The Lorentz Contraction - as passively requested by Trinitie

Ramblus 10

Published on April 8, 2004 By OckhamsRazor In Misc

A Ms Trinitie, who I must assume is from this very same blog site, posed me the question thus (paraphrased) "Why don't you blog more?"

And Trinitie, I have given this some thought. I have seen that some use blogging as a sort of way to get "famous" in a given pool of fish. This is not the reason I do it. I do it because I tend to think of obscure ideas a lot, and since I know my fellow humans are usually all succeeding quite nicely at thinking of the same things (and I cite reality tv shows as an example), I figure I'll do my part and venture out of the box.

Unfortunately, outside of the box has been kind of empty for me lately. Maybe I need to turn a few more corners, I'm not really sure, but your question actually did provoke me to think "Hey yeah! Why DON'T I blog more often...and so here is your answer.

Just in case this gets read by some folks that don't really know who Henrik Lorentz was, I'll try to give a brief explanation. He was the guy that suggested that the faster something went, the shorter the distance it was travelling became (that's as laymen's terms as it gets folks) which then explained perfectly that the Michaelson-Morley experiment which these two gentlemen had thought was an utter failure at the times of their deaths was actually a perfect success. Michaelson and Morley had been trying to detect the travel of light through the "ether", a substance that scientists at the time were sure space was filled with, otherwise how could light propogate through it? So...they created a beautiful device called an interferometer that shot out a light wave, a mirror split it into two lightwaves...one kept going in the original direction, and the other went off at a right angle. Both struck mirrors equidistant from the split point, and thus returned to origin.

The thought was, that the one that shot off at a right angle would have more distance to travel because it would be travelling WITH the motion of the earth helping it. But the second wave would be travelling against the motion of the earth part of the time (or something like that....it's been a while and you can see where this is going) What it boiled down to was there was no frickin way they'd both arrive back home at the same time. Guess what...they did.

Originally I put an ascii diagram here which is another blog entirely. Try this instead.

A is the origin of the light beam. D is where it splits. Assume this whole apparatus is moving with the rotation of the earth to the right. Also assume D__B = D__C That was the interferometer.

It was Lorentz who decided maybe something else was explaining this, because Michaelson was at the time touted as being one of the finest instrument mnakers of all time. They floated their last interferometer in a pool of mercury and it was so sensitive that it detected the motions of people walking by on the street below.

Anyway...Lorentz suggested that as something approached the speed of light, the distance between where that thing was and where it was going actually got smaller. And that fixed the whole problem.

This was later proven by some gents whose names I do not recall, who went to the top of a mountain and measured the numbers of Mu Meson particles striking the top of the mountain. The MU Meson degenerates from existence with GREAT rapidity, so it would stand to reason that if one counted them at the top of the mountain and then went and counted them at the bottom, there would be far fewer at the bottom. Not so. The Mu Mesons, moving at nearly the speed of light, had the space between where they entered the atmosphere and the bottom of the ground so Lorentz contracted that from their perspective they had PLENTY of time to get there.

Now why all this physics lesson?

My time is not Lorentz contracted and it needs to be, so I haven't had a chance to think of anything new to say, so I thought it better to remain silent. I do appreciate you and your peers' appreciation of my mindless drivelling, and I'm guessing that once the good weather hits, I shall again be inspired to write something appropriately stupid for the amusement of all.

Bless you all, live right, and have some frickin fun cuz this might be all you get

Ock, keeping it simple since 1962

Comments

Sherye Hanson

on Apr 08, 2004

I like your way of explaining things. I've never read anything you've written before, but I see why you are amusing.

Dan Kaschel

on Apr 08, 2004

... I read all that just for you to say that you couldn't think of anything original to say? I have that odd, unstoppable chuckle that comes when you've been had.

Good article. Good to see you back.

~Dan

new-age nomad

on May 26, 2004

Ditto

Trinitie

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!