that is the same in every direction. The consequence is that there is variance that is determined by the direction of the motion of the phenomena in relation to the metric (the rest frame). But we are not aware of the existence of the variance because of… the instantaneous influence of non-locality (the universal “equalizer”).
The latter doesn’t mean that we cannot observe local “stress” between non-locality and probability because of the instantaneous influence of non-locality. The double split experiment is a nice example that we can create stress in such a way that the result questions our ideas of physical reality (quantum strangeness).
In other words, there are no “stationary” and “moving” frames. That is a limited imagination of physical reality.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Professor Grimm,
Thank you for your fascinating comment.
To my mind, I think the observers have to be brought in-- and once they are, they provide the tapestry of Absolute events, in the manner of Newton.
Perhaps it's the observers that provide the "metric" ?
Cf. also
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_light-ray_be_both_bent_and_straight---bent_in_one_frame_but_straight_in_another--moving_uniformly_with_respect_to_the_former
Gary Stephens you have set yourself up with a problem that starts here ..
"in which two rays are emitted simultaneously from each end"
Simultaneously is not transferable between observers.
First, you will need to create the setup that causes this simultaneous emission, and you would need to do that from the 'middle' of the room for some observer.
(let's say you are the observer travelling in the room)
At some velocity v
Dear Professor Zinserling,
Thank you for your interesting comment.
"More likely to an outside observer there is no simultaneity, so the experiment looks like a mess with the beams starting at different times."
Yes but I would content that the event in the future-- the arrival, in this case, to the middle M' is a simultaneous arrival of the rays. (As you pointed out in your post).
I'd say this was the Absolute event. ie. the fulcrum around which the reality revolves.
You might also find this interesting--
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_that_two_rays_of_light_are_emitted_simultaneously_from_each_end_of_a_rod_and_yet_meet_off-centre_at_M
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts