Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
Sean2008
experiments might constitute the "cornerstone" experiments that
confirm Special Relativity? Or are there a set of such experiments?
In studying the results of various experiments there are, obviously,
many that repeat experimental designs, the only purpose of which is to
improve the accuracy of measurement. For my own education, I would be
interested in what set of experiments might be considered fundamental
and if that set was fairly small.
Hopefully, my question has not displayed too much ignorance regarding
the experimental evidence. This may, perhaps, be one of those
questions that is intrinsically unanswerable but I am too ignorant to
know!
Thanks for any input you all might give me.
Dono
Eric Gisse
www.google.com experimental basis of relativity
Androcles
"Sean2008" <mac.of...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bf18df8-6216-40e5...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> What is the consensus of opinion in this discussion group about what
> experiments might constitute the "cornerstone" experiments that
> confirm Special Relativity?
Confirm this, never mind any consensus:
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same.
________________________________________________________
Other answers have been:
According to Ian Parker:
"We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory." -- Idiot Ian Parker.
______________________________________________________
According to cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
"Easy: he did NOT say that."
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
______________________________________________________
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
______________________________________________________
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
______________________________________________________
According to Spirit of Truth:
that math is correct but WRONG
______________________________________________________
According to constipated Eric Gisse
"I don't give a shit (fill in the blank ____________)."
______________________________________________________
According to insane Einstein dingleberry Dave Burr
"No, that's utterly wrong."
According to the insane Dave Burr, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
______________________________________________________
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Sean2008
have the second. I was actually wondering if the second link could be
narrowed to a smaller set of experiments. Your first link seems to do
that nicely, actually.
Eric Gisse: I actually had "googled" that phrase prior to your
suggestion and, of course, got the bewildering array of hits. I was
curious if anyone here could narrow the list with some judicious
opinions.
Androcles: I am not certain what to do with your link. I think I am
meant to answer something for you but I am not entirely sure what. I
am reading everyone's comments throughout this site and trying to
learn so I am not qualified to offer an opinion on Relativity, one way
or the other, if that is what you are requesting of me. I have only a
basic, undergraduate's comprehension of physics and I'm afraid I
cannot offer a substantive contribution. But I do appreciate the
invitation.
Thanks for your responses, folks. I didn't expect a reply to my post
quite so soon.
Dono
> Dono: Thanks for those links. I didn't have the first one but I did
> have the second. I was actually wondering if the second link could be
> narrowed to a smaller set of experiments. Your first link seems to do
> that nicely, actually.
Yes, this is why I listed it first, I understood that you wanted the
canonical set of tests.
You can ignore Androcles.
Tom Roberts
[Asking for a "consensus" is silly -- science is not
determined by voting! The contributors to this newsgroup
are so varied in knowledge and experience that no "consensus"
is possible. But no matter, you really want the opinions of
knowledgeable people, not of crackpots and idiots.]
It can be difficult for a neophyte to distinguish cranks
from knowledgeable people. The best way I know is that the
latter often cite good textbooks, and the former do not. For
SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
There are several hundred experiments that test SR. See the FAQ page I
maintain at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
I would not call any of these experiments truly definitive or
fundamental, because several experiments are needed. As is well known,
there are numerous theories that can explain any single experiment --
but a valid theory must not be refuted by ANY experiment, and that's
much more difficult. SR stands un-refuted, within its domain of
applicability (see the above link for what that means). Indeed, only
theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR remain
un-refuted (see that link for a discussion of this, too).
The following 3 experiments can be used to determine the coefficients of
the Lorentz transform to an accuracy of about 1 part per thousand:
Michelson and Morley
Kennedy and Thorndike
Ives and Stillwell
Modern repetitions of them improve the accuracy to a few parts per
million (references in the above link). There are probably other sets of
experiments that could do this, but this is the set I know of (this is
discussed in Zhang's book, referenced in that link).
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
> Dono: Thanks for those links. I didn't have the first one but I did
> have the second. I was actually wondering if the second link could be
> narrowed to a smaller set of experiments. Your first link seems to do
> that nicely, actually.
>
> Eric Gisse: I actually had "googled" that phrase prior to your
> suggestion and, of course, got the bewildering array of hits. I was
> curious if anyone here could narrow the list with some judicious
> opinions.
First link...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Sean2008
Tom Roberts: Thank you very much. It looks like I have a considerable
amount of reading to do. (One never really does get done with
homework,even when school was a long time ago, does one? Ah well.)
I'll order those two textbooks and pore through your website. I don't
suppose you know of a single source somewhere (library, university, or
something along those lines) that has this collection of the actual
documents of the experiments? (I would guess that is next to
impossible given the wide array of sources but I thought I'd ask...)
Oh, by the way, poor choice of words on my part. I didn't quite mean
to imply science was subject to a vote.
Eric Gisse: Thanks to you, too, for the same reasons. Looks like an
extensive collection of references.
I am curious about this website, since I have just joined. Is this the
best place to discuss ideas pertaining to Relativity? What I mean is,
I notice there are a great deal of ad hominem comments among
proponents of different opinions. I am interested in learning by
asking questions and discussing ideas in this area but I don't have a
lot of interest in wading through such various comments. Are there
sites where the subject is discussed in a less vitriolic way? Or at
least treated a bit more academically? I know... I am probably asking
for the impossible, given the nature of public websites but...
again... I just thought I'd ask.
Thanks once again to all of you.
Dono
> Are there
> sites where the subject is discussed in a less vitriolic way? Or at
> least treated a bit more academically? I know... I am probably asking
> for the impossible, given the nature of public websites but...
> again... I just thought I'd ask.
>
> Thanks once again to all of you.
Here: http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70
But it is less fun than this forum. Plus, it is weaker on the
experimental part.
Androcles
Opinions are not required, they are like arseholes; everybody has one
and they all stink. Proof is another matter entirely; you can forget about
confirming SR, it was a heap of opinionated and useless bullshit to
begin with and has been for 103 years. Either produce a rigid
mathematical proof or go away, but spare me opinions and silly
assumptions upon which the crank theory is based.
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
Honest Roberts special relativity is refuted by the Michelson-Morley
experiment alone:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
John Norton is correct when he says that "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE", but he is wrong (or lying) about
Einstein's intepretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In fact,
"later writers" just parroted what the Divine Liar had already
established:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked."
The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment CAN be
procrusteanized to fit Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity but
only through the introduction of ad hoc idiocies - time dilation,
length contraction etc:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Uncle Ben
Sean, it is rare that we get any honest requests for information in
this newsgroup. So I have to warn you that this group is not a good
place to learn very much. Tom Roberts and Eric Gisse have given you
good links to authoritative information. But most of the posting in
this newsgroup is by arrogant idiots that think they are brilliant,
and that all the physics professors in the world are stupid.
So, much as it would be nice to have conversations with you, the
earnest seeker of the truth, I must advise you to stick to good
textbooks.
Uncle Ben
Retired physics professor
Uncle Ben
>
> > I would not call any of these experiments truly definitive or
> > fundamental, because several experiments are needed. As is well known,
> > there are numerous theories that can explain any single experiment --
> > but a valid theory must not be refuted by ANY experiment, and that's
> > much more difficult. SR stands un-refuted, within its domain of
> > applicability (see the above link for what that means).
>
> Honest Roberts special relativity is refuted by the Michelson-Morley
> experiment alone:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> John Norton is correct when he says that "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
> EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
> CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE", but he is wrong (or lying) about
> Einstein's intepretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In fact,
> "later writers" just parroted what the Divine Liar had already
> established:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, the emission theory of light is consistent with the MMX, but it
is not consistent with all we know about optics, such as interference,
diffraction and polarization.
So forget about it.
Uncle Ben
Pentcho Valev
> On Sep 11, 3:45 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Honest Roberts special relativity is refuted by the Michelson-Morley
> > experiment alone:
>
> > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> > John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> > evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> > universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> > relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> > WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> > POSTULATE."
>
> > John Norton is correct when he says that "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
> > EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
> > CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE", but he is wrong (or lying) about
> > Einstein's intepretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In fact,
> > "later writers" just parroted what the Divine Liar had already
> > established:
>
> is not consistent with all we know about optics, such as interference,
> diffraction and polarization.
>
> So forget about it.
Why should I? Divine Albert never forgot it, and nowadays John Stachel
and Jean Eisenstaedt are desperately trying to reintroduce it:
http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
applying them to the apparently quite different field of
electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles
had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the
middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of
light, a phrase I shall use.....Giving up the ether concept allowed
Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an
independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is
radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light.".....An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this
basis......This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate
to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew
they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of
its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation.
Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an
emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded
with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a
beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still
be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories......The resulting
theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
two."
http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule/2006/08c/OWR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the
whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --
which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of
gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact
that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
(1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner
(1776-1833) and Fran¸cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of
the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light
and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of
the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson
experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect,
is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF
LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
emission theory of light, "nothing will remain of my whole castle in
the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the
rest of contemporary physics". For the moment John Stachel is not
taking this confession of Divine Albert's very seriously:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Sean2008" <mac.of...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:adb57a9b-b991-4dbf...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
...
> I am curious about this website, since I have just
> joined. Is this the best place to discuss ideas
> pertaining to Relativity?
Best I have found for *discussion*.
> What I mean is, I notice there are a great deal of
> ad hominem comments among proponents of
> different opinions.
You can identify those sources and:
* simply ignore them as providing zero usable content, or
* you can assume they have some form of Tourette syndrome and
can't help themselves, or
* that they have some sort of obsession (Asperger's syndrome) and
cannot escape from their tight little orbit,
* or they have been recently goaded into uncontrollability by one
of the Master Baiters and will eventually settle back down into
conversational mode.
> I am interested in learning by asking questions
> and discussing ideas in this area but I don't
> have a lot of interest in wading through such
> various comments.
Such "Socratic teaching" is not very successful in Science. Not
everyone has access to the likes of a Dirac, Feinman, Maxwell,
Newton or Einstein... except through the written word.
> Are there sites where the subject is discussed
> in a less vitriolic way? Or at least treated a bit
> more academically? I know... I am probably asking
> for the impossible, given the nature of public
> websites but... again... I just thought I'd ask.
sci.physics.research is moderated, but is not suitable for very
many "newbie" questions.
sci.physics.foundations is moderated, but is for discussion of
the more fundamental / esoteric topics of what Science is based
on.
David A. Smith
kenseto
The best test for SR is: one-way speed of light with two spatially
separated and synchronized clocks in the same frame.
Ken Seto
Sean2008
through" all the comments, as I suggested before, might not really be
so bad. As a couple of you have suggested in previous replies, I
suppose I can just ignore the ones that are clearly not productive. I
don't know if, as Mr. Smith has suggested, that I am seeking a
"Socratic" method, per se. I think my search could be characterized
better by imagining the discussions between a student and a teacher.
The student (myself) will have probably have some confused notions
about the meaning of various things and a discussion of that with a
teacher will often clear that up. Perhaps there will be enough
informed opinion offered here for me to follow that model and I can
just skip over the comments which resort to name-calling and emotional
hand-waving.
So, along those lines, I have a question regarding the experimental
research in Relativity. If I am correctly understanding the things I
have read thus far, Einstein's second postulate obviates the need for
a medium. Is that correct? If that is correct, do any of the
aforementioned experiments conclusively show that a medium cannot
exist?
(Again, please excuse me if my question seems childish. I'm afraid I'm
just starting out with all of this and I am probably asking 3rd grade
questions in a class of post-college graduates. Hopefully, you'll bear
with me.)
Uncle Ben
> In fact, in 1954 Divine Albert confessed that, without Newton's
> emission theory of light, "nothing will remain of my whole castle in
> the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the
> rest of contemporary physics". For the moment John Stachel is not
> taking this confession of Divine Albert's very seriously:
>
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho, it has already been done and the Nobel prizes awarded. It is
called Quantum Electrodynamics. Predicts physical constants out to
impressive precision.
Uncle Ben
Dono
>
> do any of the
> aforementioned experiments conclusively show that a medium cannot exist?
>
No, none does. But they show that IF the medium existed, it is
undetectable. Which is as good as not existing at all.
Uncle Ben
No, a medium can exist, but is doomed to be undetectable (accoording
to SR). And such a medium might as well be ignored. Google "William
of Occam" for the philosophical basis for ignoring the undetectable.
Your questions are good. It is a teacher's dream to have a student who
really wants to learns!
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
Sean2008
Dono,
Thanks. May I impose on you to elaborate on that some? I think what I
am trying to ask you to clarify is why must it be undetectable, if it
were to exist? I'm probably focusing on the wrong point... I have a
tendency to do that... but I am always curious about categorical
statements... hopefully, you won't mind expanding on it a bit. I won't
pursue this too far, if that helps any.
harry
> Thank you all for your opinions and suggestions. Maybe "wading
> through" all the comments, as I suggested before, might not really be
> so bad. As a couple of you have suggested in previous replies, I
> suppose I can just ignore the ones that are clearly not productive. I
> don't know if, as Mr. Smith has suggested, that I am seeking a
> "Socratic" method, per se. I think my search could be characterized
> better by imagining the discussions between a student and a teacher.
> The student (myself) will have probably have some confused notions
> about the meaning of various things and a discussion of that with a
> teacher will often clear that up. Perhaps there will be enough
> informed opinion offered here for me to follow that model and I can
> just skip over the comments which resort to name-calling and emotional
> hand-waving.
Yes, absolutely! Even some extremely impolite people do give useful advice
now and then; just skip over the rubbish. :-)
> So, along those lines, I have a question regarding the experimental
> research in Relativity. If I am correctly understanding the things I
> have read thus far, Einstein's second postulate obviates the need for
> a medium. Is that correct?
That is only correct insofar as that postulate suffices to derive the
Lorentz transformations, without any referral to a specific ether model.
However, some physisists have referred to that postulate as the ether
postulate, for obvious reasons (it summarizes two of the main
characteristics of a medium):
-
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0143-0807/26/6/S01/ejp5_6_s01.pdf?request-id=6933993c-9779-45f1-8e0f-8cc64ab32cc0
-
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-0882(199309)44%3A3%3C381%3ALCVLII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
- similar in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9908048
> If that is correct, do any of the
> aforementioned experiments conclusively show that a medium cannot
> exist?
No (in view of the above: of course not).
> (Again, please excuse me if my question seems childish. I'm afraid I'm
> just starting out with all of this and I am probably asking 3rd grade
> questions in a class of post-college graduates. Hopefully, you'll bear
> with me.)
As a matter of fact, you just asked a question that is rarely correctly
treated in physics classes, if at all - such questions are commonly
side-stepped with "shut up and calculate". As you can guess from the
references, the situation may well be better in philosophy classes.
Regards,
Harald
Sean2008
I had responded to Dono before I saw your post. Would you mind also
wading in on the request I made of him/her?
Thanks
Androcles
> Thank you all for your opinions and suggestions. Maybe "wading
> through" all the comments, as I suggested before, might not really be
> so bad. As a couple of you have suggested in previous replies, I
> suppose I can just ignore the ones that are clearly not productive. I
> don't know if, as Mr. Smith has suggested, that I am seeking a
> "Socratic" method, per se. I think my search could be characterized
> better by imagining the discussions between a student and a teacher.
> The student (myself) will have probably have some confused notions
> about the meaning of various things and a discussion of that with a
> teacher will often clear that up. Perhaps there will be enough
> informed opinion offered here for me to follow that model and I can
> just skip over the comments which resort to name-calling and emotional
> hand-waving.
>
> So, along those lines, I have a question regarding the experimental
> research in Relativity. If I am correctly understanding the things I
> have read thus far, Einstein's second postulate obviates the need for
> a medium. Is that correct?
No, it is dependent on a medium.
Einstein's third postulate attempts to get around the problem,
but as he contradicts himself anyway ...
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v",
which is of course medium dependent.
What you should do is take Roberts' advice, which is:
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Roberts will tell you to read "Spacetime Physics", which is the tail
wagging the dog. I tell you to got straight to the horse's arse,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> If that is correct, do any of the
> aforementioned experiments conclusively show that a medium cannot
> exist?
Yes, MMX and Sagnac.
> (Again, please excuse me if my question seems childish. I'm afraid I'm
> just starting out with all of this and I am probably asking 3rd grade
> questions in a class of post-college graduates. Hopefully, you'll bear
> with me.)
Well yes, you are, but if you really want to understand Einstein's
mishmash of garbage then read Einstein, not some half-baked kiddy
book with a fancy title. If nothing else, the original is free, you'll
need to buy the kiddy book.
harry
Assuming that the first postulate cannot be broken, no velocity vector
relative to such a medium can be determined. Which thus prevents only one
way of "detecting" such a medium. Or, as Einstein put it in 1920:
"We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a
definite state of motion to it"
- http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
Regards,
Harald
Dono
1. Firstly it was thought that the aether is a medium at "absolute
rest" needed for light propagation. Michelson (of MMX) reasoned that
if it were at rest, then one could detect the "absolute motion" wrt it
by using a light-based experiment. To his (and everyone slse's)
surprise, the famous MMX returned a null result. Either:
-the aether does not exist
or
-the aether is "entrained" by the bodies in motion, like the lab in
which MMX was performed. This would explain the null result of MMX
2. IF the aether is entrained, then some experiments as the one on
stellar light aberration
or the one performed by Hammar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hammar_experiment) should be able to detect the "entrainment".
Nevertheless, both experiments returned a null result.
So, the aether is neither entrained, nor is it imobile. It either
doesn't exist or it cannot be detected (which is as good as non-
existing).
PD
> What is the consensus of opinion in this discussion group about what
> experiments might constitute the "cornerstone" experiments that
> confirm Special Relativity? Or are there a set of such experiments?
It's a living body of evidence. The book is never closed on any
physical theory, and there is always room and reason to continue to
test theories, because that's where new physics is discovered.
Thus there is no set of experiments that own consensus on being a
"sufficient" experimental test of relativity.
It's also worth noting that many modern theories explicitly
incorporate relativity. Relativistic quantum field theories like QED,
QCD, and in fact the Standard Model are examples. Thus, in an indirect
but not too far removed way, experimental tests of QED (which happens
to be the most precisely and exquisitely tested theory ever) are also
tests of relativity.
>
> In studying the results of various experiments there are, obviously,
> many that repeat experimental designs, the only purpose of which is to
> improve the accuracy of measurement. For my own education, I would be
> interested in what set of experiments might be considered fundamental
> and if that set was fairly small.
>
> Hopefully, my question has not displayed too much ignorance regarding
> the experimental evidence. This may, perhaps, be one of those
> questions that is intrinsically unanswerable but I am too ignorant to
> know!
>
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> What is the consensus of opinion in this discussion group about what
> experiments might constitute the "cornerstone" experiments that
> confirm Special Relativity? Or are there a set of such experiments?
> In studying the results of various experiments there are, obviously,
> many that repeat experimental designs, the only purpose of which is to
> improve the accuracy of measurement. For my own education, I would be
> interested in what set of experiments might be considered fundamental
> and if that set was fairly small.
This depends a little on whether you want an "answer for a student" or
an "answer for a working physicist." To learn special relativity, it makes
sense to focus on a few "cornerstone" experiments testing basic principles.
I have no quarrel with the suggestions you've heard so far.
But all experiments have finite accuracies, and to physicist working in
this field, the interesting question is how to push measurements beyond
the existing limits. This sometimes means refining existing experiments:
for example, cryogenic oscillators have allowed increasingly accurate
versions of the Michelson-Morley experiment. But it also means trying
to think up clever new tests: for example, using astrophysical sources
of synchrotron radiation to measure properties of electrons moving
much closer to the speed of light than we can achieve in the laboratory.
You can find a good review of modern tests at
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/
One lesson, I think, is that there are many different ways that special
relativity could, in principle, be violated (what if only neutrinos are
not Lorentz invariant, or if Lorentz invariance holds except in certain
special, weak interactions between electrons and photons?). You need
a wide range of different experiments to really probe all the corners.
(From my point of view, the most crucial test of SR is not any one
"cornerstone" experiment, but rather the fact that the Standard Model
of elementary particle physics works so well. The Standard Model is
inherently relativistic, by construction; if one added terms that violated
special relativity, one would get different predictions. The review I
cited spends a good deal of time addressing possible nonrelativistic
modifications to the Standard Model, and shows that such modifications
would, in general, be easily seen unless they occur with *extremely* small
coefficients.)
Steve Carlip
PD
Ken is under the impression that the most simple-minded experiment is
the best one.
This is because Ken doesn't have the first notion of what it takes to
design, execute, and analyze the data from, an experiment.
He does like to wheelchair-quarterback, though.
PD
Uncle Ben
Both Dono and Harry have given you good responses. I have nothing
more to add, except for a comment on another theory besides SR that
explains the negative result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment, aka
MMX.
The so-called emission theory says that light is a stream of
particles, not waves in a medium. So no medium is required. That is
so and is mildly interesting. There are many supporters of the
emission theory on this newsgroup, claiming that it makes relativity
unnecessary.
However the emission theory is refuted by all the wave phenomena that
light exhibits: interference, diffraction, and polarization (which
makes the wave transverse). There is a modern, relativistic theory
that accounts for everything: Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). You
won't study it as an undergraduate; you need to study quantum
mechanics first. The discoverers of QED got Nobel Prizes for it around
1950, as I recall (but don't quote me).
If you think relativity is weird, wait until you see quantum theory!
Uncle Ben
Sean2008
Uncle Ben, PD, et. al., may be trying to point me in the same or a
similar direction, too.)
1. I think Dono is saying that if an ether exists, it is undetectable
and can be ignored.
2. I think Harald is saying that if an ether exists, we cannot detect
motion with respect to it. (But you're not saying it is undetectable,
right? And you're not saying it can be ignored, correct?)
Did I summarize you both correctly?
If so, is it valid to say (and not contradictory to either author)
that, so long as an ether could be envisioned in which no motion can
be detected with respect to it, it could exist? (Not sure what that
would mean, exactly, but I am trying to probe the logic first, I
guess.)
Uncle Ben
> "Sean2008" <mac.offic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Androcles does a service by making Einstein's article available on the
web. But it is is not the best for an introduction. Einstein had
only discovered (or invented) special relativity freshly, and his
paper does not reflect his mature thinking on the subject.
I find Spacetime Physics an excellent modern introduction, written by
a superb teacher, Edwin Taylor, and a highly respected senior
authority on relativity, John Wheeler, who died recently.
Androcles and I differ greatly on almost everything, but he deserves
credit for pointing to original sources.
Uncle Ben
dlzc
On Sep 11, 7:28 am, Sean2008 <mac.offic...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> I can just skip over the comments which
> resort to name-calling and emotional
> hand-waving.
... unless you enjoy that sort of thing.
> So, along those lines, I have a question
> regarding the experimental research in
> Relativity. If I am correctly
> understanding the things I have read
> thus far, Einstein's second postulate
> obviates the need for a medium. Is that
> correct?
Actually not. It obviates any medium through which matter propagates
differently than does light. The Lorentz aether is a suitable tool
for consideration in Special Relativity, if not when ones gets to
General Relativity in a "palatable" form.
It is simply easier to lay aside an aether now, with the expectation
of moving forward.
> If that is correct, do any of the
> aforementioned experiments conclusively
> show that a medium cannot exist?
The experiments detail the usefullness of measuring "here", and
knowing what will be measured "there" when there is moving with an
interestng speed. Period.
They do limit the classes of aether to ones that are *absolutely
undetectable with physical instruments and real physical methods*.
> (Again, please excuse me if my question
> seems childish. I'm afraid I'm just
> starting out with all of this and I am
> probably asking 3rd grade questions in
> a class of post-college graduates.
> Hopefully, you'll bear
> with me.)
No problems. When they get harder, I will bow out...
David A. Smith
Sean2008
I think I may have misled you somehow. I am not an undergraduate.
(Perhaps the misleading statement was "I have an undergraduate's grasp
of physics," from my first post I think.) I studied physics up through
quantum mechanics when I was in school. I was quite bewildered by a
great deal of it, I will confess, but I managed to muddle through it
all. I have a reasonable working knowledge of most of the fundamental
ideas throughout it all but not any sort of expertise. My motivation
for studying all this now has to do with some notes I have been
reading by my father before he passed away. He wrote down some things
which have piqued my interest again in the subject.
I suppose it is age but I find that, now as I study this subject
again, some of the ideas are not quite as mysterious to me as they
once appeared. I have read Einstein's writings and I am not certain I
fully comprehend it all yet but, with some persistence, I think I will
get there. I have also read an explanation of Einstein's theories by
Max Born. (And, of course, I intend to get the texts that Tom Roberts
has suggested.)
I am sort of at the point where I have lots of questions and, while I
have some opinions about it all, I would rather keep them to myself
until I am satisfied I have a solid understanding of the subject.
Being in an upper-level or graduate-level class would be the ideal way
but, as you may imagine, time does not always permit such pursuits.
But here, on this discussion group, I can perhaps obtain an adequate
substitute for discussion to go along with my reading.
(I don't mind it being confusing. Everything is confusing until you
understand it. Then you have a tendency to look back on it, regard it
as trivial and wonder why you were confused in the first place. I
still enjoy the "Aha!" experience I get from physics - if you follow
my meaning.)
Thanks.
PD
There is the general abhorrence in physical theories of a "useless
concept". That is, if it doesn't produce measurable effects, then it
is useless and doesn't belong in any predictive model in the universe.
We of course cannot prove that there are no invisible winged fairies
that work hard to cover up their tiny footprints and don't disturb
anything. But they play no role in a physical theory.
An aether is, for all practical purposes, an invisible winged fairy
that leaves no footprints and doesn't disturb anything.
PD
dlzc
On Sep 11, 9:53 am, Sean2008 <mac.offic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so let me try to understand Harald's and
> Dono's comments. (I think Uncle Ben, PD, et.
> al., may be trying to point me in the same
> or a similar direction, too.)
>
> 1. I think Dono is saying that if an ether
> exists, it is undetectable and can be
> ignored.
> 2. I think Harald is saying that if an
> ether exists, we cannot detect motion with
> respect to it. (But you're not saying it
> is undetectable,
Yes, he is.
> right? And you're not saying it can be
> ignored, correct?)
It is undetectable. Occam's razor...
> Did I summarize you both correctly?
>
> If so, is it valid to say (and not
> contradictory to either author) that,
> so long as an ether could be envisioned
> in which no motion can be detected with
> respect to it, it could exist?
Yes. And there are posters that will go on and on for months making a
point of being annoying about this very bit. The ability to disprove
such undetectable aether is tanatamount to disproving a God that does
not want to be seen.
> (Not sure what that would mean,
> exactly, but I am trying to probe the
> logic first, I guess.)
You have been aimed at Occam, there is some good logic...
David A. Smith
Uncle Ben
Sean, thanks for the clarification. You and I are in the same boat, I
suppose. I worked as a physics teacher and researcher from 1956 up to
about 1985, after which I became just a fan of physics. So there are
a lot of advances made since then that I am pretty weak on, but
fascinated by.
It is good to see people like you that can take physics seriously as a
hobby, as I do now. I find great beauty in physics.
Cheers,
Ben
Sean2008
I appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor (sorry, yes, the pun was
intended) and it does seem to yield the most satisfactory answer in
this case.
Nevertheless, I was hoping to pursue some questions about such a
medium - the result of some reading I have been doing. But I will
refrain from posting them since I don't want to fall into the category
of "being annoying about this very bit," with the exception of this
one comment. In my mind I can envision a medium which would support
the propagation of waves but in which there is no relative motion
between other bodies and itself and in which physical bodies are not
entrained, as PD quotes. I do envision other physical qualities,
though, that can be detected. I was hoping to explore that idea some
to discover what logical flaws might exist just from a purely academic
viewpoint. (Just so you know, most of this curiosity is a direct
result of having read "Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity" by Max
Born.)
I'll let that go, however, and move forward with other questions I
have.
Thanks.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> Pentcho, it has already been done and the Nobel prizes awarded. It is
> called Quantum Electrodynamics. Predicts physical constants out to
> impressive precision.
>
Care to explain the fundamental basis of renormalization?
Master Strich
Sean2008
all-consuming. My mind is whirring daily trying to sort out all the
concepts. (I am making satisfactory progress, I think, but I always
wind up with 10 more questions to every answer I uncover. I suppose
that's not unique but it is a bit daunting.)
PD: I googled "QED" on the internet. In your opinion, would Feynman's
text on QED be a good reference to read?
Thanks
dlzc
On Sep 11, 10:47 am, Sean2008 <mac.offic...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> I appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor
> (sorry, yes, the pun was intended) and it
> does seem to yield the most satisfactory
> answer in this case.
Humor is always appreciated. "Satisfactory", not to all. Ilja has
been working on an aether model that seems interesting to him, however
getting it to cover all observables becomes an issue.
> Nevertheless, I was hoping to pursue some
> questions about such a medium - the result
> of some reading I have been doing.
Do so.
> But I will refrain from posting them since
> I don't want to fall into the category of
> "being annoying about this very bit,"
No one likes to argue with a stump. If you can listen to reason, and
can consider the facts that ended up convincing even Lorentz...
> with the exception of this one comment. In
> my mind I can envision a medium which would
> support the propagation of waves but in
> which there is no relative motion between
> other bodies and itself and in which physical
> bodies are not entrained, as PD quotes.
This has problems. Light moves in / through this medium then,
differently than matter?
> I do envision other physical qualities,
> though, that can be detected. I was hoping
> to explore that idea some to discover what
> logical flaws might exist just from a
> purely academic viewpoint. (Just so you
> know, most of this curiosity is a direct
> result of having read "Einstein's Theory
> of Special Relativity" by Max Born.)
Let's do it. The assembled seem willing to discuss it... The question
unasked might be the one that prevetns you from moving (at least)
forwards.
> I'll let that go, however, and move
> forward with other questions I have.
Yep.
David A. Smith
Sean2008
First of all, I am going to hate going back to work next week - I
won't be able to follow these posts so attentively! Hate when that
happens!
I am hesitant about offering my ideas for public consumption yet. I
don't mind if someone tells me they amount to nothing more than
"thought-goo" so long as I can wrap my hands around the specific
reasons for the flaws. Does that make sense? It's not too useful to be
on the wrong end of a public whipping, if you see my meaning.
Anyway... having offered all the above disclaimers... for the sake of
discussion....
I read the following in Max Born's book ("Einstein's Theory of
Relativity", Dover, 1965):
____________
In precisely the same way we must now admit that a definite position
in the ether is nothing real in the physical sense, and for this
reason the ether itself entirely loses the character of substance.
Indeed, we may say: If each of two observers who are moving relative
to each other can assert with equal right that he is at rest in the
ether, there can be no ether (Born, 223)
____________
So, I got to thinking (quite some time ago, actually... just don't
really have anybody to discuss it with now that my father has passed
on). Is there any evidence that says that the ether or the EM medium
could not be a real physical entity that has no "particles" of mass in
it? This entity, as I was pondering it, would be completely specified
by the permeability and permittivity of space. These would be the two
physical qualities which, by themselves, completely specify the medium
- at least insofar as electromagnetic propagation is concerned.
Light would propagate through this medium by virtue of the fact that
these qualities of space would transfer the energy of the propagating
wave just as water transfers a water wave except that there is no
"material" like water and only these two qualities of space. The would
be analgous to the differential capacitive and inductive elements in a
transmission line that transfer energy along the line, except that
these "differential elements" are instrinsic to space itself rather
than just to a transmission line.
Because there are no "particles" of any type associated with the
medium, there is no motion with respect to the medium, yet light would
propagate through it. Now, naturally, I guess I am assuming a
completely wave-nature to the propagating wave and I realize, in doing
so, I am ignoring the particle-nature in such things as the
photoelectric effect. I have a half-formed notion of how that might be
explained but I have not explored it fully.
I think, in answer to your question of, "Light moves in / through this
medium then, differently than matter?" I would say, yes. Other objects
simply move through space, unaffected by the medium since it has no
mechanical qualities. Light, on the other hand, depends upon these
electrical characteristics of space in order to propagate.
I think a medium envisioned in this way does not violate the
requirements imposed so far by PD, Harald and so on, and is in keeping
with Einstien's own thoughts. Two (or more) bodies can each have any
relative motion they wish with respect to one another but, because
there is no motion between any one of them and the medium (or, more
specifically, with respect to permeability and permittivity), none of
the conditions I have read so far seem to be violated, including the
argument I quoted by Born.
By virtue of the fact that one could measure the permeability and
permittivity of space (including space that has objects in it, where
the values would be different), it is detectable in that sense.
Ok, so that was what I was pondering. So, when all the laughter dies
down... go ahead... take it apart for me. I'll do my best to defend my
notion until I run out of ideas that make sense to me.
(I told you I was just beginning... sorry if this has already been
covered elsewhere in other posts.)
Thanks for whatever input you have.
Sue...
> Dear Mr. Smith,
>
> First of all, I am going to hate going back to work next week - I
> won't be able to follow these posts so attentively! Hate when that
> happens!
>
> I am hesitant about offering my ideas for public consumption yet. I
> don't mind if someone tells me they amount to nothing more than
> "thought-goo" so long as I can wrap my hands around the specific
> reasons for the flaws. Does that make sense? It's not too useful to be
> on the wrong end of a public whipping, if you see my meaning.
>
> Anyway... having offered all the above disclaimers... for the sake of
> discussion....
>
> I read the following in Max Born's book ("Einstein's Theory of
> Relativity", Dover, 1965):
> ____________
> In precisely the same way we must now admit that a definite position
> in the
[gravito-inertial_ether fits better in a more modern paradigm]
The Nobel committee ~ignores~ it as well.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/
>
> I think, in answer to your question of, "Light moves in / through this
> medium then, differently than matter?" I would say, yes. Other objects
> simply move through space, unaffected by the medium since it has no
> mechanical qualities. Light, on the other hand, depends upon these
> electrical characteristics of space in order to propagate.
>
> I think a medium envisioned in this way does not violate the
> requirements imposed so far by PD, Harald and so on, and is in keeping
> with Einstien's own thoughts. Two (or more) bodies can each have any
> relative motion they wish with respect to one another but, because
> there is no motion between any one of them and the medium (or, more
> specifically, with respect to permeability and permittivity), none of
> the conditions I have read so far seem to be violated, including the
> argument I quoted by Born.
>
> By virtue of the fact that one could measure the permeability and
> permittivity of space (including space that has objects in it, where
> the values would be different), it is detectable in that sense.
>
> Ok, so that was what I was pondering. So, when all the laughter dies
> down... go ahead... take it apart for me. I'll do my best to defend my
> notion until I run out of ideas that make sense to me.
>
> (I told you I was just beginning... sorry if this has already been
> covered elsewhere in other posts.)
>
> Thanks for whatever input you have.
It all looks quiet thoughtful and not at all far from
a modern mainstream discription of an electrodynamic
~ether~.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
Sue...
Dono
Argggh, another crackpot. Go away.
Dono
I did , you wasted my time. You are simply just another crackpot.
Sean2008
Dono: Well, this is what I was afraid of. I wanted to talk through the
ideas I had and explore them to understand where they might fail
without being subject to ad hominem attack. I apologize for "wasting
your time". I got sucked in by the seeming warm reception and helpful
suggestions but my instincts were right.
I won't return. I'll have to explore some other way of trying to grasp
where these ideas don't work.
Thanks anyway for the time you did invest.
___________
For the rest of you: I thank you. I am trying to learn and you all
have been most helpful. I am sorry I could not have continued
discussing with you all but I refuse to subject myself to this sort of
thing.
Regards.
Androcles
Throw out the baby with the bathwater. At least you'll have
an empty tub.
dlzc
On Sep 11, 12:57 pm, Sean2008 <mac.offic...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> First of all, I am going to hate going back
> to work next week - I won't be able to follow
> these posts so attentively! Hate when that
> happens!
You will get to chew on your thoughts a bit more. No problem.
> I am hesitant about offering my ideas for
> public consumption yet. I don't mind if
> someone tells me they amount to nothing
> more than "thought-goo" so long as I can
> wrap my hands around the specific reasons
> for the flaws. Does that make sense? It's
> not too useful to be on the wrong end of
> a public whipping, if you see my meaning.
Public hangings were once thought of as a method of controlling the
populace. Perhaps now is a good time to tell you about usenet. Posts
to this medium are largely irreversible, cannot be reaclled. Also,
that are recorded for posterity, and as you know (posting from
Google.Groups) can be searched for content for *years*. So what you
might feel embarrassed about, others can learn from. I have my own
faxu pas, and I survived them.
> Anyway... having offered all the above
> disclaimers... for the sake of discussion....
>
> I read the following in Max Born's book
> ("Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover,
"*Dover*"... not a good source for "reliable", "trustworthy", "useful"
text material. I know they are cheap, and they are for a reason. I
have a couple myself...
> 1965):
> ____________
> In precisely the same way we must now admit
> that a definite position in the ether is
> nothing real in the physical sense, and for
> this reason the ether itself entirely loses
> the character of substance. Indeed, we may
> say: If each of two observers who are moving
> relative to each other can assert with equal
> right that he is at rest in the ether, there
> can be no ether (Born, 223)
> ____________
>
> So, I got to thinking (quite some time ago,
> actually... just don't really have anybody
> to discuss it with now that my father has
> passed on). Is there any evidence that
> says that the ether or the EM medium
> could not be a real physical entity that
> has no "particles" of mass in it?
It could be. It must be "infinitely" rigid, and propagate mass
exactly the same way it propagates light.
> This entity, as I was pondering it, would
> be completely specified by the
> permeability and permittivity of space.
These are degenerate values, which derive from c, as you know.
> These would be the two physical
> qualities which, by themselves,
> completely specify the medium
> - at least insofar as electromagnetic
> propagation is concerned.
Have to do mass exactly the same way.
> Light would propagate through this
> medium by virtue of the fact that
> these qualities of space would transfer
> the energy of the propagating wave just
> as water transfers a water wave except
> that there is no "material" like water
> and only these two qualities of space.
And here you can see the "kludge" inherent in forcing Nature to behave
like a macroscopic behavior impressed by Man, to keep him from
learning something new.
> The would be analgous to the
> differential capacitive and inductive
> elements in a transmission line that
> transfer energy along the line, except
> that these "differential elements" are
> instrinsic to space itself rather than
> just to a transmission line.
Now consider how you will apply all that to matter, and then throw in
that the photoelectric effect shows that light is no sort of wave, is
discrete, and does not "add" to become more energetic by increasing
the amount of light... lots of red light photons don't become fewer
blue light photons.
> Because there are no "particles" of any
> type associated with the medium, there
> is no motion with respect to the medium,
Which fails...
> yet light would propagate through it.
... as must matter.
> Now, naturally, I guess I am assuming a
> completely wave-nature to the propagating
> wave and I realize, in doing so, I am
> ignoring the particle-nature in such
> things as the photoelectric effect.
That and matter must be handled *exactly the same way*.
> I have a half-formed notion of how that
> might be explained but I have not
> explored it fully.
Best to retire it now. Realize that both the "particle" and "wave"
nature of light are Man's impression on Nature. They both provide
handy tools, tools representing strengths and weaknesses, and are in
no way *Truth*. We can't know what light really is, or if there is an
aether.
> I think, in answer to your question of,
> "Light moves in / through this medium
> then, differently than matter?" I would
> say, yes. Other objects simply move
> through space, unaffected by the medium
> since it has no mechanical qualities.
> Light, on the other hand, depends upon
> these electrical characteristics of
> space in order to propagate.
Then it fails experiment.
> I think a medium envisioned in this way
> does not violate the requirements
> imposed so far by PD, Harald and so on,
It does.
> and is in keeping with Einstien's own
> thoughts.
He's dead.
> Two (or more) bodies can each have any
> relative motion they wish with respect
> to one another but, because there is no
> motion between any one of them and the
> medium (or, more specifically, with
> respect to permeability and permittivity),
> none of the conditions I have read so
> far seem to be violated,
They are.
> including the argument I quoted by Born.
Keep in mind (as Lorentz did) that distances established by light will
be affected by motion through this medium. Now you have a problem...
atomic, molecular (and hence macroscopic structures) are established
by c...
> By virtue of the fact that one could
> measure the permeability and
> permittivity of space (including space
> that has objects in it, where the values
> would be different), it is detectable in
> that sense.
Nope.
> Ok, so that was what I was pondering. So,
> when all the laughter dies down... go
> ahead... take it apart for me. I'll do my
> best to defend my notion
Why? See you have a picture that you will insist is "right", despite
the addition of new information...
> until I run out of ideas that make sense
> to me.
We'll see...
> (I told you I was just beginning...
> sorry if this has already been covered
> elsewhere in other posts.)
>
> Thanks for whatever input you have.
Consider looking at this from another angle. When passing any sort of
particle through slits, the particle interacts with the slits, as if
both the particle and the stuff of the slits was some sort of
"probability", sort of smeared out over all of space. With everything
sort of everywhere, what need for a separate medium? Maybe what you
are seeking is a description undelying matter / energy itself, and the
spacetime the "exudes" from it?
Or not.
David A. SMith
Dono
Well, I thought you wanted to learn. Turns out that you wanted to
discuss your crackpot theory. A better place to do that is this
forum : http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/
harry
> Ok, so let me try to understand Harald's and Dono's comments. (I think
> Uncle Ben, PD, et. al., may be trying to point me in the same or a
> similar direction, too.)
>
> 1. I think Dono is saying that if an ether exists, it is undetectable
> and can be ignored.
> 2. I think Harald is saying that if an ether exists, we cannot detect
> motion with respect to it. (But you're not saying it is undetectable,
> right? And you're not saying it can be ignored, correct?)
Indeed, it's a bit too strong to say that if one specific property connot
be detected, that it is entirely undetectable. That would become clearer by
studying the references that I provided. Shortly, Summerfeld and Pauli
remarked that the second postulate is a summary of ether properties. And if
you read the full 1920 text on that topic, you may notice that even Einstein
came to the conclusion that the ether has physical "qualities" that actually
have been detected. Here follows another selection of his arguments:
"Think of waves on the surface of water. [...] If the existence of [...]
floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a
fundamental impossibility in physics if, in fact, nothing else whatever were
observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of
movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium. We
have something like this in the electromagnetic field. [...]
The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist
of particles observable through time [...]
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of
the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty
space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics
do not harmonize with this view. [...]
Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is
essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is
not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
rotation to be looked upon as something real."
> Did I summarize you both correctly?
On my behalf, yes.
> If so, is it valid to say (and not contradictory to either author)
> that, so long as an ether could be envisioned in which no motion can
> be detected with respect to it, it could exist? (Not sure what that
> would mean, exactly, but I am trying to probe the logic first, I
> guess.)
Yes, see the article of Einstein in which he provided several positive
examples. Another example may be the Sagnac effect. The fibre-optic tabletop
gyroscope strikingly demonstrates the second postulate in action: the light
propagates in the space between the atoms with a speed that is independent
of the motion of the glass fibre so that the rotation of the earth relative
to the light rays is detected.
Harald
PD
No, it does violate the requirements.
What distinguishes your Ether-Defined-By-Permittivity-and-Permeability
from say, water is this. The wave equation in water also has
properties that are completely analogous to permittivity and
permeability -- any physical law that bends into the shape of a wave
equation does that, with or without a medium.
But what happens in water is that those properties (and hence the
solution of the wave equation) changes with change in reference frame
-- and so this means that there is a special frame in which the wave
equation takes a special form.
However, what's different about the vacuum is that permittivity and
permeability do NOT change with change in reference frame, and this is
highly unusual for anything where those properties would be associated
with a medium. It is in fact the *mark* of the presence of the medium
that the wave equation takes a special form in one reference frame.
That's in fact the only evidence we have sometimes of the presence of
a medium. To underscore this, it is NOT the presence of matter that
marks the medium, it is the presence of the special reference frame.
Uncle Ben
>
> I think a medium envisioned in this way does not violate the
> requirements imposed so far by PD, Harald and so on, and is in keeping
> with Einstien's own thoughts. Two (or more) bodies can each have any
> relative motion they wish with respect to one another but, because
> there is no motion between any one of them and the medium (or, more
> specifically, with respect to permeability and permittivity), none of
> the conditions I have read so far seem to be violated, including the
> argument I quoted by Born.
>
> By virtue of the fact that one could measure the permeability and
> permittivity of space (including space that has objects in it, where
> the values would be different), it is detectable in that sense.
>
Sean, I wonder if you realize that the so-called permeability and
permitivity of free space are constants that were defined to make the
MKS system of units apply in both electrostatic and magnetostatic
applications. We used to have two separate systems of units: the cgs
electrostatic units and the cgs magnetostatic units. The Gaussian
units were introduced
to unify them using the speed of light as a factor in the magnetic
equations.
Finally, to the relief of many students, the MKS system was accepted
by the theoreticians and made to work by artificially introducing
constants to make the units come out right. Those are the two
constants you were referring to. I think it is their prduct that is
related to c.
Since the speed of light is the same everywhere in a vacuum, you could
not measure any motion with respect to regions of permeability, for
example. Imagine for yourself trying to measure motion with respect
to temperature in a room with constant temprature.
Uncle Ben
dlzc
On Sep 11, 1:56 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 12:57 pm, Sean2008 <mac.offic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Argggh, another crackpot. Go away.
"another" or "the same"?
I can't hold a candle to Dirk, but I am guessing "Laurent", "Sandhu",
or possibly "Wittke" (or someone contaminated by same) based on
cognates in this posting.
David A. Smith
ericbaird
wrote:
>So, much as it would be nice to have conversations with you, the
>earnest seeker of the truth, I must advise you to stick to good
>textbooks.
No, there's some pretty rotten stuff on the subject in textbooks.
I thought that D.W. McArthur's 1986 review paper wasn't half bad
: "Special Relativity: Understanding experimental tests and formulations"
: Physical Review A33 1-5
, and some of the best bits of the paper and of some other review
papers have ended up in the relvant SPR FAQ, which should be easy to
find.
The SPR FAQ has the advantage of drawing on more material, but the
quality is a bit more patchy. And unfortunately the FAQ sitemasters
have an unfortunate habit of not dating pages or page revisions, which
tenmds to make one reluctant to recommend a page too strongly, in case
it's different by the time a "recommendee" sees it.
Perhaps someone can prove me wrong by suggesting a good book on SR
testing, but one doesn't spring to mind. For GR testing, Clifford
Will's "Was Einstein Right?" gives a good popular overview, but for SR
testing, authors tend to find it difficult to be interesting, coherent
thorough AND entirely accurate. A few probably manage two or three out
of the four.
=Erk= Eric Baird www.relativitybook.com
: " If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists
: about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one
: principle: don't listen to their words, fix your attention on
: their deeds. "
: -- Albert Einstein, 1933
ericbaird
<harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
...
>
>Yes, see the article of Einstein in which he provided several positive
>examples. Another example may be the Sagnac effect. The fibre-optic tabletop
>gyroscope strikingly demonstrates the second postulate in action: the light
>propagates in the space between the atoms with a speed that is independent
>of the motion of the glass fibre so that the rotation of the earth relative
>to the light rays is detected.
>
>Harald
Hang about: I thought we'd demonstrated experimentally that the speed
of light moving between the atoms of a transparent particulate medium
//WAS// influenced by the speed of the atoms in that medium.
Fizeau experiment?
Einstein's relativity book, Chapter Thirteen?
I mean, we can't have different sources agreeing that the experimental
data all validates SR, with one source saying the the known existence
of an effect supports the theory, and another saying that the known
//nonexistence// of the same effect ... supports the theory.
That'd be kinda iffy.
=Erk= (Eric Baird) www.relativitybook.com
: "Heads I win, tails you lose"
: -- anon
Eric Gisse
[snip]
Projecting your inability to understand upon the rest of science is a
hallmark crank trait.
Tom Roberts
> Hang about: I thought we'd demonstrated experimentally that the speed
> of light moving between the atoms of a transparent particulate medium
> //WAS// influenced by the speed of the atoms in that medium.
No. What has been demonstrated is that the speed of light over
macroscopic distances in a moving medium depends on the motion of the
medium (i.e. moving wrt the inertial frame used for the measurement). No
measurement of speed "between" atoms has ever been made; it's not clear
that this makes sense, as atoms do not have definitive locations for
which "between" can be quantified; nor can one hope to insert measuring
equipment between atoms....
This is fully consistent with the prediction of SR: relative to the
medium the light moves with speed c/n, and for a medium moving wrt the
frame used for the measurement, one applies the Lorentz composition of
velocities.
Tom Roberts
Dono
Arrgghhh, you must be right.
Dirk, who is the new sockpuppet?
Pentcho Valev
> Sean2008 <mac.offic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What is the consensus of opinion in this discussion group about what
> > experiments might constitute the "cornerstone" experiments that
> > confirm Special Relativity? Or are there a set of such experiments?
> > In studying the results of various experiments there are, obviously,
> > many that repeat experimental designs, the only purpose of which is to
> > improve the accuracy of measurement. For my own education, I would be
> > interested in what set of experiments might be considered fundamental
> > and if that set was fairly small.
>
> This depends a little on whether you want an "answer for a student" or
> an "answer for a working physicist." To learn special relativity, it makes
> sense to focus on a few "cornerstone" experiments testing basic principles.
> I have no quarrel with the suggestions you've heard so far.
>
> But all experiments have finite accuracies, and to physicist working in
> this field, the interesting question is how to push measurements beyond
> the existing limits. This sometimes means refining existing experiments:
> for example, cryogenic oscillators have allowed increasingly accurate
> versions of the Michelson-Morley experiment. But it also means trying
> to think up clever new tests: for example, using astrophysical sources
> of synchrotron radiation to measure properties of electrons moving
> much closer to the speed of light than we can achieve in the laboratory.
>
> You can find a good review of modern tests at http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/
> One lesson, I think, is that there are many different ways that special
> relativity could, in principle, be violated (what if only neutrinos are
> not Lorentz invariant, or if Lorentz invariance holds except in certain
> special, weak interactions between electrons and photons?). You need
> a wide range of different experiments to really probe all the corners.
Honest Carlip, Einsteiniana has destroyed human rationality so
successfully that now Einsteinians can safely refer to and even build
their careers on the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate -
Einstein zombie world invariably reacts by singing "Divine Einstein"
and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":
http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."
http://umdgrb.umd.edu/cosmic/physics%20overview.htm
"Some quantum gravity theories predict a breakdown of Lorentz
invariance observable as an energy dependent speed of light, c --> c'
= c + E/ alpha ."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
harry
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3Fjyk.83$Ws1...@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Eric Baird wrote:
>> Hang about: I thought we'd demonstrated experimentally that the speed
>> of light moving between the atoms of a transparent particulate medium
>> //WAS// influenced by the speed of the atoms in that medium.
As far as we can tell and in full agreement with the first postulate, apart
of gravitational effects the speed of light is only affected by and during
its interactions with the atoms - see further.
> No. What has been demonstrated is that the speed of light over macroscopic
> distances in a moving medium depends on the motion of the medium (i.e.
> moving wrt the inertial frame used for the measurement). No measurement of
> speed "between" atoms has ever been made;
> it's not clear that this makes sense, as atoms do not have definitive
> locations for which "between" can be quantified; nor can one hope to
> insert measuring equipment between atoms....
Indeed I simplified it a bit and no direct measurements can be made in a
dense medium, as far as I know. However, it is certainly correct for the
index of refraction in vacuum (thin air) in which case "between" can be
quantified, while the laws remain the same. And on the other end of
possibilities, we made for example filters of nano-porous silicon whereby
the index of refraction is a simple function of the pore density - as
expected. Sagnac devices work with vacuum, air and even glass fibres.
> This is fully consistent with the prediction of SR: relative to the medium
> the light moves with speed c/n, and for a medium moving wrt the frame used
> for the measurement, one applies the Lorentz composition of velocities.
Sure, that's how one calculates it.
Regards,
Harald
harry
Ben, I hope you realise that by normalising a constant to 1 (and still with
units), it doesn't disappear - just as the speed of light doesn't become
non-existent or non-physical by normalizing it to 1.
> Since the speed of light is the same everywhere in a vacuum,
Even that is incorrect, stricly speaking. Globally, the normalized speed of
light is equal to gamma. That leads to bending of light as well as what is
now known as "Shapiro effect"
- http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf
p.198
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay
> you could
> not measure any motion with respect to regions of permeability, for
> example. Imagine for yourself trying to measure motion with respect
> to temperature in a room with constant temprature.
In view of the above, one could say that it's just what one does when
measuring the Shapiro effect.
Cheers,
Harald
Tom Roberts
> Yes, the emission theory of light is consistent with the MMX, but it
> is not consistent with all we know about optics, such as interference,
> diffraction and polarization.
Moreover, there are multiple experiments that specifically test for
dependence on source velocity, and find rather tight limits on it (parts
per billion). See the section "Test of Light Speed from Moving Sources"
in http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
[There's no point in responding to Valev -- he is a write-
only spammer who ignores the content of anything that anybody
else writes. He just copies words without understanding.]
> So forget about it.
Hmmm. It's worth knowing, if only so one can understand silly claims
like Valev's. But it's useless as the basis of a VALID physical theory.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> The best test for SR is: one-way speed of light with two spatially
> separated and synchronized clocks in the same frame.
This may be "best" from the standpoint of abstract understanding, but in
the real world the systematic errors related to clock drift make it
virtually useless.
As I have said so often: Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look
at errorbars. For this type of experiment the large systematic errorbars
make it an almost useless test of the theory.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
The test for SR is to send a signal to Cassini and get time signature back.
SR fails.
As I have said so often before, you are a drooling fucking idiot.
Tom Roberts
> On Sep 11, 10:31 am, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 7:28 am, Sean2008 <mac.offic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> do any of the
>>> aforementioned experiments conclusively show that a medium cannot exist?
>> No, none does. But they show that IF the medium existed, it is
>> undetectable. Which is as good as not existing at all.
I would say, rather, that to date no theory that contains a detectable
medium is in agreement with all of the experiments. I know of no way to
make claims about future theories that have not yet been described. But
it is rather remarkable that at present, the only viable theories [#]
within the domain of SR are those theories that are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR [@].
[#] by "viable" I mean consistent with ALL of the experiments
performed to date.
[@] See my previous link for what this means, and a discussion
of such theories.
For instance, it is conceivable that in the future someone will
formulate a theory that "lives within the errorbars" of the current
experiments. This is exceedingly difficult, given how small those
errorbars are, but I know of no way to rule it out -- one simply cannot
establish such a negative claim about the world or the future.
Such a theory would also look quite strange, as it must
agree with SR to at least first through fourth order in
v/c. This implies it cannot use elementary functions....
It is also true that an excellent theory, QED, is known. It has no
possibility for incorporating a "medium", and agrees with experiments in
a much wider domain than that of SR (it includes all quantum experiments
to date, as well as all tests of SR). Any future theory will have to
explain how it is that QED works so incredibly well (parts per trillion)
-- a strong challenge indeed; for a theory with a medium for light that
seems just about impossible.
As you can see, this is considerably more sophisticated than the various
"aether advocates" around here. For the most part, they don't have a
clue. This also applies to advocates of emission or "ballistic" theories.
Tom Roberts
Dono
You are corresponding with a returning older troll (either Gurcharn
Sandhu or Laurent or Wittke). Dirk could narrow it down more
precisely. In other words, we are wasting our time.
Tom Roberts
> I googled "QED" on the internet. In your opinion, would Feynman's
> text on QED be a good reference to read?
Feynman's book is an EXCELLENT introduction to QED. Every time I re-read
it, I gain some new insight....
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
> Uncle Ben wrote:
> > Yes, the emission theory of light is consistent with the MMX, but it
> > is not consistent with all we know about optics, such as interference,
> > diffraction and polarization.
>
> Moreover, there are multiple experiments that specifically test for
> dependence on source velocity, and find rather tight limits on it (parts
> per billion). See the section "Test of Light Speed from Moving Sources"
> in http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Honest Roberts your "work" should have a subtitle:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
(FAQ for silly zombies)
Your descriptions are so blatantly fraudulent that no clever
Einsteinian would find them useful. For instance:
Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther”
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."
This "Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was more elegant and
parsimonious of assumptions than were other approaches" was difficult
to devise wasn't it Honest Roberts.
> [There's no point in responding to Valev -- he is a write-
> only spammer who ignores the content of anything that anybody
> else writes. He just copies words without understanding.]
But, Honest Roberts, I asked you so many times to elaborate on your
greatest discovery - that even if "light in vacuum does not travel at
the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", special relativity
"would be unaffected":
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
So I don't ignore the content of your discovery, Honest Roberts. I am
only asking you to elaborate on it - it is so great that even brothers
Einsteinians find it a bit strange. Why should I be "write-only
spammer" in this case, Honest Roberts?
> > So forget about it.
>
> Hmmm. It's worth knowing, if only so one can understand silly claims
> like Valev's. But it's useless as the basis of a VALID physical theory.
http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel
a1477aca-6120-4095...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com
I have been looking at his style from his very first messages.
They *immediately* gave me the impression of someone who
is doing his utter best to make it look like he has never been
here before. I'm not sure yet.
He could also be one of those few (highly counter-productive)
crackpot fighters in disguise, looking for a venting valve.
That would be a pity :-(
Otherwise it will be fun to see how it evolves :-)
Dirk Vdm
Sean2008
I know that. I changed my mind. No doubt that will generate further
angst somehow.
I asked a question because I am curious about the theories and Mr.
Smith invited me to share my thoughts.
My summary of the responses I received, in order, are:
1. It was suggested my question was in line with some other ideas.
Not sure I can make heads or tails of any of that yet, though.
2. I am a crackpot. Not sure how that was useful.
3. I wasted someone’s time. Not sure how I did nor do I know how I
held a gun to anyone’s head for an answer.
4. It was apparently necessary to repeat #3 for me since I didn't
get that I was a crackpot the first time.
5. “Throw the baby out with the bathwater” (in reference to me
saying I wouldn’t return), which was one of the more useful comments
and is what motivated me to make this response.
6. This next response was mixed but somewhat useful.
a. I am quoted as: “Because there are no "particles" of any type
associated with the medium, there is no motion with respect to the
medium,” to which the response was “Which fails…”. But no explanation
is offered to help me understand why.
b. I am quoted as: “Now, naturally, I guess I am assuming a
completely wave-nature to the propagating wave and I realize, in doing
so, I am ignoring the particle-nature in such things as the
photoelectric effect,” to which the response was, “That and matter
must be handled ‘exactly the same way’”. I do not understand what
“exactly the same way” means.
c. I am quoted as: “I think, in answer to your question of, ‘Light
moves in / through this medium then, differently than matter?" I would
say, yes. other objects simply move through space, unaffected by the
medium since it has no mechanical qualities. Light, on the other hand,
depends upon these electrical characteristics of space in order to
propagate,” to which the response was, “Then it fails experiment.” But
I am not told which one or ones.
d. I am quoted as: “I think a medium envisioned in this way does
not violate the requirements imposed so far by PD, Harald and so on,”
to which the response was, “It does.” Great. But, again, no
explanation to help is offered.
e. I am quoted as: “and is in keeping with Einstien's own
thoughts,” to which the response was, “He's dead.” Not sure how that
helps, exactly.
f. I am quoted as: “Two (or more) bodies can each have any
relative motion they wish with respect to one another but, because
there is no motion between any one of them and the medium (or, more
specifically, with respect to permeability and permittivity),none of
the conditions I have read so far seem to be violated,” to which the
response was, “They are.” I get the feeling at this stage that I am
simply being told to quit asking questions and just “calculate” as
someone posted once before.
g. I am quoted as: “including the argument I quoted by Born.” To
which the response was, “Keep in mind (as Lorentz did) that distances
established by light will be affected by motion through this medium.
Now you have a problem... atomic, molecular (and hence macroscopic
structures) are established by c... Of the responses in this
particular post this one was the most useful. But I was left to
wonder, by the nature of the response, if my original question was
actually read all the way through. I suspect not but it could be that
I just wasn’t clear with my question.
h. I am quoted as: “Ok, so that was what I was pondering. So, when
all the laughter dies down... go ahead... take it apart for me. I'll
do my best to defend my notion,” to which the response was, “Why? See
you have a picture that you will insist is "right", despite the
addition of new information...” There are many, many responses that
occurred to me but the one that leapt to mind first was that I did not
know anyone was able to mind-read. The overriding thought, though,
was… again… how was that useful?
i. The closing remarks of this post were useful. “Consider looking
at this from another angle. When passing any sort of particle through
slits, the particle interacts with the slits, as if both the particle
and the stuff of the slits was some sort of "probability", sort of
smeared out over all of space. With everything sort of everywhere,
what need for a separate medium? Maybe what you are seeking is a
description undelying matter / energy itself, and the spacetime the
"exudes" from it? Or not.” Ok, I’ll think about what you mean and how
it applies.
7. Responses #3 and #4 were not sufficient to drive home the point
that I am a crackpot. So I get response #7.
8. The next response seemed useful and interesting and I am still
thinking about it since it referred me to some ideas in Einstein’s
work.
9. The next response was the most useful of all the posts subsequent
to my question:
“No, it does violate the requirements.
What distinguishes your Ether-Defined-By-Permittivity-and-
Permeability
from say, water is this. The wave equation in water also has
properties that are completely analogous to permittivity and
permeability -- any physical law that bends into the shape of a wave
equation does that, with or without a medium.
But what happens in water is that those properties (and hence the
solution of the wave equation) changes with change in reference frame
-- and so this means that there is a special frame in which the wave
equation takes a special form.
However, what's different about the vacuum is that permittivity and
permeability do NOT change with change in reference frame, and this
is
highly unusual for anything where those properties would be
associated
with a medium. It is in fact the *mark* of the presence of the medium
that the wave equation takes a special form in one reference frame.
That's in fact the only evidence we have sometimes of the presence of
a medium. To underscore this, it is NOT the presence of matter that
marks the medium, it is the presence of the special reference frame.”
Now THAT was useful. I am thinking about what all that means in terms
of what I have studied thus far.
10. The post that followed #9 was almost as useful:
“Since the speed of light is the same everywhere in a vacuum, you
could
not measure any motion with respect to regions of permeability, for
example. Imagine for yourself trying to measure motion with respect
to temperature in a room with constant temprature.”
Actually, that was kind of my point. Motion of a body with respect to
temperature is meaningless. Similarly so with my notion of the motion
of a body with respect to the medium. EM disturbances, though, can
propagate through this medium. (Although a previous post said this
failed experiment. I’d like to know which one or ones it failed.
Hopefully, someone can tell me.) I am, however, reviewing the points
about permeability and permittivity in this post. I would like to
explore the points listed by this author further… although I am not
sure whether or not I will do so in this forum.
11. In the next post I am now identified as being in some sort of
cohoots with three other individuals. All I can say is “Wow.”
12. Three posts follow #11 but do not seem to be directed at me,
particularly, but they were interesting to read.
13. Apparently posts #3, #4 and #7 identifying me as a crackpot were
not sufficient so now I am a “sockpuppet”. Well, at least it’s
gratifying to know I am multi-faceted in the forum’s view.
14. The next post seemed to be directed at others in the forum and
not me but was, nevertheless, useless.
15. Four more posts follow, not directed at my original question
(nor at further ad hominem comments, there’s a mercy!)
16. The next post was the last useful post to me. I don’t need
elaboration on it since the poster had provided me with some useful
links to explore and read… which I am doing.
17. As a result of posts #3, #4, #7 and #13 it is stipulated that I
am a crackpot and a troll. This was still not sufficient, evidently.
Added to that sterling list of qualifications is the moniker, “older
troll”. I am not sure which part offends me the most… older… or troll.
That notwithstanding, the post was not useful.
I suppose I could be amused by all this. Based on posts #3, #4, #7,
#13 and #17, I might be inclined to suppose I struck some sort of fear
into the author of those. But surely that would be silly, wouldn’t it?
It was just a question, folks. Sorry I offended your paradigms.
But, out of the “noise” of vitriolic responses, there were two or
three points that I found useful.
Perhaps I’ll hang around after all.
Thanks, Androclese. Turns out, after all, I don’t want an empty tub.
PD
> Uncle Ben: It is interesting to me that my "hobby" is slowly becoming
> all-consuming. My mind is whirring daily trying to sort out all the
> concepts. (I am making satisfactory progress, I think, but I always
> wind up with 10 more questions to every answer I uncover. I suppose
> that's not unique but it is a bit daunting.)
>
> PD: I googled "QED" on the internet. In your opinion, would Feynman's
> text on QED be a good reference to read?
Yes it is, as long as you get the one that is short and not his
thesis. The one you want has a subtitle that goes something like "the
strange theory of light and matter".
A number of his books are good. I also suggest "The Character of
Physical Law".
PD
Sean2008
Oh... one clarifying point to my previous post a few minutes ago...
In item #17... So sorry. I misspoke. Wouldn't want to mischaracterize
things. I should have said, "It is stipulated that I am crackpot and a
SOCKPUPPET." To which, post #17 added "older troll." My humble
apologies. I wouldn't want to leave out any of the fine qualities
assigned to me.
Dono
>
> - Show quoted text -
He decided to stick around after all :-)
My bet is on Sandhu
Sean2008
your response I had a separate question. Is it correct to say that if
there were a preferred reference frame in which Maxwell's equations
were valid that would imply a medium but because there is no such
preferred frame, there can be no medium?
And, that reminds me of the other question I wanted to ask. All the
texts I have read thus far state that Maxwell's equations are
empirical. Is that still considered to be the case or can they be
derived from some other fundamental law?
(Should these questions be posted in a different thread, by the way,
since they aren't quite related to the thread I started?... at least
not directly, I don't think.)
Androcles
============================================
You are welcome, although I'm wondering what connection a water
wave's permeability and permittivity has to a sprinker or fountain.
http://www.billsdepot.com/images/020717PicSprinkler2.jpg
Seems to me light travels in beams from my laser pointer or gets
sprayed omnidirectionally from the Sun, no medium or waves required.
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'' -- William of Ockham.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
Start out with an empty tub and only put in it what you really need.
Soap may be useful, a rubber ducky won't wash the baby.
We have a lot of quacking ducks and not much soap.
sal
>
> I am curious about this website, since I have just joined.
Minor but important correction: This is not a "website". This is a
Usenet newsgroup. (It seems to be mirrored on many actual websites,
which may be what is confusing you.) The news groups predate the world
wide web, and this one happens to be unmoderated, and seeing as how
relativity seems to be a very contentious subject this particular group
is a terrible place to learn anything about much of anything except
possibly what a bunch of insulting buffoons many of your fellow humans
are.
> Is this the
> best place to discuss ideas pertaining to Relativity?
No, this is a terrible place to discuss relativity, unless you enjoy
insults and get a kick out of reading reams of total garbage in an effort
to find the occasional gem posted by someone who knows what they're
talking about.
In contrast, there are *websites* which host discussions, at roughly the
same level of sophistication as sci.phys.rel, but which are moderated and
which provide far more rational discussions of relativity and related
subjects.
The first example which comes to mind is physicsforums.com, but there are
many others.
> What I mean is, I
> notice there are a great deal of ad hominem comments among proponents of
> different opinions. I am interested in learning by asking questions and
> discussing ideas in this area but I don't have a lot of interest in
> wading through such various comments. Are there sites where the subject
> is discussed in a less vitriolic way? Or at least treated a bit more
> academically? I know... I am probably asking for the impossible, given
> the nature of public websites but... again... I just thought I'd ask.
>
> Thanks once again to all of you.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.
John Kennaugh
>What is the consensus of opinion in this discussion group about what
>experiments might constitute the "cornerstone" experiments that
What a text book fails to make clear is that there is a serious
alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's
corpuscular theory namely Ritz's emission theory of 1908 and Waldron's
Ballistic theory of 1977. This is not brought to the attention of
students so that any experiment which gives the answer predicted by
relativity is seen as confirming the validity of relativity. The
majority of experiments are consistent with both theories and the
ballistic theory has simpler maths and intuitive physical explanations
while relativity is counter intuitive and physics had to give up on
insisting on physically believable explanations because it wanted to
accept relativity.
I will later give you some examples as to how Ballistic theory and
relativity give the same result as each other while giving different
explanations as to what is happening. The examples I shall give are
quite diverse in nature and you may ask why two theories based upon
fundamentally different concepts should give the same answer and why the
Ballistic theory gives the simpler maths and explanation. I would
suggest that it could be that Ballistic theory is based on the correct
concepts and that what the Lorentz transforms do is transform the
incorrectly based SR so as to give the correct answer just as the
geocentric theory of the solar system complicated the maths and got the
same answer as the sun centred system. It is of course only a suggestion
but if you are looking objectively for experimental evidence that SR is
the correct theory what I have said does I believe give you an objective
starting point free from the spin a student normally gets fed with.
Maxwell's wave in aether theory predicts:
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract from the
speed of light in the aether.
The Michelson Morely experiment was an indirect method of testing
Prediction 2 using the motion of the earth around the sun as movement
w.r.t the aether. It got a null result wherever the earth was in its
orbit. You have to be very careful where text books say "the MMX
showed.....". All it actually showed was that a prediction of Maxwell's
theory was wrong. It can be *interpreted* in various ways depending upon
what assumptions you make.
It is true to say that it was the first type of experiment which could
be predicted to give different answers for Newton's corpuscular theory
and wave in aether theories. The null result is as predicted by Newton's
theory and of course later it was discovered that light is indeed made
up of light particles just as Newton said.
That is not how it was interpreted. Maxwell's wave in aether theory had
had a major impact on physics and the null result of the MMX was
interpreted on the basis that Maxwell's theory was still true. On that
basis the MMX was intended to measure the speed of an observer w.r.t
Maxwell's aether and always got the speed to be zero. The MMX when
interpreted in terms of Maxwell shows that every observer *appears* to
be stationary w.r.t the aether. Einstein's second postulate simply
describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience
and prediction 1 is assumed to be correct when there was no experimental
evidence for it.
Lorentz had already come up with an explanation as to why the MMX had
shown that every observer is *apparently* stationary w.r.t the aether.
His theory says that every observer is moving w.r.t the aether as per
Maxwell but movement has the effect of distorting measurement in such a
way as to bring about the illusion that every observer is stationary
w.r.t the aether. The distortions are described mathematically by the
Lorentz transforms. Einstein objected to Lorentz's explanation but
totally failed to come up with a better one. SR is mathematically
identical to Lorentz's theory. The removal of the aether as a core
belief in physics had nothing to do with Einstein nor experiment. It was
'got rid of' by powerful voices in physics who decided quite arbitrarily
that from then on a theory did not need a theoretical structure - a
physical explanation. Thus they could accept Einstein's theory despite
the fact that he had come up with no physical explanation as to why an
observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t the aether.
SR is therefore based on the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether
theory was impeccable. Light had been discovered to be generated in
quantized lumps (Planck) and arrived at its destination in those same
quantized lumps or light particles/photons (Photoelectric
effect/Einstein). It seems that the waves of Maxwell's theory do not
physically exist. As Dr Scott Murray put it.
"The great Electromagnetic Theory appears as an analogy of Nature,
sometimes as a very useful and accurate analogy, sometimes as a definite
failure, but at no time does it seem to afford us a sound conceptual
model of the working of the real, physical world." Dr Scott Murray
Despite this SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in
aether theory is impeccable. Essentially what Einstein assumed was that
EM theory is correct and that therefore the laws of mechanics had to
change resulting in having to ditch 3 long standing and apparently
sensible axioms of physics relating to mass time and space each of which
is distorted in accordance with the Lorentz transforms.
The alternative is to assume that mechanics is fine and that EM theory
needs to be adjusted. The only two things which need to change is
firstly that light speed is source dependent - perfectly reasonable
since light is made up of particles, and that the force between charges
is velocity dependent. All you need assume is that c is the maximum
speed at which a force can act so that the nearer to c a charged
particle is travelling the less acceleration is produced. If you are
accelerating a charged particle the equation is a function of q/m and
there is no way of telling whether the factor which SR assumes
multiplies m instead divides q.
This alternative way of going about things was suggested by Walter Ritz
in his theory of 1908. Unfortunately he died in 1909 leaving Einstein
unopposed and his theory was ignored. I believe that Ritz's death is
only one of the 'human factors' which have played a major part in the
development of modern physics.
In medicine it is recognised that no matter how objective people try to
be the results of experiment can be affected by someone's beliefs and
expectations. That is why they do 'double blind' trials. Such
precautions may not be possible in physics but even the basic concept of
'devils advocate' is not used. By that I mean that there is no group of
thinkers appointed who's job it is to try and make ballistic theory work
and look critically at experiments from the opposing point of view.
Physics is analogous to a parliamentary democracy where there is no
effective opposition to keep the party in power on its toes. It has
granted itself new freedoms and privileges to allow almost infinite
flexibility making any accepted theory 'fixable' but does not allow the
same flexibility of thinking to the alternative theories.
When I first came on this newsgroup I asked a different question to you.
I asked for the most convincing evidence that light speed was source
independent. I was told that the Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman
and I Wallin (1964) experiment was the most convincing. It seems to be
trying to disprove a relativists view of what a ballistic theory might
say rather than any specific theory. It is based on the belief that a
pion travelling at very nearly c decays into two photons and that those
photons are therefore from a moving source and therefore if light is
source dependent they should be travelling at nearly 2c and they are
found to be travelling at c.
One problem is that IF light is source dependent the current theory is
wrong. The experiment is highly technical and draws on current theory.
This is worrying in that they may be trying to prove an alternate theory
wrong by drawing on current theory and therefore assuming current theory
is right which therefore assumes the alternate theory is wrong in the
first place. This is not necessarily the case but you should put a
question mark every time I say "Current theory says".
The only thing one can say for sure in the Alvager et al experiment is
that high energy particles hit a beryllium target and the result was
gamma photons apparently travelling at c relative to the beryllium
target. If you say that the beryllium target is the source then it has
proved nothing at all but 'current theory says' that an interim stage
exists - a pion was created travelling at 0.9999c and this is what
decayed into gamma photons so constituting a moving source.
'According to current theory' A pion, if it exists at all exists for
only 8.4 x 10^-17 s which means that when it decays it does so within
the atomic structure of the beryllium target and does not travel in free
space at all. What does ballistic theory say about a photon travelling
in solid beryllium? Unless you have defined what theory it is you are
testing you cannot answer that.
I know that in the late 1970s-80s the number of 'fundamental particles'
was rising at an alarming rate until they decided to rationalise and
describe the result of some interactions as 'resonances' rather than
'particles' - OK how do you define a particle? Is a pion a 'real'
particle? As it only exists for 8.4 x 10^-17s there is clearly not
sufficient time to study it and the fact that it is neutral doesn't
exactly help to detect it especially as it is inside the beryllium. Its
existence has got to be inferred indirectly using 'current theory'.
As it decays into two photons perhaps it is simply two photons which
have not yet 'disentangled' from each other? If we had the faintest idea
what a photon is we might be able to answer that.
It also appears that before the speed of the photons was
measured they were made to go down a lead collimer about 2m long with a
5mm hole through it. Apparently the paper does not explain the need for
this. Note that no experiment criticising relativity would get through
'peer review' without stating what part of the apparatus was for. Why it
was found necessary. Why the experiment didn't work without it. It has
raised the suggestion that all gamma quanta coming to the detector are
secondary gamma quanta retransmitted by the interior surface of the lead
collimator pipe. Another problem is that in order to get out of the
vacuum chamber the photons have to pass through a window. One
physicist in this NG who had actually been to the place concerned
informed me that the window had no glass in it, it is just a hole in the
wall. "High energy photons like those in that experiment cannot
penetrate much by way of matter without generating a shower."
I for one cannot see how a hole can contain a vacuum and if a 'shower'
is generated what affect that would have on the experiment.
Apparently this was not the first Alvager had done an experiment. I
quote from Waldron's book. re Alvager Nilsson and Kjellman 1963
"From their observations Alvaeger et al concluded that the invariance
postulate was verified. However they published a set of typical
observations and my calculations from these indicated a difference in
the times of flight from the fixed and moving sources. This supports
the ballistic theory and contradicts the Lorentz- Einstein theory. The
reason for this opposed conclusion is not clear and correspondence with
Dr Alvaeger has failed to clear up the discrepancy" Waldron 1977
The only physicist of any stature who has seriously looked at ballistic
theory is Fox and he looked only at Ritz's theory, by then 60 years old
never having been updated. The following quote is of interest:
"Fox claims to have invalidated the majority, if not all, of the speed-
of-light experiments (including binary star observations) that have been
conducted to help us choose between Ritz and Einstein.... Fox gave a
decision in favour of Einstein, but did so in a manner that seems to
suggest that the final verdict is not in. In private correspondence Fox
says:
'...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"
Fox having shown that ballistic theory had not been properly disproved
dismissed the 1964 Alvaeger experiment on the grounds that they had not
taken into account the extinction effect and performed his own
experiment of basically similar type which excluded the extinction
effect thus claiming to be the first to 'really' disprove the ballistic
alternative to relativity. While he came up with a reason to reject
Alvaeger which I hadn't thought of he didn't address the other concerns
mentioned above.
Whichever way you look at it. If Fox is right even if his experiment
does what he claims it means that had physics looked more critically at
experiments it would appear that relativity and Ballistic theory were
equally valid for the first 60 years and the fact that that has not been
reflected shows the lack of critical appraisal I have mentioned.
Here are the examples I mentioned:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________
train [____________X____________] -->v
|
|
|
|
T T'
Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X.
Suppose it fires a very short burst of light, triggered by a switch on
the track when X is exactly opposite distant target T.
Now the train does a high speed run and the laser is triggered at time
zero. What will an observer at the target T see?
Ballistic theory says that the light will have a horizontal component v
which means that although the laser is exactly opposite T when it is
fired the effective source of the light will continue to move with the
train and the flash will, at time t hit T' not T where T' is a distance
vt from T.
