Test of Special Relativity by Use of an Optical First Order Experiment
Martin Kowatsch
theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
experiments, all based on interferometric methods. All of these
experiments measure the ratio between earth velocity around the sun and
the speed of light (v_earth/c) in its quadratic term (v_earth/c)2. The
most famous set-up is the Michelson/Morley experiment that shows the
well known 'zero-result' as predicted by STR.
I did an experiment which measures the ratio v_earth/c in it's first
order term.
Test result is the same as for the Michelson/Morley experiment, namley
the 'zero-result'.
Therfore this experiment confirm the Michelson/Morley result.
Some physicst argue that there might be a compensation effect at the
Michelson/Morley set-up that avoid to measure the ratio v_earth/c. Due
to this new set-up it's clear that such a compensation effect is not
available and the so called ether drift due to earth orbital motion
around the sun is not existing.
Please find more details at:
http://www.mkowatsch.homepage.t-online.de/_sgt/f10000.htm
Martin Kowatsch
dej4
This looks interesting at first sight, though somewhat implausible, all
previous experiments were looking for second order effects. Is it
possible to add some more mathematical explanation to your paper, in
its current form it is rather terse.
Jerry
What would be the expected result of your experiment
using Lorentz Ether Theory versus STR? My naive expectation
would be that the somewhat miraculous and completely ad hoc
cancellation of effects that make LET indistinguishable from STR
in the MMX wouldn't hold true in your experiment, so undoubtedly
my understanding is off. What am I missing?
I really appreciated the clever way you solved various problems
on the cheap, for example how you achieved vibration-free
rotation!
Jerry
dej4
would be that the somewhat miraculous and completely ad hoc
cancellation of effects that make LET indistinguishable from STR "
This is a side discussion but LET is not really indistinguishable from
STR, this is a misconception that has been going on for quite a while.
Here is why:
LET is iin effect a ballistic theory, it uses "c=V" and "c-v" in MMX
and "cancels it out" by the miraculous (to use your term, Jerry),
"Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction". But LET runs afoul of the
Ives-Stilwell experiment , which, when executed at higher speeds (the
current reenactments run at .28c) exposes a higher order term in
(v/c)^2 that separates LET from SR!
dej4
LET is iin effect a ballistic theory, it uses "c+v" and "c-v" in MMX
rot...@gmail.com
>and "cancels it out" by the miraculous (to use your term, Jerry),
>"Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction".
"miraculous"? Is not LF contraction predicted by Maxwell's equations?
Has it not been shown that in order to maintain 'equilibrium', the EM
fields 'contract' by the precise Lorentz factor?
>But LET runs afoul of the Ives-Stilwell experiment ,
Actually no. Ether theories predict the same result for the I-S
experiments. Ether theories predict the same equations as SR does for
such experiments. And ether theories predict a null result for the MMX
experiments. All this is well known amongst better relativist and
etherians.
---
If you want to be sure, then always doubt.
Harry
"Martin Kowatsch" <MKow...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:1138129440....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
First of all (especially because of what follows): congratulations with a
neat looking experiment and a professional looking data analysis.
Also, your fast rotating light angle deviation measurement looks quite
original to me: I only remember to have seen similar experiments that
co-rotate with the earth. Also, I find the simplicity of the set-up really
neat.
Now the negative criticism. I don't want to spoil your enjoyment, but your
starting assumption as well as your conclusion don't hold:
- "The isotropy of the speed of light as a basic axiom of the special theory
of relativity".
No it's not: you had a poor textbook. It's a working hypothesis that stems
from classical physics, as explained by Poincare in 1897 or so. Read for
example Einstein's 1905 paper about the necessary hypotheses, and remember
that also Lorentz and Poincare taught SRT.
- Do I understand well that you expected a violation of conservation of
momentum in case of an "ether drift"? Why? Contrary to your claims, in
classical physics, the outgoing light path inside the laser determines the
angle in any frame; the light is not expected to change direction at the
laser exit.
Regards,
Harald
Harry
"dej4" <clu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138200246.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Remains the correction of thinking errors.
- Funny fact 1: 1905 SRT also uses "c-v" in the derivation of the LT, it
yields the "miraculous" Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, but it's not a
ballistic theory.
- Funny fact 2: You confused the to second order approximated predictions
from the Lorentz transformations with the exact ones.
Harald
dej4
it
yields the "miraculous" Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, but it's not a
ballistic theory. "
Yes, it uses "c-v" and "c+v" but it refers to TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS :
the light front and the receding mirror.
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/29/Debunking_SagnacandMM_1.pdf
"Funny fact 2: You confused the to second order approximated
predictions
from the Lorentz transformations with the exact ones."
Not really, this is somewhat newer material proving it:
dej4
Dirk Van de moortel
"dej4" <clu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138212057.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> -" Funny fact 1: 1905 SRT also uses "c-v" in the derivation of the LT,
> it
> yields the "miraculous" Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, but it's not a
> ballistic theory. "
>
> Yes, it uses "c-v" and "c+v" but it refers to TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS :
> the light front and the receding mirror.
aka closing speed.
Harry knows that - he was testing you.
Dirk Vdm
dej4
Dirk Van de moortel
"dej4" <clu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138212619....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Harry doesn't. He is a hard core LET'ist.
Indeed, we all know that that is his hidden agenda.
But he does his best to conceal it :-)
Anyway, he does know the concept of closing speed.
He was fishing.
[follow-up set]
Dirk Vdm
Martin Hogbin
"Martin Kowatsch" <MKow...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:1138129440....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
> experiments, all based on interferometric methods. All of these
> experiments measure the ratio between earth velocity around the sun and
> the speed of light (v_earth/c) in its quadratic term (v_earth/c)2. The
> most famous set-up is the Michelson/Morley experiment that shows the
> well known 'zero-result' as predicted by STR.
>
> I did an experiment which measures the ratio v_earth/c in it's first
> order term.
> Test result is the same as for the Michelson/Morley experiment, namley
> the 'zero-result'.
> Therfore this experiment confirm the Michelson/Morley result.
Congratulations on an interesting and innovative amateur
physics experiment. As I am sure you know, there have been
many experiments confirming the validity of SR to a much better
accuracy than yours, so your result was not much of a surprise.
On the other hand your experiment is very simple in concept
and looks for a first order effect. In some ways it is similar to
the experiment by Hafele and Keating using atomic clocks.
This was not by any means the most accurate experiment on
time dilation but the basic concept was very easy to understand
(although complicated by the Earth's rotation).
> Some physicst argue that there might be a compensation effect at the
> Michelson/Morley set-up that avoid to measure the ratio v_earth/c. Due
> to this new set-up it's clear that such a compensation effect is not
> available and the so called ether drift due to earth orbital motion
> around the sun is not existing.
>
> Please find more details at:
> http://www.mkowatsch.homepage.t-online.de/_sgt/f10000.htm
I wonder how long it will be before one of the crackpots notices
the small variation in velocity with angle measured by your
experiment, without noting that this is well within the error bars?
Martin Hogbin
Joe Fischer
>"Martin Kowatsch" <MKow...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:1138129440....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> The isotropy of the speed of light as a basic axiom of the special
>> theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
>> experiments, all based on interferometric methods. All of these
>> experiments measure the ratio between earth velocity around the sun and
>> the speed of light (v_earth/c) in its quadratic term (v_earth/c)2. The
>> most famous set-up is the Michelson/Morley experiment that shows the
>> well known 'zero-result' as predicted by STR.
>>
>> I did an experiment which measures the ratio v_earth/c in it's first
>> order term.
>> Test result is the same as for the Michelson/Morley experiment, namley
>> the 'zero-result'.
>> Therfore this experiment confirm the Michelson/Morley result.
>
>Congratulations on an interesting and innovative amateur
>physics experiment. As I am sure you know, there have been
>many experiments confirming the validity of SR to a much better
>accuracy than yours, so your result was not much of a surprise.
Still, more experiments would improve the quality
of postings here, which are at an all time low.
>On the other hand your experiment is very simple in concept
>and looks for a first order effect. In some ways it is similar to
>the experiment by Hafele and Keating using atomic clocks.
>This was not by any means the most accurate experiment on
>time dilation but the basic concept was very easy to understand
>(although complicated by the Earth's rotation).
Some effects of redshift (or "time dilation") are
too small to detect with ordinary methods, so any
experiment that can be rationalized is commendable.
>> Some physicst argue that there might be a compensation effect at the
>> Michelson/Morley set-up that avoid to measure the ratio v_earth/c. Due
>> to this new set-up it's clear that such a compensation effect is not
>> available and the so called ether drift due to earth orbital motion
>> around the sun is not existing.
>>
>> Please find more details at:
>> http://www.mkowatsch.homepage.t-online.de/_sgt/f10000.htm
>
>I wonder how long it will be before one of the crackpots notices
>the small variation in velocity with angle measured by your
>experiment, without noting that this is well within the error bars?
>Martin Hogbin
Well, Seto has been saying measure in the vertical
direction, and as distasteful as the idea of agreeing is,
I agree, there could even be a 25000 MPH velocity
found in the vertical direction.
If you can't fight 'em, join 'em.
Joe Fischer
rot...@gmail.com
preferred frame theories contradic SR. As I said, the good ether
theories predict the exact same formulas as SR for the I-S experiments
(and other experiments).
And I would not trust Sfarti's work. I have noticed that his papers are
copy/paste of bits and pieces of other papers. I did a search on him
and there are numerous threads about him and his plagiarism.
Jerry
> "Martin Kowatsch" <MKow...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:1138129440....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The isotropy of the speed of light as a basic axiom of the special
> > theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
> > experiments, all based on interferometric methods. All of these
> > experiments measure the ratio between earth velocity around the sun and
> > the speed of light (v_earth/c) in its quadratic term (v_earth/c)2. The
> > most famous set-up is the Michelson/Morley experiment that shows the
> > well known 'zero-result' as predicted by STR.
> >
> > I did an experiment which measures the ratio v_earth/c in it's first
> > order term.
> > Test result is the same as for the Michelson/Morley experiment, namley
> > the 'zero-result'.
> > Therfore this experiment confirm the Michelson/Morley result.
>
> Congratulations on an interesting and innovative amateur
> physics experiment. As I am sure you know, there have been
> many experiments confirming the validity of SR to a much better
> accuracy than yours, so your result was not much of a surprise.
>
> On the other hand your experiment is very simple in concept
> and looks for a first order effect. In some ways it is similar to
> the experiment by Hafele and Keating using atomic clocks.
> This was not by any means the most accurate experiment on
> time dilation but the basic concept was very easy to understand
> (although complicated by the Earth's rotation).
Do you have any answer to my question about LET versus SR?
It's been stated many times that LET and SR are experimentally
indistinguishable, but quite frankly, I don't see LET giving a null
result here. Where am I going wrong?
> > Some physicst argue that there might be a compensation effect at the
> > Michelson/Morley set-up that avoid to measure the ratio v_earth/c. Due
> > to this new set-up it's clear that such a compensation effect is not
> > available and the so called ether drift due to earth orbital motion
> > around the sun is not existing.
> >
> > Please find more details at:
> > http://www.mkowatsch.homepage.t-online.de/_sgt/f10000.htm
>
> I wonder how long it will be before one of the crackpots notices
> the small variation in velocity with angle measured by your
> experiment, without noting that this is well within the error bars?
Jerry
dej4
is ballistic).
"I did a search on him
and there are numerous threads about him and his plagiarism."
Really? Can you point such a link?
rot...@gmail.com
No, it does not falsify *all* ballistic theories. It falsifies some
ballistic theories.
>>numerous threads about him and his plagiarism."
>Really? Can you point such a link?
I do not intend to search it all again. Do a Google, read and search a
few hours as I did. Its all there.
Perhaps later, when I have more time on my hands, I will look it up
again. The reason I looked him up is because when I read many of his
articles, I was sure I have seen them years before... indeed, I did, by
other authors!
rot...@gmail.com
more...just search; you should be able to do that on your own.?
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1121800960/last-1127340383/Dissecting+Sfarti's+Papers
Russell
Actually, I believe the O.P. makes a mistake in his analysis;
there is no way that his experiment would detect even a conventional
ether wind.
His mistake is to assume that the ether wind does not blow
through his laser diode itself; but this is an incorrect assumption
both for Lorentz ether and for the classical Michelson ether.
Basically, this is an aberration experiment, and in a non-draggged
ether model, aberration depends only on the relative motion of the
source and detector, which in this experiment is zero.
You can see why this must be so if you forget the details of the
laser and imagine that it is a collimating tube with a point source
of light at one end. As the wind blows sideways through the
tube, some of the light will be blown into the walls, and what
manages to get out is only the part that goes straight out of
the tube -- hence the tube must be pointing straight at the
detector.
When you rotate the tube 180 degrees, the wind is blowing the
other way, but the tube is *still* pointed straight at the detector
and only the light going on that straight line gets through. This
is light that is moving slightly against the wind up the tube in
such a way that it will continue slightly against the wind along
the same line, after it exits the tube. In other words, directly
along the line that the tube is pointing. So the detector still gets
hit in exactly the same place, the place that the tube is pointing.
Yes, the light that gets through is coming from a slightly different
angle from the point source, but the experiment can't tell this;
the laser is a black box and we only see what comes out the
tube.
dej4
you read the whole thread?Looks like AAF got skewered for being a crook
and he's trying to get back by smearing in the forum.
And you saw the articles before, by other authors? Interesting? So you
smear what you can't understand? Why don't you address the paper
itself? Looks like we found another closet LET'ist...
Anyways, to prove that you are wrong on LET, try reading this, it is by
an MIT person, you should not get any shit-digging diversion:
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf
dej4
ballistic theories. "
This ranks on Dick Van Mortel list of Immortal Fumbles.
Together with this one:
"To my knowledge, there has been no one way light speed measurement. If
you are aware of such experiments, can you reference me some?
If one follows SR, then there is no need to measure owls since it is
defined to be c = 299792458m/s. But if one still wants to measure owls,
he must use a measurement procedure that will give c. Using a
measurement procedure that gives owls <> c will be considered an
invalid measurement procedure by definition. This argument is perhaps
the "proof" I required from you, but if you have another....
This is all a definition/concept issue. "
Try this:
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf
Russell
And, I very much regret to say, it is wrong. There is a good
reason why Michelson didn't try something like it; admittedly
he didn't have modern lasers etc. but technically it would have
been quite within his grasp nonetheless.
See my other post in this thread.
Joe Fischer
>Do you have any answer to my question about LET versus SR?
>It's been stated many times that LET and SR are experimentally
>indistinguishable, but quite frankly, I don't see LET giving a null
>result here. Where am I going wrong?
By expecting a physical result from an imaginary aether.
The only thing LET and SR have in common is rigid
rectangular coordinate frames, and all coordinate frames
are imaginary math constructs.
Joe Fischer
dej4
Has it not been shown that in order to maintain 'equilibrium', the EM "
This one is also good for the Immortal Fumbles!
Russell
> "......Lorentz Ether Theory versus STR? My naive expectation
> would be that the somewhat miraculous and completely ad hoc
> cancellation of effects that make LET indistinguishable from STR "
>
> This is a side discussion but LET is not really indistinguishable from
> STR, this is a misconception that has been going on for quite a while.
This is wrong, and it's a departure from dej4's usual high level
of posting quality.
> Here is why:
>
> LET is iin effect a ballistic theory, it uses "c=V" and "c-v" in MMX
It is not ballistic, in my understanding of that term. Quite
the contrary -- it assumes that there is a real ether in which
light propagates wavelike at a real speed c.
> and "cancels it out" by the miraculous (to use your term, Jerry),
> "Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction". But LET runs afoul of the
Btw, I like Jerry's term; miracles are things that have no
physical explanation and that sure as heck is the case for
the Lorentz ether.
> Ives-Stilwell experiment , which, when executed at higher speeds (the
> current reenactments run at .28c) exposes a higher order term in
> (v/c)^2 that separates LET from SR!
How can there be such a term, if both theories have the *same*
Lorentz transform? You definitely are missing something.
Anyhow, I saw nothing at all in the sfarti paper that talks about
this. Is that your only reference? If so, perhaps you can point
out where in the paper (even roughly -- section x, top, bottom,
etc.) this assertion is made, let alone proved. I didn't read it
carefully so probably I just missed it.
Russell
[snip]
> - Do I understand well that you expected a violation of conservation of
> momentum in case of an "ether drift"? Why? Contrary to your claims, in
> classical physics, the outgoing light path inside the laser determines the
> angle in any frame; the light is not expected to change direction at the
> laser exit.
Harald, my hat's off to you. I only just got around to reading
this post of yours, and I see that you preceded me in your
correct analysis of the OP's error. And, you presented it
with far better economy.
dej4
this. Is that your only reference? If so, perhaps you can point
out where in the paper (even roughly -- section x, top, bottom,
etc.) this assertion is made, let alone proved. I didn't read it
carefully so probably I just missed it. "
Sure, the paper assumes the most general form of ballistic compositions
of speeds as applied to light , applies the IS experiment to it and
ends up with an error term that is unaccounted for.
"It is not ballistic, in my understanding of that term. Quite
the contrary -- it assumes that there is a real ether in which
light propagates wavelike at a real speed c. "
This is where the misconception is: LET uses Galilean speed composition
for MMX, ends up with an unexpected result and cancels it out with the
"Lorentz-FitzGerald" ad-hoc contraction. To prove this scientifically I
am going to quote directly from Lorentz's paper: "Electromagnetic
Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity less than that of
Light". In deducing his famous Lorentz transforms Lorentz writes (get
that!) immediately after the Maxwell equations labelled (2):
"I shall now suppose that the system as a whole moves in the direction
of x with a constant velocity v, and I shall denote by u any velocity
which a point of an electron may have in addition to this, so that
vx=v+ux, vy=uy, vz=uz"
So, in deriving his famous transforms, Lorentz used Galilean speed
transforms! He then gets into some laborious work for transforming the
Maxwell equations such that they retain form in passing between
inertial frames. In other words, the original Lorentz transforms are
based on Galilean speed compositon! This is perfectly understandable
since it was not until much later that Lorentz accepted the SR speed
transforms rules and not from Einstein but from Poincaire. So, one can
argue that the LET of "Later Day" indeed became non-ballistic. The pre
1905 LET was definitely ballistic.
dej4
contradiction? Simple, he was content to derive the transformations
that leave Maxwell's equations invariant. Had he proceeded to derive
the speed composition formulas he would have noticed the contradiction
between premise and final result.
Russell
> "Anyhow, I saw nothing at all in the sfarti paper that talks about
> this. Is that your only reference? If so, perhaps you can point
> out where in the paper (even roughly -- section x, top, bottom,
> etc.) this assertion is made, let alone proved. I didn't read it
> carefully so probably I just missed it. "
>
> Sure, the paper assumes the most general form of ballistic compositions
> of speeds as applied to light , applies the IS experiment to it and
> ends up with an error term that is unaccounted for.
Ok, I'll look again; but now your error is more clearly in
your thinking that LET is a ballistic theory.
>
> "It is not ballistic, in my understanding of that term. Quite
> the contrary -- it assumes that there is a real ether in which
> light propagates wavelike at a real speed c. "
More to the point, the gyrations that LET goes through to
make c *appear* invariant have to do with the motion of the
*observer* through the ether. It has nothing whatsoever to
do with the motion of the source, contrary to what a ballistic
theory would suppose. How could it be otherwise, since
LET has the same independence from source velocity that
SR does?
>
> This is where the misconception is: LET uses Galilean speed composition
> for MMX, ends up with an unexpected result and cancels it out with the
> "Lorentz-FitzGerald" ad-hoc contraction. To prove this scientifically I
> am going to quote directly from Lorentz's paper: "Electromagnetic
> Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity less than that of
> Light". In deducing his famous Lorentz transforms Lorentz writes (get
> that!) immediately after the Maxwell equations labelled (2):
>
> "I shall now suppose that the system as a whole moves in the direction
> of x with a constant velocity v, and I shall denote by u any velocity
> which a point of an electron may have in addition to this, so that
>
> vx=v+ux, vy=uy, vz=uz"
>
> So, in deriving his famous transforms, Lorentz used Galilean speed
> transforms!
I question your term "deriving", but that's another matter.
The passage you are quoting is irrelevant because Lorentz
is writing here about the velocity of an *electron*, not the
velocity of light. He never assumes that the true velocity of
light is anything but c in the ether.
By "ballistic theory" I mean ballistic theory of *light*.
He then gets into some laborious work for transforming the
> Maxwell equations such that they retain form in passing between
> inertial frames. In other words, the original Lorentz transforms are
> based on Galilean speed compositon! This is perfectly understandable
> since it was not until much later that Lorentz accepted the SR speed
> transforms rules and not from Einstein but from Poincaire. So, one can
So, if Lorentz didn't recognize all of the consequences of his
own theory in 1904, how does that make it a "misconception"
if we *do* recognize them now?
> argue that the LET of "Later Day" indeed became non-ballistic. The pre
> 1905 LET was definitely ballistic.
I suppose I see in what sense you mean that; but it's *not* the
sense in which the analysis of Zhang and others (referenced in
Sfarti's paper) is made.
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: You have not been able to think outside of your playpen. You
are mentally confined and don't know it.
Let go of your mama's apron strings.
rot...@gmail.com
>ballistic theories. "
>
>This ranks on Dick Van Mortel list of Immortal Fumbles.
Where?
The rest of your post: You have not 'quoted' my text in respect to
yours. Are you copy/pasting my stuff now?
Brecher document: How was the distance of the stars
calculated/measured? twls?
I will read it to find out, but do you know how it was measured?
And no, I am not a LET. I am learning both (SR and Ethers). To now,
both theories hold and are (mostly) identical empirically-wise and
theoretically-wise.
rot...@gmail.com
>you read the whole thread?Looks like AAF got skewered for being a crook
>and he's trying to get back by smearing in the forum.
No I do not take it as truth. But I saw Sfarti's stuff elsewhere which
led me to think that he copy/pastes. Since another (AAF) has
noticed/commented that fact, that lends support of my conclusion of his
copy/pasting. That does not mean that he does copy/paste. It just meas
that, to me, it *seems* that he is.
>And you saw the articles before, by other authors? Interesting?
I also saw other articles almost Identical to his, same wordings,
sentences.
dej4
I read the whole thread you sent me, looks like AAF got skewered for a
shitty paper and tried to get back by making some wild accusations.
Absent being able to comment on the paper you elect to smear the
author. Very valuable contribution.
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
Strong argument so far as predicting no deflection goes.
However, this explanation opens up a whole new can of
worms. You state, "As the wind blows sideways through
the tube, some of the light will be blown into the walls."
If this were so, then the faster the tube travels through
the aether, the more light gets blown into the leeward wall.
If the wind blows hard enough (i.e. the tube moves fast
enough), the windward wall will be very dimly illuminated,
and not much light will exit the ends, since the leeward
wall would intercept practically all of the light.
Something seems wrong here. :-(
Jerry
dej4
both theories hold and are (mostly) identical empirically-wise and
theoretically-wise."
Both theories hold? Get a life, you are a crank. You haven't heard that
LET was finished about one hundred years ago. Have you heard about the
Trouton-Rankine experiment? No?
Try educating yourself:
http://www.phys.ucl.ac.uk/department/history/BFox1.html#Fox140
rot...@gmail.com
>shitty paper and tried to get back by making some wild accusations
Yes, in that thread it looks like both Sfarti and AAF are playing the
crying game.
>Absent being able to comment on the paper you elect to smear the
>author.
No, I do not smear him. I am stating that *I* would not trust his
stuff.
Here is another:his "superluminal physics" article is strangely similar
to wolfram's "group velocity" definition/article. Maybe Sfarti wrote
wolfram's page ?
>>"miraculous"? Is not LF contraction predicted by Maxwell's equations?
>>Has it not been shown that in order to maintain 'equilibrium', the EM "
>
>This one is also good for the Immortal Fumbles!
If it is, I am sure he will include those two question in his immortal
fumble page.
Btw, they are not rhetorical questions...They are questions that I
would like answerd/commented by you.
---
If you want to be sure, then always doubt. }:-)
dej4
is writing here about the velocity of an *electron*, not the
velocity of light. He never assumes that the true velocity of
light is anything but c in the ether. "
Excuse me? The speed composition law is a law independent of what
particles or bodies it refers to. Let me repeat, in his first
explanations of MMX he used "c+v" as in Galilean composition (why would
light speed follow different rules than the electron speed?)
dej4
would like answerd/commented by you"
I answered them elswhere in this thread, just find them. The short
answer is that LF contraction is not predicted in any way by the
Maxwell equations.
Russell
No, again you misunderstand my point. Lorentz did not
consider light to be particles or bodies; to him it was
a wave propagating in the ether. So again I say this is
irrelevant.
The v in c+v refers to the velocity of the *observer*.
That is, of the Michelson interferometer. Not the
source.
rot...@gmail.com
>any way by the Maxwell equations.
Wikipidea: Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis
Get a hold of Heavisides pubs and Lorentz.
R.A Sorensen, "Lorentz contraction: A real change of shape",
Am.J.Phys. 63, 413(1995)
And many more...
rot...@gmail.com
>LET was finished
I am not specifically refering to LET. I am refering to modern ether
theories. LET had a few 'issues'...
>Have you heard about the Trouton-Rankine experiment? No?
Yes. I am not aware of any (modern) ether theories contradicting it.
Just to be fair, I am not aware of any modern ether theories predictict
it either...If you have any refs showing what ether predicts for such
experiments, do tell me, I would be interested in it.
Androcles
<xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1138240866....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
This can settle the matter at the stroke of midnight (or 10 a.m., even)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
Let me know when it has been done.
Androcles.
dej4
since 1905...
burried by Trouton definitevely in 1908.
Are you referring to the modern GR (not SR) theories that use a very
liberal term of "aether" to denote the scalar or vector field added to
the tensor metric? This is not "aether" at all , it is a
totallydifferent thing.
dej4
cranks, closet LET, etc.
dej4
How could the electron follow the Galilean speed transformation while
the photon didn't? Until the 1905 paper there was no second postulate.
I give up.
dej4
"explain" them to you:
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Russell,
>
>How could the electron follow the Galilean speed transformation while
>the photon didn't?
What photon? At the time you're talking about the concept of photon
didn't exist.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Androcles
<mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:OtZBf.19$25....@news.uchicago.edu...
Yes it did. Newton called them corpuscles of light.
Androcles
"When you argue with a fool, you are arguing with a fool."
dej4
Newton had already come up with the notion of light as particle. At
issue is whether Lorentz applied a different set of speed addition
rules to light, a set different from all the other particles. That is,
prior to 1905, how dit Lorentz explain MMX?
We know that LET passed through many phases, Lorentz continue to tinker
with it until about 1915 when he finally gave up. By that time, Lorentz
had incorporated all of SR fundamentals bar one: he maintained that the
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction was "objective", i.e. it could be
detected by experiment within the frame of reference absent the
relative motion (that is different from the length contraction outlined
by Einstein which is also called Lorentz contraction, just to make
things more confusing). Looks like Lorentz started to give up on his
theory as a combination of factors prevailed:
-Einstein's theory was more ellegant
-Lorentz's theory required additional assumptions with each experiment
(see Trouton-Noble)
-the Trouton-Rankine experiment had eluded any "ad-hoc" addition (to my
best knowledge there is no LET attempt to explain it)
dej4
opposition to what you are saying:
"The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction effect was deduced FROM Maxwell's
equations by Lorentz for bodies whose atoms are held together by
electromagnetic forces, and he proposed that this should be valid for
all bodies and particles ("Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving
with any velocity less than that of light", 1904). Albert Einstein
derived it, apparently for all bodies regardless of their composition,
by insisting that the Principle of relativity apply rigourously to
electro-dynamic effects ("Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"/"On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" 1905). According to him, early
explanation attempts including the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction
hypothesis had been "ad-hoc".
dej4
continue to work on LET. They get futher bolster from the unfortunate
choice of naming the scalar/vector fields added to the GR metric as
"aether".
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Let's not split hairs, yes the term photon was introduced in 1926
No, not that late. 1905, by Einstein.
> but Newton had already come up with the notion of light as particle.
While Huygens cam with the notion of light as a wave. And it remained
open for nearly 2 centuries, when the work of Young and Fresnel
appeared to settle it, definitively, for wave and against particle.
And that's what Lorentz had to work with.
June R Harton
"Martin Kowatsch" <MKow...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:1138129440....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin, if SR is correct then there is a block universe with all of the past
and future preexisting and you had nothing to do with creating your own
theory
as you were acting out your preordained theatrical part.
Now if you really undrstand the above that should prompt you to look for the
ERROR in the BASICS of SR!
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
Harry
"dej4" <clu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138212057.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> -" Funny fact 1: 1905 SRT also uses "c-v" in the derivation of the LT,
> it
> yields the "miraculous" Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, but it's not a
> ballistic theory. "
>
> Yes, it uses "c-v" and "c+v" but it refers to TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS :
> the light front and the receding mirror.
>
> http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/29/Debunking_SagnacandMM_1.pdf
Good, we're making progress: this means that you now hopefuly understand
that your claim "LET is iin effect a ballistic theory, it uses "c+v" and
"c-v" in MMX" is baseless (and hopelessly erroneous, by the way).
> "Funny fact 2: You confused the to second order approximated
> predictions
> from the Lorentz transformations with the exact ones."
>
> Not really, this is somewhat newer material proving it:
>
> http://www.wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti15.pdf
"Zhang showed that these experimental limits essentially require that any
theory based upon the existence of an ether be experimentally
indistinguishable from STR"
That's correct I'd say. But what most people here call "LET" is the theory
(physics+metaphysics) that Kennedy and Thorndike as well as Ives and
Stillwell tested for.
Sfarti did not include it, perhaps because interpretations don't affect a
theory's predictions.
Cheers,
Harald
Harry
"Russell" <rus...@mdli.com> wrote in message
news:1138238192....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Harry wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > - Do I understand well that you expected a violation of conservation of
> > momentum in case of an "ether drift"? Why? Contrary to your claims, in
> > classical physics, the outgoing light path inside the laser determines
the
> > angle in any frame; the light is not expected to change direction at the
> > laser exit.
>
> Harald, my hat's off to you. I only just got around to reading
> this post of yours, and I see that you preceded me in your
> correct analysis of the OP's error. And, you presented it
> with far better economy.
Thanks! :-)
But I must admit to the main reason for that efficiency: a few years ago I
made the same thinking error as the OP...
Harry
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dr8j3o$45h$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Martin Kowatsch" <MKow...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:1138129440....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
> > experiments, all based on interferometric methods. All of these
> > experiments measure the ratio between earth velocity around the sun and
> > the speed of light (v_earth/c) in its quadratic term (v_earth/c)2. The
> > most famous set-up is the Michelson/Morley experiment that shows the
> > well known 'zero-result' as predicted by STR.
> >
> > I did an experiment which measures the ratio v_earth/c in it's first
> > order term.
> > Test result is the same as for the Michelson/Morley experiment, namley
> > the 'zero-result'.
> > Therfore this experiment confirm the Michelson/Morley result.
>
> Congratulations on an interesting and innovative amateur
> physics experiment. As I am sure you know, there have been
> many experiments confirming the validity of SR to a much better
> accuracy than yours, so your result was not much of a surprise.
>
> On the other hand your experiment is very simple in concept
> and looks for a first order effect. In some ways it is similar to
> the experiment by Hafele and Keating using atomic clocks.
> This was not by any means the most accurate experiment on
> time dilation but the basic concept was very easy to understand
> (although complicated by the Earth's rotation).
>
> > Some physicst argue that there might be a compensation effect at the
> > Michelson/Morley set-up that avoid to measure the ratio v_earth/c. Due
> > to this new set-up it's clear that such a compensation effect is not
> > available and the so called ether drift due to earth orbital motion
> > around the sun is not existing.
> >
> > Please find more details at:
> > http://www.mkowatsch.homepage.t-online.de/_sgt/f10000.htm
>
> I wonder how long it will be before one of the crackpots notices
> the small variation in velocity with angle measured by your
> experiment, without noting that this is well within the error bars?
>
> Martin Hogbin
It would be useful if he indicates more precisely what the error bars are
composed of, as well as the most likely source of that apparently non-random
signal: for example a temperature gradient (but he should be able to
quantify it of course).
Harald
Harry
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:b20Cf.4019$ur7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Martin Kowatsch" <MKow...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:1138129440....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martin, if SR is correct then there is a block universe with all of the
past
> and future preexisting and you had nothing to do with creating your own
> theory
> as you were acting out your preordained theatrical part.
>
> Now if you really undrstand the above that should prompt you to look for
the
> ERROR in the BASICS of SR!
What error? SR is based on observations...
Harald
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"dej4" <clu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138252743....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Modern ether theories? What are you talking
> about?
Ilja's work is quite recent.
(GLET, see gr-qc/0205035)
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:b20Cf.4019$ur7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Martin Kowatsch" <MKow...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:1138129440....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martin, if SR is correct then there is a block
> universe with all of the past and future
> preexisting and you had nothing to do with
> creating your own theory as you were acting
> out your preordained theatrical part.
>
> Now if you really undrstand the above that
> should prompt you to look for the ERROR in
> the BASICS of SR!
Which "prompting" and subsequent action (if any) is also part of
the "block Universe"? Preordination doesn't lay in Relativity's
hands. It only describes a fall to a "central singularity".
David A. Smith
clu...@yahoo.com
theory
(physics+metaphysics) that Kennedy and Thorndike as well as Ives and
Stillwell tested for.
Sfarti did not include it, perhaps because interpretations don't affect
a
theory's predictions."
Ah yes, the stuff that others picked up after Lorentz has long given
up.
Also the suff that cranks keep working on in the hope that maybe, one
day , they'll prove Einstein wrong.
And the way this is done is by incorporating all the SR into the
"modern LET". Of course it is indistinguishable from SR! What do you
expect? Let me give you some examples of such cranks:
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_9/wisp_ch_9.html
http://www.aethertheory.co.uk/
What I call LET is what Lorentz kept on working up until about 1915
when he gracefully gave up. If you want to study crank theory, be my
guest(s)
clu...@yahoo.com
same thread , these are the modern GR extensions from Brans-Dicke on
where the term "aether" is a very unfortunate choice. It just bolsters
the cranks' claim that "aether is not dead"
clu...@yahoo.com
LET, I have nothing more to say. I was just trying to bring out some
interesting facts about LET....You can take them or you can argue the
terminology
rot...@gmail.com
Not quite.
Modern ether as in Prefered frame theories, unfortunately refered as
'ether' but has nothing to do with the classical 'ponderable media
ether'. Prefered frame theories 'ether' is just a coordinate sysmtem in
which the speed of light is isotropic and Galilean transformations
apply.
SR *can* use a prefered frame theory and *does* use 'Galilean algebra'.
These Preferred frame theories are, for all practical purposes,
identical to SR and theoritically identical in most cases. This is well
know amongst 'better' relativist. You must know of the site:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
See section 3.2.
dej4
'ether' but has nothing to do with the classical 'ponderable media
ether'. Prefered frame theories 'ether' is just a coordinate sysmtem in
which the speed of light is isotropic and Galilean transformations
apply. "
You mean test theories a la Robertson Mansouri and Sexl? Can you try to
write in an understanble way?
"This is well
know amongst 'better' relativist."
Spare me your arrogance. You are quite transparent . You are not a
better realtivist, get off your high horse.
dej4
have read the paper I sent you on the Ives-Stilwell , understood it,
commented on its CONTENT.
Instead of that you resorted to mud slinging and character defamation.
Have you written anything of value? Have you published anything that
you'd care to share with us?
rot...@gmail.com
They are interesting but there are much better ones out there.
>Spare me your arrogance. You are quite transparent . You are not a
>better realtivist, get off your high horse.
You are wrong again. I never said that I was a better relativist.
I said 'better relativist' know 'it'; I know 'it'; that does not mean
that I am a better relativist. You cant even grasp basic boolean logic.
This thread is useless to me now...
Harry
> Good, we're making progress: this means that you now hopefuly understand
> that your claim "LET is iin effect a ballistic theory, it uses "c+v" and
> "c-v" in MMX" is baseless (and hopelessly erroneous, by the way).
No comment but snipped -> you do understand it then?
<clu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138287134.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "That's correct I'd say. But what most people here call "LET" is the
> theory
> (physics+metaphysics) that Kennedy and Thorndike as well as Ives and
> Stillwell tested for.
> Sfarti did not include it, perhaps because interpretations don't affect
> a theory's predictions."
>
> Ah yes, the stuff that others picked up after Lorentz has long given
> up.
Who told you that fable?
> Also the suff that cranks keep working on in the hope that maybe, one
> day , they'll prove Einstein wrong.
About what?
> And the way this is done is by incorporating all the SR into the
> "modern LET". Of course it is indistinguishable from SR! What do you
> expect? Let me give you some examples of such cranks:
>
> http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_9/wisp_ch_9.html
I've already seen it, that's someone's own theory.
> http://www.aethertheory.co.uk/
Again another one, and the title is nonsense...
> What I call LET is what Lorentz kept on working up until about 1915
> when he gracefully gave up. If you want to study crank theory, be my
> guest(s)
Lorentz and Einstein taught SRT. But if you want to make a case for another
theory that Lorentz gave up on, go ahead: I like to see it.
Harald
dej4
About the fact that "aether" exists after all. Stop playing coy, I know
your style by now.
As to Lorentz's capitulation, it is only unknown to awowed "etherists"
like you who are in perpetual denial.
dej4
Really? According to Zhang this is the end of the line for test
theories. All others can be reduced to RMS. You would have known if you
read Zhang's book. You would have learned something interesting about
the way of using IS in order to disprove such theories.
So get off your high horse.
rot...@gmail.com
claims.
The first sentence "The Lorentz-....- forces" is correct. The 'propose'
part means that (at that time) it was not shown for *all* matter.
Einsteins, using his own theory showed that it was the case, but that
is besided our point. So, where does it 'directly' say that Maxwell's
eqs do not imply LC for moving bodies?
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
LET, just correcting a technical point. The point being that for
Lorentz (or, should I say, "within the framework of science Lorentz
worked with") light had no particlehood attribute, thus there was no
inconsistency in its velocity transforming in a manner different from
this of particles. Oviously, for any later attempt to revive LET
this is an issue which needs to be addressed. No contradiction
between the two.
This is not so much a science as science history point. Obviously a
theory may be modified or invalidated by subsequent findings, but we
cannot blame the author of a theory for not taking into account
subsequent findings.
dej4
-get the invariance of Maxwell equations
-explain the result of the MM experiment in the context of Galilean
transforms
The wiki gets things part right part wrong, why don't you simply look
up the Lorentz 1904 paper so you can stop saying nonsensical things.
The math is quite clear.
Looks like you are wasting my time, why don't you answer the more
intersting questions about the more modern (post RMS) SR test theories
that you alluded to but you never produced any proof of existence? What
about any of your publications? Have you ever published anything of
consequence? Refereed?
Peter
<MKow...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>The isotropy of the speed of light as a basic axiom of the special
>theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
>experiments, all based on interferometric methods.
>
isotropic to a very high degree and your experiment is certainly a
novel and interesting further confirmation of this.
However an axiom is an idealisation. It is reasonable to expect
idealisations to be true to a degree, but I think not reasonable to
expect them to be perfectly true.
As Einstein said,
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality."
Regards,
Peter
dej4
The question still remains: do you think that Lorenz believed that
light speed composits according to Galilean rules or that he had
already grasped the second SR postulate in his 1904 paper? I think that
this is key to the whole topic (is the starting point of the thread).
This is the question I keep trying to get an answer from this thread.
We have worked together before, I trust your thinking.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
I see no evidence that Lorentz was nearing the second postulate at
that stage. His work was an attempt to somehow both keep both
Galilean relativity and Maxwell's equations. He was not alone, these
attempts were at the center of physics pretty much from the time
Maxwell came with his equations.
Having said that, I'll bow out of this thread. My intention was never
more than to comment on a technical point.
dej4
So for all we know he would have used c'=c+v
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Thank you, Mati.
>So for all we know he would have used c'=c+v
>
Yes, I think so.
dej4
Martin Kowatsch
shifts on the CCD chip at
each measurement point. I measure the beam shift on CCD chip every
45° rotation of the set-up.
I collect 26 set of samples within 5 days. Then I calculate mean value
and standard deviation. The blue line connects the 8 (8 x 45° = 360°)
mean values within a full rotation of the set-up. The error bars show
the standard deviation.
Best regards, Martin Kowatsch
Russell
> Russell wrote:
> > Jerry wrote:
>
> > > Do you have any answer to my question about LET versus SR?
> > > It's been stated many times that LET and SR are experimentally
> > > indistinguishable, but quite frankly, I don't see LET giving a null
> > > result here. Where am I going wrong?
> >
> > Actually, I believe the O.P. makes a mistake in his analysis;
> > there is no way that his experiment would detect even a conventional
> > ether wind.
> >
> > His mistake is to assume that the ether wind does not blow
> > through his laser diode itself; but this is an incorrect assumption
> > both for Lorentz ether and for the classical Michelson ether.
> >
> > Basically, this is an aberration experiment, and in a non-draggged
> > ether model, aberration depends only on the relative motion of the
> > source and detector, which in this experiment is zero.
> >
> > You can see why this must be so if you forget the details of the
> > laser and imagine that it is a collimating tube with a point source
> > of light at one end. As the wind blows sideways through the
> > tube, some of the light will be blown into the walls, and what
> > manages to get out is only the part that goes straight out of
> > the tube -- hence the tube must be pointing straight at the
> > detector.
> >
> > When you rotate the tube 180 degrees, the wind is blowing the
> > other way, but the tube is *still* pointed straight at the detector
> > and only the light going on that straight line gets through. This
> > is light that is moving slightly against the wind up the tube in
> > such a way that it will continue slightly against the wind along
> > the same line, after it exits the tube. In other words, directly
> > along the line that the tube is pointing. So the detector still gets
> > hit in exactly the same place, the place that the tube is pointing.
> > Yes, the light that gets through is coming from a slightly different
> > angle from the point source, but the experiment can't tell this;
> > the laser is a black box and we only see what comes out the
> > tube.
>
> Strong argument so far as predicting no deflection goes.
> However, this explanation opens up a whole new can of
> worms. You state, "As the wind blows sideways through
> the tube, some of the light will be blown into the walls."
> If this were so, then the faster the tube travels through
> the aether, the more light gets blown into the leeward wall.
No, it just means that the light that *does* get out
has to come from more and more of an angle from the
point source. Since the point source sends light out
equally in all directions, that's no problem. Intensity
stays the same, at least to first order.
> If the wind blows hard enough (i.e. the tube moves fast
> enough), the windward wall will be very dimly illuminated,
> and not much light will exit the ends, since the leeward
> wall would intercept practically all of the light.
Well, yes there would be a problem if the wind were
faster than the speed of light in the ether. But we know
that's not the case here, since we *do* see the beam.
>
> Something seems wrong here. :-(
I think it's pretty easy to get confused about aberration. Even
some heavies here (Martin Hogbin) seem not to have noticed
the fundamental flaw in this experiment.
>
> Jerry
rot...@gmail.com
I checked out Kowatsch's experiment. Indeed, prefered frame theories
(and SR) predict no deviation of the laser beam. The light source beams
'at an angle' already, always hitting the opposite side directly 'in
front' (point B in diagram).
Or just imagine an omnidirectionnal source; a part of the beam wave
will hit the oposite side and come back to its initial point A. There
are numerous threads about such 'abberation' effects.
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > Strong argument so far as predicting no deflection goes.
> > However, this explanation opens up a whole new can of
> > worms. You state, "As the wind blows sideways through
> > the tube, some of the light will be blown into the walls."
> > If this were so, then the faster the tube travels through
> > the aether, the more light gets blown into the leeward wall.
>
> No, it just means that the light that *does* get out
> has to come from more and more of an angle from the
> point source. Since the point source sends light out
> equally in all directions, that's no problem. Intensity
> stays the same, at least to first order.
I would have to disagree. Imagine a point source of light
shining equally in all directions, illuminating a pinhole
screen such that a beam exits the pinhole at right angles
to the aether flow. If phi is the original "latitude" angle
of light from the point source now being redirected through
the pinhole, then the intensity I of light going through
the pinhole compared with the original intensity I_o should
follow a cosine relationship
I = I_o cos(phi)
The faster the aether wind blows, the greater phi would
be, and the dimmer the light which gets through the pinhole.
So I still don't see how LET and SR could be predicting the
same thing.
Jerry
Russell
I believe you are right, for a classical ether. But not for
a Lorentz ether. For the classical ether, in principle, an
intensity measurement could detect the wind as you say.
But it would not be a first order effect at low velocity, and
AFAICS it would not be practical to measure.
> So I still don't see how LET and SR could be predicting the
> same thing.
But they must; the mathematics is the same. Remember,
the Lorentz transforms predict that a point source will send
out a perfectly spherical wave front at speed c, as measured
in all frames (though LET would "explain" this by saying that
only in the ether frame is it "really" a sphere and the speed
"really" c). Thus it's plain, the Lorentz ether does *not* blow
the apparent sphere downwind, for that would mean the sphere
doesn't remain centered at the source as it expands, contrary
to what I just said. In other words, your whole premise that
the Lorentz wind blows the (apparent) beam sideways is false.
And of course, our instruments in the source frame measure
the "apparent" intensity (not the ether-frame intensity) because
they are themselves altered by length contraction and time
dilation. No, I'm not going to work out the Lorentzian treatment
of a CCD for you in detail! ;-)
>
> Jerry
Russell
[regarding intensity measurements in the lab]
> And of course, our instruments in the source frame measure
> the "apparent" intensity (not the ether-frame intensity)
On second thought, I was wrong to imply that these numerical
values would differ. The whole point, in fact, is that the Lorentz
ether magic makes our measurements come out the same
regardless of frame.
Of course LET predicts (as does SR) that intensity will vary
according to angle if the detector and source are not in the
same frame. But that's not the case here.
Hexenmeister
Androcles
"Russell" <rus...@mdli.com> wrote in message
news:1138346363.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jerry
Oh, I'm sure it's false. I just can't VISUALIZE it. %-(
> And of course, our instruments in the source frame measure
> the "apparent" intensity (not the ether-frame intensity) because
> they are themselves altered by length contraction and time
> dilation. No, I'm not going to work out the Lorentzian treatment
> of a CCD for you in detail! ;-)
That's what I need, though. If my intuitive sense of how a
theory works is wrong, then I have to start with and understand
the mathematics, gradually working it out and convincing
myself of its correctness. Hopefully, intuition follows next.
Of course, maybe I should take the attitude of, "why bother
to justify LET?"
Jerry
Harry
"dej4" <clu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138292918....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
"> Also the suff that cranks keep working on in the hope that maybe, one
> day , they'll prove Einstein wrong."
> "About what? "
>
> About the fact that "aether" exists after all. Stop playing coy, I know
> your style by now.
Well, that's another mistake of you, and a double one at that, there is no
need for such. But I won't waste my time on explaining it to you.
> As to Lorentz's capitulation, it is only unknown to awowed "etherists"
> like you who are in perpetual denial.
I also know your style by now: you ask questions but next you refuse to
listen to anything else but the ear-kittling words of "anti-etherists" like
you.
Harald
Harry
"Martin Kowatsch" <MKow...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:1138307634.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Best regards, Martin Kowatsch
IOW, the error bars do not include estimated systematic errors such as
temperature gradients. Thanks for the precision!
Best regards,
Harald
rot...@gmail.com
>follow a cosine relationship I = I_o cos(phi)
That part is correct but the "screen" is Lorentz-contracted, making a
smaller surface arera where this intensity 'hits'. This compensates
(partly?) the effect and the measured intensity will remain I . Now,
just to verify the math to make sure it compensates by the corect
amount .
Jerry
The problem doesn't go away so easily. Suppose the source
is not spherically symmetric. For example, place an opaque
shield immediately above the source, as seen in the following
bit of ascii art. The pinhole is to the right.
___ |
* |
At some critical velocity, the light exiting the pinhole will be
cut off.
Jerry
rot...@gmail.com
setup. Nevertheless, all those variants, when corrently analyzed, would
work out, should work out... we must check out the 'math' to make sure.
Russell
I appreciate that -- I find it hard too -- but I think maybe the key
is to realize that there is nothing to visualize. The Lorentz
ether is not a normal medium that carries waves along with
its motion ("blows waves downwind"). Rather, Lorentz cooked
it up ad hoc for the express purpose of keeping c isotropic
and invariant -- in other words, with the express property that it
does *not* blow waves downwind in any detectable way. It's
even misleading to call it a wind, since that connotes something
with effects that differ upwind vs. downwind, whereas Lorentz
ether's supposed effect on matter and fields is not asymmetric
in that way -- it's merely a contraction, equal in both directions.
In other words, I think Joe Fischer was right -- you're trying
imbue the Lorentz ether with properties that real mediums
have, but that's doomed to failure because it's not a real
medium.
>
> > And of course, our instruments in the source frame measure
> > the "apparent" intensity (not the ether-frame intensity) because
> > they are themselves altered by length contraction and time
> > dilation. No, I'm not going to work out the Lorentzian treatment
> > of a CCD for you in detail! ;-)
>
> That's what I need, though. If my intuitive sense of how a
> theory works is wrong, then I have to start with and understand
> the mathematics, gradually working it out and convincing
> myself of its correctness. Hopefully, intuition follows next.
Yes, well, it can be nice to see how it all works out in the
mathematics.
I think you can visualize what our point source will look
like in the ether frame. If you've ever paddled a canoe and
watched drips falling off the paddle into the water, you
know the shape that gets produced: a sequence of
expanding rings with the smaller ones at the front, so
that they all fit into a V shape. That's what our wave
fronts will look like (except, in 3D, the V will be a cone).
Now, it takes some hard work to train yourself to see that
this cone is a sequence of exactly concentric spheres in
the moving frame. Obviously in our canoe analogy, it's not --
the canoeist sees a V just as much as the person on shore
does. But water is a real medium; Lorentz ether is something
else. The key is to realize that Lorentz ether causes relativity
of simultaneity as a side effect of its two properties; and
personally I find relativity of simultaneity very hard to visualize.
I can see where it comes from (differences in time dilation for
slowly transported clocks) but to do that with enough clocks
to define a sphere, well, *that* is a little too much for me to
see all at once. So I end up trusting the math.
>
> Of course, maybe I should take the attitude of, "why bother
> to justify LET?"
Personally, I do take that attitude. I only get involved in these
discussions when someone wrongly claims that some
experiment or other should detect the ether.
>
> Jerry
sal
I don't think so. The shield should make no difference.
Once the light leaves the source, it travels in a straight line at
constant velocity. This may be confusing your intuition; when we see
something deflected by a physical (air) wind we always see it follow a
curved path. The aether wind is different, and that doesn't happen here.
Any light which hits the shield wasn't on its way to the pinhole. Any
light which travels a path which will take it from the point source to the
pinhole will certainly miss the shield.
Alternatively, perhaps you're thinking that the geometry will be
distorted by the aether wind such that the shield will lie on a straight
line between the source and the pinhole at some velocity? As far as I
know the transforms which describe any kind of aether-based effect are
linear (certainly the LET transforms are, obviously) and no linear
transformation could do that. Linear transformations take straight lines
to straight lines (e.g., a line from the point source to the pinhole, and
the shape of the shield), and things that don't intersect to start with
can't be made to intersect by operating on them with a non-singular linear
transformation (e.g., the line from the source to the hole, and the shield).
To sum up, _no_ kind of collimation could result in a beam cutoff or
visible direction shift as a result of sideways motion through the aether,
because the initial collimator selects exactly the rays that are going to
make it through all succeeding stages without being attenuated. Adding a
shield just makes the initial collimation a little more complex, it
doesn't affect the conclusion.
(Of course, I'd never have noticed this if Russell hadn't pointed it out,
way way back someplace in the thread... It is a very cool experiment none
the less.)
>
> Jerry
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
Russell
[snip]
> I appreciate that -- I find it hard too -- but I think maybe the key
> is to realize that there is nothing to visualize.
To clarify a bit, I meant specifically that there is no
*downwind-blowing* to be visualized, and moreover, no
satisfactory way to visualize why it is *not* present,
because no real medium has this behavior.
I didn't mean that visualization is pointless in general.
Jerry
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:04:40 -0800, Jerry wrote:
>
> > rot...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >I would have to disagree.
> >> ><SNIP>
> >> >follow a cosine relationship I = I_o cos(phi)
> >>
> >> That part is correct but the "screen" is Lorentz-contracted, making a
> >> smaller surface arera where this intensity 'hits'. This compensates
> >> (partly?) the effect and the measured intensity will remain I . Now,
> >> just to verify the math to make sure it compensates by the corect amount
> >> .
> >
> > The problem doesn't go away so easily. Suppose the source is not
> > spherically symmetric. For example, place an opaque shield immediately
> > above the source, as seen in the following bit of ascii art. The pinhole
> > is to the right.
> > ___ |
> > * |
> > At some critical velocity, the light exiting the pinhole will be cut off.
>
> I don't think so. The shield should make no difference.
You're right. I goofed.
I have something that shouldn't be so easy to refute, however.
Consider two coherent point sources of light fed from a single laser
(maybe through fiber optics?) and a pinhole.
* |
* |
The two sources of light set up an interference pattern. If an aether
wind blows light downwards, then the light exiting the pin hole will
experience modulation depending on what part of the interference
pattern intercepts the pin hole.
Jerry
Jerry
> Russell wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I appreciate that -- I find it hard too -- but I think maybe the key
> > is to realize that there is nothing to visualize.
>
> To clarify a bit, I meant specifically that there is no
> *downwind-blowing* to be visualized, and moreover, no
> satisfactory way to visualize why it is *not* present,
> because no real medium has this behavior.
However, if my recollection serves me properly, light going
upstream and downstream in MMX -does-, according to LET,
travel at c-v and c+v, and Lorentz's ad hoc length contraction
explains away the discrepancy between lengthwise and
crosswise travel time.
I have pretty clear visualization of this.
LET also explains away the null results in OWLS experiments,
also. I remember being wrong in a discussion of Gagnon
et al. (1988).
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/
I was arguing that their setup ought to be sensitive to LET
aethers, then worked the math and discovered that it wasn't.
My intuition had betrayed me.
> I didn't mean that visualization is pointless in general.
I knew that wasn't what you meant, thanks!
Jerry
sal
Cute! That certainly seems to work. But I think I may see an issue here. :-)
The _pattern_ isn't really "blown sideways". Instead, what happens is
that the output from each point source is "blown sideways", and the rays
which form the (new) pattern at each point, and in particular the rays
which meet at the pinhole, are rays which would have landed off to one
side without the wind. This is a subtle but important difference. Here's
why:
We are looking for a change in the pattern -- a fringe shift, really.
But what _causes_ such a fringe shift? More fundamentally, what causes
the fringes at all? It's worth reviewing this in light of the new layout.
The fringes are caused by differences in the path lengths to the
two sources at various points on the target. If the (effective) path
lengths from the two sources to the pinhole are identical, such that
the same number of wavelengths of light fit on each path, then there will
be a maximum at the pinhole. This statement has nothing to do with whether
an aether wind is blowing. So, how could we get a minimum instead of a
maximum at the pinhole?
We'll get a minimum only if the effective path lengths differ by a
half-wave. But how can the path lengths differ? They'll differ because
one of the paths goes "upwind" and the other goes "downwind"; the paths
aren't exactly parallel, since they angle in toward the hole. But the
change in path length won't be given by the sideways distance that the
signal is "blown" as it goes to the target; if L is the horizontal
distance to the target, and W is the speed of the wind, and "c" is 1,
it'll be given by something like
L - sqrt(L^2 + (W * L/c)^2) (subtract effective length from nominal)
= L - L * sqrt(1 + W^2) (if c==1)
~ -(1/2)L*W^2 (for small values of W)
Now, in English, there's an obvious problem, which is that what you're
actually measuring here is how far the downwind path must go upwind, and
how far the upwind path must go downwind, when both paths are really going
almost exactly cross-wind. In other words, you're back to measuring a
second-order effect.
But there's a worse problem. How did you get the two sources in phase to
start with? If you did it with a beam splitter of any sort, including two
fiber-optic cables, then you already had one beam going downwind and one
upwind, in the opposite configuration from what they're doing in the beams
themselves. The trek from the "sources" to the pinhole is really the
second part of the journey the light went on. So, again, we're looking at
a second order effect very much like the one Michelson and Morley were
looking for, only it's now over a very, very short path (the perpendicular
displacement due to the angle between the beams) rather than a long path
as in the original MMX experiment. So, one might guess that the fringe
shift in this case would be undetectable.
BUT this brings another possibility to mind. If "extinction" occurs, by
which I mean light inside a moving material travels at C/N relative to the
material and is "fully dragged" with the material (to use the terms I've
seen associated with aether theories), then perhaps one could set up a
first-order experiment by using a long straight tube with a mirror at one
end, and passing the _outbound_ path through a glass fiber, while the
_inbound_ path went through an evacuated tube. One might then expect the
"aether wind" to affect the return (vacuum) part of the path differently
from the outbound (glass) part of the path. If so, and if there's an
aether wind, then rotating the apparatus might show it. I wonder if this
has been done?
Russell
> Russell wrote:
> > Russell wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I appreciate that -- I find it hard too -- but I think maybe the key
> > > is to realize that there is nothing to visualize.
> >
> > To clarify a bit, I meant specifically that there is no
> > *downwind-blowing* to be visualized, and moreover, no
> > satisfactory way to visualize why it is *not* present,
> > because no real medium has this behavior.
>
> However, if my recollection serves me properly, light going
> upstream and downstream in MMX -does-, according to LET,
> travel at c-v and c+v, and Lorentz's ad hoc length contraction
> explains away the discrepancy between lengthwise and
> crosswise travel time.
Well, that gets us back into the morass of "what is LET".
The c-v and c+v assume you are using the ether-frame's
time coordinate, but that is *not* what the clocks in your
frame will be measuring, so you'll never observe those
speeds. Lorentz might not have been aware of this when
he did his first analysis (I'm no history expert) but eventually
he did of course have time dilation in his theory and knew
what it meant regarding the measurement of light speed.
Nowadays we would say these are closing speeds in the
hypothetical preferred frame; this is all you really need to
say in order to do the analysis that Lorentz did. We don't
have to think of them as actual velocities in the moving
frame. (And they are certainly not *measured* velocities.)
>
> I have pretty clear visualization of this.
>
> LET also explains away the null results in OWLS experiments,
> also. I remember being wrong in a discussion of Gagnon
> et al. (1988).
> http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/
> I was arguing that their setup ought to be sensitive to LET
> aethers, then worked the math and discovered that it wasn't.
> My intuition had betrayed me.
Ah yes, I remember it well. Another laudable but subtly
wrong (that is, wrongly interpreted) experiment.