SR says that light emitted at point X in the observers FoR (that of T)
will move from X at c. The source of the light remaining at X.
We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T' not T just
as predicted by Ballistic theory. We know this because if we look at it
from the PoV of an observer on the train both theories predict the same
thing. He will see the light travel away from the train at c at right
angles to the train. In the trains FoR it is aiming at a moving target.
If you want to hit a moving target you do not aim AT it, you aim in
front of it, you aim at the point where it is going to be when whatever
travels (bullet or flash of light) gets there. If you want to hit T' you
aim at T.
So does this disprove relativity? No someone would have noticed :o) SR
says that what is a right angle in the FoR of the train is transformed
in the FoR of the target to an angle such that SR says that it hits T'
because in the FoR of the target the laser was pointing at T' and not at
right angles to the train. This change of angle is not the result of any
identified physical process, there is no physical explanation. It simply
*has* to be so in order to get the right answer - in order to get the
same answer ballistic theory gives. Ballistic theory has a full physical
explanation of what is going on.
An important point here is that ANY experiment viewed from the FoR of
the source must have the same outcome for both theories as both theories
state that in the FoR of the source light travels at c w.r.t that FoR.
---------------------------------------------------------
OK let us change the experiment a little. Instead of a laser let there
be an omni-directional flash of light from X when the train hits the
switch. Light will hit both T and T'
Ballistic Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v
Flash occurs
T T'
_________________________
train [__________X'_____________] -->v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'
If the frequency of the light as measured on the train is Fo then
according to Ballistic theory the light arriving at T' will have a
frequency Fo because the effective source X' is orthogonal to T' i.e.
the source has no component of velocity either towards or away from the
observer at T' to cause Doppler shift. If the frequency could be
measured [it would actually be very difficult] I can with confidence
predict that it would indeed be Fo exactly as predicted by Ballistic
theory.
Ballistic theory says that the light arriving at T is a lower frequency
than Fo due to Doppler shift because X' is not orthogonal to T but is
moving away from T. Again I have confidence that this would be found to
be the case. My confidence is based upon the fact that SR predicts the
same result:
SR Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v
Flash occurs
T T'
_________________________
train [________X'_______________] -->v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'
What SR says is as illustrated. In the FoR of T light is emitted from
point X and when it arrives at T the source is still at the same point.
i.e. X' is the same place as X relative to T. Light reaching T is
therefore orthogonal. The source is neither moving away from T or
towards T so true Doppler is zero. However SR says that because the
light source is moving at v the 'clock' generating the light will be
'dilated' and the frequency will be lower than Fo. As I will show later
it predicts the same lower frequency as ballistic theory.
SR agrees with ballistic theory that the frequency measured at T' will
be Fo but it says it is because X' is moving towards T' which increases
the frequency due to Doppler shift and at T' this increase is equal and
opposite to the effect of time dilation - resulting in a frequency of Fo
at T'.
I will now show that Ballistic theory predicts exactly the same
frequency as SR at point T.
_______________________
train [__________X____________] -->v
Y T
Again it is back to hitting a moving target. In order for light leaving
X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT = vt. The
photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY and a
component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the
direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so
the velocity XT = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag
So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L
But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength)
So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)
So Ballistic theory predicts the same result using a velocity triangle
as SR predicts as being due to 'time dilation'.
Note again that there is no identifiable physical mechanism which causes
time dilation it is simply assumed to take place as it is necessary to
get the right answer - i.e. the answer given by the credible physical
explanation of ballistic theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPS "Time Dilation"
As seen above the frequency measured when orthogonal to the source is
predictably the same for both theories. The centre of the earth is
always orthogonal to the motion of a GPS satellite (assuming a circular
orbit) therefore the frequency will always be Fo x Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)
whichever theory is used. The ballistic theory explains it without
exotic time dilation. It is simply the result of a velocity triangle.
A year or so back the fact that GPS satellite clocks had to be adjusted
for time dilation was stated as the ultimate proof of SR by people who's
maths are far better than mine. Everyone assumes. No one is prepared to
check.
As Fox said the 'vast quantity' of experiments which most relativists
explain by relativistic electromagnetic theory, and which they are under
the impression can only be described by relativity turn out, as in the
case of the above example, to be explainable by either theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"In much later reminiscences, he [Einstein] reports that during the
following year (1895-1896) he conceived of a thought experiment:
what would happen if an observer tried to chase a light wave? Could s/he
catch up with it? If so, s/he ought to see a non-moving light wave form,
which somehow seemed strange to him. In retrospect, he called this "the
first childish thought-experiment that was related to the special
theory of relativity."
Ballistic theory says that if you *could* travel at c away from the
source you would indeed keep pace with the light and *see* a stationary
image of what you are travelling away from - except that the frequency
would be Doppler shifted to zero so you wouldn't *actually* see anything
(i.e. it is a limiting case).
Is it such a silly idea as Einstein assumed? Well his SR theory gives
the same limiting case. If you travel at c away from the source, SR
says time stops for the source so again you would get a stationary image
and again of course the frequency would be Doppler shifted to zero so
you wouldn't actually see anything.
======================================================================
The universe is about 15 billion years old. Astronomers claim to be able
to see back to say 1 billion years after the big bang. At first sight it
would seem that in order to see that far back the source must be 14
billion light years away from us and yet had only 1 billion years since
the big bang to get there = a separation velocity = 14c. Wrong of course
that is without time dilation. Because it is travelling away from us at
nearly the speed of light relativity says that it doesn't age as quickly
as we do so we see it as much younger than one might expect.
I did a worked example:
--------------------------------------------------------
The story according to relativity
=================================
If the universe started at time 0
If the Age of the Universe is Tau
If we and a Far Galaxy have been separating at speed v
and light has just reached us which left at time T
Then we were separated by distance vT when the light left.
It has been travelling for (Tau - T) at speed c.
so vT = c(Tau-T) = cTau - cT
T(c+v) = c.Tau
T = c.Tau/(c+v)
However due to time dilation the age we observe will be
Age = T.sqr(1-vv/cc) = [c.Tau/(c+v)].sqr(1-vv/cc)
Suppose we take Tau = 15x10^9
Age we see of Far Galaxy = (15.c/c+v).sqr(1-vv/cc) billion years
if say v = 0.900c then Age we observe = 3.441236 billion years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now we cannot directly measure the speed of a receding galaxy we
calculate its speed using Doppler.
The relativistic Doppler equation for a receding source is
fo = fs. sqr(1-vv/cc)/(1+v/c)
If in the above analysis v was calculated from the relativistic Doppler
equation then 0.9c resulted from a Doppler shift fo/fs = 0.2294157.
The Ballistic Doppler shift equation is much simpler than the
Relativistic one:
fo = fs((c-v)/c)
That same Doppler shift would be interpreted by the Ballistic theory as
v = 0.770584266c
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story According to the Ballistic theory
===========================================
The Ballistic explanation is that if the far galaxy is travelling away
from us at near c then its light takes longer to travel to us because it
is only travelling at a modest c-v relative to us.
If the universe started at time 0
If the age of the universe is Tau
If we and a Far Galaxy have been separating at speed v
and light has just reached us which left Far Galaxy at time T
Then we were separated by distance vT when it left.
It has been travelling for (Tau - T) at speed c-v.
so vT = (c-v)(Tau-T)
T(v/(c-v)) = Tau - T
T( v/(c-v) + 1 ) = Tau
T( c/(c-v)) = Tau
T = Tau.(c-v)/c
Age seen of Far Galaxy = 15 (c-v)/c billion years
Now for the same Doppler shift we calculated v = 0.770584266c
So according to Ballistic theory we calculate the Age of the Far Galaxy
as 3.441236 billion years.
To save you having to page back the age previously calculated for SR was
also 3.441236 billion years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So whether you do the calculation using Relativity or using the
ballistic theory, you again end up with exactly the same result. Compare
the complexity of the equations:
Relativity Ballistic
Age (Tau.c/c+v).sqr(1-vv/cc) Tau(c-v)/c
Doppler sqr(1-vv/cc)/(1+v/c) (c-v)/c)
I did the sums out of curiosity but the result was not unexpected. I
*expect* both theories to give the same result. The ballistic theory
gives a simple, credible, physical explanation and simple maths. If v is
nearly c then c-v isn't very fast so it takes a long time to reach us.
SR says it reaches us relatively quickly at c but looks older because
what we are looking at is subject to "time dilation" so has aged slowly.
Good hunting. Develop your critical faculties. A students birthright is
to question what he is taught.
>
>In studying the results of various experiments there are, obviously,
>many that repeat experimental designs, the only purpose of which is to
>improve the accuracy of measurement. For my own education, I would be
>interested in what set of experiments might be considered fundamental
>and if that set was fairly small.
>
>Hopefully, my question has not displayed too much ignorance regarding
>the experimental evidence. This may, perhaps, be one of those
>questions that is intrinsically unanswerable but I am too ignorant to
>know!
>
>Thanks for any input you all might give me.
--
John Kennaugh
Dono
> What a text book fails to make clear is that there is a serious
> alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's
> corpuscular theory namely Ritz's emission theory of 1908 and Waldron's
> Ballistic theory of 1977.
No, idiot, both theories fail Ives-Stilwell.
Spaceman
Ives Stilwell is yet another joke to science.
Using "perceived" wavelength and multipying such by frequency,
instead of physical wavelengths always make lightspeed c to all
observers but it does such only through stupidity of using
"percieved wavelength" time frequency for "relative speed" instead of
physical wavelength times frequency to find the true relative speed.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Androcles
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4mx4zqRe...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
Extinction is something we apply to a medium. It fails completely
in a vacuum and is thus a red herring.
THIS says no extinction:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
THIS says no extinction:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Androcles.
================================================
Pentcho Valev
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Sean2008 wrote:
> >What is the consensus of opinion in this discussion group about what
> >experiments might constitute the "cornerstone" experiments that
> >confirm Special Relativity? Or are there a set of such experiments?
>
> What a text book fails to make clear is that there is a serious
> alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's
> corpuscular theory namely Ritz's emission theory of 1908 and Waldron's
> Ballistic theory of 1977. This is not brought to the attention of
> students so that any experiment which gives the answer predicted by
> relativity is seen as confirming the validity of relativity. The
> majority of experiments are consistent with both theories and the
> ballistic theory has simpler maths and intuitive physical explanations
> while relativity is counter intuitive and physics had to give up on
> insisting on physically believable explanations because it wanted to
> accept relativity.
This is correct but it should be added that there are thought
experiments involving REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM which are "consistent" with
relativity and have nothing to do with the emission theory:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
kenseto
> What is the consensus of opinion in this discussion group about what
> experiments might constitute the "cornerstone" experiments that
> confirm Special Relativity? Or are there a set of such experiments?
An Improved Relativity Theory called IRT in the following link is the
perfect alternative to SRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However,
unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all environments,
including gravity. IRT says that the speed of light is not a universal
constant. But rather it is a constant math ratio in all frames as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light agrees with all the
experiments and observations. Also it eliminates all the paradoxes of
SRT.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also please visit my website for other papers on my theory:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> there is a serious
> alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's
> corpuscular theory namely Ritz's emission theory of 1908 and Waldron's
> majority of experiments are consistent with both theories
"The majority" does not matter. What matters is that NO experiment
refutes the theory. That is true for SR (within its domain), but not for
Ritz and not for Waldron AFAIK.
Here are two tests that seem to me to refute any ballistic or emission
theory (see the link I posted earlier for others):
# Observations of Supernovae
A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with speeds of
10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines).
If the speed of light depended on the source velocity, its arrival at
Earth would be spread out in time due to the spread of source
velocities. Such a time spread is not observed, and observations of
distant supernovae give k < 5×10^−9. These observations could be subject
to criticism due to Optical Extinction, but some observations are for
supernovas considerably closer than the extinction length of the X-ray
wavelengths used.
# Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/
A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to the
relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region that
generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted
from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at the
downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is k(L/c)/(1+k),
because light emitted at the beginning arrives before light emitted at
the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and
the observed X-ray pulse width is as short as 25 fs. This puts an upper
limit on k of 2.5×10^−7. Optical extinction is not present, as the
entire process occurs in very high vacuum.
As I have said several times to you, until someone shows how either of
those theories is consistent with these observations (and all of the
other experiments), nobody will be bothered to look into those theories.
This _IS_ how science operates: once there is a theory that is confirmed
by a large body of experimental tests, it will not be abandoned for some
other theory unless that other theory is confirmed by ALL of those test,
plus usually some new ones. Read Kuhn,
_The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> If I am correctly understanding the things I
> have read thus far, Einstein's second postulate obviates the need for
> a medium. Is that correct?
Actually it is Einstein's FIRST postulate that precludes any medium that
has a rest frame.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> [to John Kennaugh]
> those theories is consistent with these observations (and all of the
> other experiments), nobody will be bothered to look into those theories.
I forgot to mention that you also need to deal with ALL of the
experimental tests of QED. After all, QED is really the current theory
of light and electromagnetic phenomena, not SR.
As difficult as it is to satisfy all the tests of SR [#], satisfying
those of QED is an incredibly more difficult challenge. Good luck!
[#] To date no theory has done so, except for those that are
experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
Tom Roberts
PD
> PD: this is a bit off from my original question but in thinking about
> your response I had a separate question. Is it correct to say that if
> there were a preferred reference frame in which Maxwell's equations
> were valid that would imply a medium but because there is no such
> preferred frame, there can be no medium?
Other than a "useless" medium in the sense I referred to before.
>
> And, that reminds me of the other question I wanted to ask. All the
> texts I have read thus far state that Maxwell's equations are
> empirical. Is that still considered to be the case or can they be
> derived from some other fundamental law?
All laws of physics are empirical. Newton's law of gravity is
empirical. Conservation of momentum is empirical.
What often happens, though, is that we find a broader theory or a
deeper theory, again empirical, that gives us some insight as to why
the previous theory has the structure it has.
Pentcho Valev
> John Kennaugh wrote:
> > there is a serious
> > alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's
> > corpuscular theory namely Ritz's emission theory of 1908 and Waldron's
> > Ballistic theory of 1977. [...] The
> > majority of experiments are consistent with both theories
>
> "The majority" does not matter. What matters is that NO experiment
> refutes the theory. That is true for SR (within its domain), but not for
> Ritz and not for Waldron AFAIK.
No Honest Roberts you are lying again. You agree that both the
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments are "FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/128cc9ce0b836800?
Of course, elsewhere you claim that, even if "light in vacuum does not
travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", special
relativity "would be unaffected".
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."
But that is the sad reality of Einstein zombie world - you just say
anything and in reply zombies sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
John Kennaugh
maybe
>and is thus a red herring.
I tend to agree. I think that DeSitter can be dismissed without it as
Waldron does.
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
Waldron does an analysis of Ives-Stilwell in accordance with his theory
- but I don't suppose you have studied Waldron.
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> there is a serious
>> alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's
>> corpuscular theory namely Ritz's emission theory of 1908 and Waldron's
>> Ballistic theory of 1977. [...] The
>> majority of experiments are consistent with both theories
>
>"The majority" does not matter. What matters is that NO experiment
>refutes the theory. That is true for SR (within its domain), but not
>for Ritz and not for Waldron AFAIK.
AFAIK? - As far as you know? Surely someone in your position should make
it his business to be absolutely sure.
"The great Electromagnetic Theory appears as an analogy of Nature,
sometimes [i.e. within its domain] as a very useful and accurate
analogy, sometimes as a definite failure, but at no time does it seem to
afford us a sound conceptual model of the working of the real, physical
world." Dr Scott Murray
>
>Here are two tests that seem to me to refute any ballistic or emission
>theory (see the link I posted earlier for others):
>
>
># Observations of Supernovae
>A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with speeds of
>10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines).
>If the speed of light depended on the source velocity, its arrival at
>Earth would be spread out in time due to the spread of source
>velocities. Such a time spread is not observed, and observations of
>distant supernovae give k < 5×10^0 >subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction, but some observations
>are for supernovas considerably closer than the extinction length of
>the X-ray wavelengths used.
>
>
>
># Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/
>A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to
>the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region that
>generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted
>from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at
>the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is
>k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before
>light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters,
>v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as short
>as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5×10^0 >extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high
>vacuum.
>
>
>
>As I have said several times to you, until someone shows how either of
>those theories is consistent with these observations
And as I have said to you previously it proves nothing if the only
people questioning orthodoxy are rank amateurs like me. I claim to be
neither a physicist nor a mathematician.
>(and all of the other experiments), nobody will be bothered to look
>into those theories. This _IS_ how science operates:
No. In other sciences, and historically in physics, there have always
been strong and influential factions who promote different ideas. That
has been lacking in physics for a considerable period. Again in general
people promoting different ideas have been treated with respect - only
their ideas criticised. In physics there is a tendency to ridicule
anyone who steps out of line or even asks perfectly reasonable
questions, Dingle for example.
I recall a collection of comments someone had compiled relating
to Dingle from various publication. The general tone was scathing and
generally ended ".... the answer is perfectly simple .....blah blah"
except each had a completely different explanation showing that the
question did need to be asked and thrashed out.
In a healthy science, experiments or evidence said to show one theory
true are scrutinized by people who don't believe it is true. The only
way to gain status in physics is to get papers published in prestigious
journals and there are no advocates of Ballistic theory on the peer
review panel to review evidence supporting relativity. If someone wanted
to do an experiment to support Ballistic theory they would not get
funding - those with influence genuinely believe it would be a waste of
time. If they submitted a paper to a prestigious journal then the editor
and the peer reviewers would (like you) assume that it was flawed and
that it was their duty to find the flaw. The last thing the editor wants
is to do is publish an article and have someone else point out a flaw
which has been missed. It reduces the prestige of the publication which
was hard won.
Wallace illustrates this. What his paper claimed is summarised as
follows:
"... the 1961 interplanetary radar contact with Venus presented the
first opportunity to overcome technological limitations and perform
direct experiments of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light
speed of c in space. When the radar calculations were based on the
postulate, the observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds
of the expected error of 10 microseconds from the best fit the Lincoln
Lab could generate, a variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of
the data showed a component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean
sense."
Put simply Wallace analysed the data assuming Galilean relativity and
the errors pretty much disappeared. If we ignore the question of whether
that proves anything and simply look at his attempt to get his paper
published:
"On 3 June 1969, I submitted a paper, "An Analysis of Inconsistencies in
Published Interplanetary Radar Data," to Physical Review Letters. The
last paragraph of the referee report sent back August 15 states "It is
suitable for Physical Review Letters, if revised, and deserves immediate
publication if the radar data can be compared directly to geocentric
distances derived from optical directions and celestial mechanics." I
revised the paper as the referee recommended and resubmitted it 21
August. The editor, S. A. Goudsmit, sent me a reply 11 September, in
which he stated that the paper had been sent to another referee and
rejected. I sent a letter 13 September, complaining about the use of the
second referee. I received a reply from Goudsmit on 23 September, in
which he then stated that he had made a mistake in saying the paper had
been sent to a second referee and that it had actually been sent back to
the first one. He did this, in spite of the fact that there was
absolutely no correspondence between the two reports. They were
obviously typed on different typewriters, the first was completely
positive, while the second was strongly negative and made no mention of
the first report! I eventually published a revised version "Radar
Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space" in a less
prestigious journal."
Peer referees are anonymous. People like you Tom recommend that people
shouldn't believe anything unless they read it in a properly refereed
prestigious journal. Rather a 'closed shop'.
Those teaching and promoting relativity have developed unsavoury ways of
dealing with questions. The most obvious example one sees time and again
is to equate "questioning relativity" with "failing to understand
relativity" and thence suggesting anyone who questions it is showing
himself to be inadequate. In my view anyone who accepts relativity
without first seriously questioning it will never make a good scientist.
A good scientist is someone who naturally questions everything and shows
a natural curiosity. It is clear from this newsgroup that the system has
been devised to eliminate such people from physics.
Q - what would have happened if Ritz had lived and his theory been
adopted. Where would we now be?
Are you not even slightly curious? No I thought not. Proves my point.
What about Waldron. Aren't you even slightly curious as to what his
theory says? Not curious enough to actually read it obviously.
As I have said before you are like a football supporter supporting your
team. You would feel disloyal if you questioned it.
>once there is a theory that is confirmed by a large body of
>experimental tests, it will not be abandoned for some other theory
>unless that other theory is confirmed by ALL of those test, plus
>usually some new ones. Read Kuhn, _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revoluti
>ons_.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
--
John Kennaugh
Androcles
If you say there fairies at the bottom of my garden and I say
"no, they are pixies", then neither one of us is studying what
actually is there.
You are still comparing theories without looking at the evidence.
Whether you tend to agree or not, the EVIDENCE says no
extinction:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
(Light of different colour has a different speed.)
no extinction:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
(Light of the same colour has more than one speed.)
"we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all
colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would
not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a
fixed star by its dark neighbour. "
Actually we know with great exactness that Algol gradually dims and
brightens over
a 10 hour period, whereas an eclipse of the Sun cuts off all its light
sharply.
Why is the eclipsed Moon red?
http://www.moktoipas.com/imgs/eclipse/moon.png
THAT's extinction.
A century ago everyone wanted a constant named after them, so
we have Planck's constant, Hubble's constant, Rhydberg's constant,
and c for the Einstein constant.
The constant crazy are constantly crazy, although Rhydberg seemed
to be sane.
Androcles
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>John Kennaugh wrote:
>>> there is a serious
>>> alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's
>>> corpuscular theory namely Ritz's emission theory of 1908 and Waldron's
>>> Ballistic theory of 1977. [...] The
>>> majority of experiments are consistent with both theories
>>
>>"The majority" does not matter. What matters is that NO experiment
>>refutes the theory. That is true for SR (within its domain), but not
>>for Ritz and not for Waldron AFAIK.
>
> AFAIK? - As far as you know? Surely someone in your position should make
> it his business to be absolutely sure.
What position? Roberts has no position. What matters is Sagnac
refutes the theory and Roberts is a bigot.
John Kennaugh
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> there is a serious
>> alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's
>> corpuscular theory namely Ritz's emission theory of 1908 and Waldron's
>> Ballistic theory of 1977. [...] The
>> majority of experiments are consistent with both theories
>
>"The majority" does not matter. What matters is that NO experiment
>refutes the theory.
A photon gains energy when it falls under gravity and loses it in the
process of escaping from gravity. Photons have momentum and pressure is
felt when they hit a surface. All the maths works out and show that they
are perfectly normal particles with mass (Waldron). Relativity says that
nothing with mass can travel at c. Photons have mass and travel at c so
a prediction of relativity is wrong. Relativity is disproved. But No!
Relativists are allowed to change the rules and redefine mass.
Relativity is true therefore photons don't have mass.
If someone promoting Ballistic theory had to make just as big a change
to the rules to stop it being 'disproved' would you be happy? With that
kind of flexibility allowed I really can't see how he could fail.
>That is true for SR (within its domain), but not for Ritz and not for
>Waldron AFAIK.
>
>Here are two tests that seem to me to refute any ballistic or emission
>theory (see the link I posted earlier for others):
>
>
># Observations of Supernovae
>A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with speeds of
>10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines).
>If the speed of light depended on the source velocity, its arrival at
>Earth would be spread out in time due to the spread of source
>velocities. Such a time spread is not observed, and observations of
>distant supernovae give k < 5×10^0 >subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction, but some observations
>are for supernovas considerably closer than the extinction length of
>the X-ray wavelengths used.
>
>
>
># Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/
>A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to
>the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region that
>generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted
>from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at
>the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is
>k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before
>light emitted at the downstream end.
You will have to explain that. My understanding, admittedly limited, is
that a stream of electrons travelling at speed v are caused to move in a
sinusoidal path by a series of magnets. Each time the electrons change
direction photons are given off [in more than one direction?]. I think
photons are given off tangentially and that therefore those going in the
required direction are given off at the end of each excursion when the
electrons are in fact heading down the tube.
Those from the first excursion heading in the desired direction combine
in phase with the photons given off at the next excursion and so on thus
building up to a laser like beam of X ray photons. I'm not sure where
you see the problem. If the photons from the first excursion are
travelling at c+v (because they are given off when the electron motion
is along the tube) then the photons from the next excursion will also be
travelling at c+v when they reinforce the first and so on down the tube.
Unless the electrons progressively slow down I don't see where you see a
problem. As I say my understanding is limited so you will have to
explain it.
If one takes Waldron's model of a photon - equal positive and negative
charge rotating then it gives meaning to the idea of photons being
generated in phase with other photons (rotating in phase with each
other). I don't see how 'photons with no internal structure' as you
described them in a previous post can be in or out of phase with each
other.
> For FLASH, L=30 meters, v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed
>X-ray pulse width is as short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k
>of 2.5×10^0 >occurs in very high vacuum.
define k for my benefit.
--
John Kennaugh
Dono
wrote:
Why would I study a crank when I know how to do the computations
myself?
John Kennaugh
Computations using what theory? One you made up yourself as to what a
ballistic theory might say?
--
John Kennaugh
'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell.
Dono
wrote:
>
> >Why would I study a crank when I know how to do the computations
> >myself?
>
> Computations using what theory? One you made up yourself as to what a
> ballistic theory might say?
> --
> John Kennaugh
No, imbecile, Waldron's equations of course.
Sean2008
equations be derived from a broader or more fundamental empirical law?
Or are they considered fundamental as they stand?
Androcles
> Ok, maybe a poor choice of words on my part. Then can Maxwell's
> equations be derived from a broader or more fundamental empirical law?
> Or are they considered fundamental as they stand?
Someone is leading you down the garden path and you are a willing
follower.
There is no experimental evidence for special relativity and Maxwell's
aether doesn't exist. Perhaps you think the best way to learn French
is to study Chinese but neither will help you with mathematics.
Faraday's law E = -dB/dt is an empirical law and simply says that a
changing magnetic field produces an electric field. Gauss's and
Ampere's laws also stand alone, Maxwell produced nothing.