1 of 2
1
Question on Michelson-Morley Experiment
Posted: 06 February 2009 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2007-12-10

In a book “Teoria della relativita” By W.Pauli 1970, it’s written as follows. “From view point of an observer who moves with moving medium, light must be considered that it’s propagated (always and to every direction) at the speed of c/n in this medium” (translated from Japanese edition). In the air, it may be the same. Why it’s not an explanation for M-M experiment ? For what reason ?
P.S. With vacuum, the emission theory may be able to cope.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 February 2009 09:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

I’m not sure I understand your meaning, but in fact the fact that light travels at a constant velocity of c regardless of what inertial frame of reference you’re in provides an explanation of the M-M results. Ignore the stuff about n (the index of refraction for the medium through which it travels). While that’s true, it only complicates the issue. The fundamental point is that, where-ever your are, so long as you’re not accelerating, the speed of light will always be c.

Does that answer your question?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 February 2009 10:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10
nakayama - 06 February 2009 05:00 PM

In a book “Teoria della relativita” By W.Pauli 1970, it’s written as follows. “From view point of an observer who moves with moving medium, light must be considered that it’s propagated (always and to every direction) at the speed of c/n in this medium” (translated from Japanese edition). In the air, it may be the same. Why it’s not an explanation for M-M experiment ? For what reason ?
P.S. With vacuum, the emission theory may be able to cope.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

Why would you try to refute relativity by using a 130 year old failed experiment based on the idea of aether? What part of the M-M experiment would it explain? The experiment failed because light is an electromagnetic wave and doesn’t need to travel through aether which doesn’t exist anyway.

I threw in an example refutation for the first argument that was coherent.

Laser light is hitting a mirror vertically. So, reflected light retraces (goes back) the path of incident light. Mirror and light source are at a standstill in an inertial frame. The speed of this two lights relative to the mirror is equal. Light source’s frequency is constant. Above these are premises (given conditions). An observer moves (at a uniform speed) along this light path toward light source. He has an instrument ; it’s hollow tube. Incident light and reflected light are passing through this empty tube. The number of waves (of this two lights) that stay inside this tube (namely, wave number x tube’s length) is equal always (Because total of the number of waves (of this two lights) that stay within full length of light path (between mirror and light source) is equal always. Because light speed is equal). On the other hand, because of Doppler effect, frequency of two lights is not equal to observer. Therefore, light speed of two lights must not be equal also (must be different. Because, in the formula “light speed = frequency x wave length”, wave length (inverse number of wave number) of two lights is equal always).

Both frequency and wavelength are variable depending on the observer from the point of view of the moving object one beam would have more waves at a higher frequency while another would have fewer waves at a lower frequency. The wavelength doesn’t have to remain the same and the number of waves of do not have to be equal always. The only constants are the speed of light and the distance.

[ Edited: 07 February 2009 11:29 PM by Some Guy ]
 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2009 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2007-12-10

To Mr.Chris Crawford,

Sorry, your answer doesn’t solve my question.

To Mr.danlhinz,

> one beam would have more waves at higher frequency
> another would have fewer waves at lower frequency

Statement above may not stand up.” Number of waves” that exist in two light paths (between light source and mirror : go and back) may A & B to observer X, and may C & D to observer Y.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2009 08:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10
nakayama - 10 February 2009 04:50 PM

> one beam would have more waves at higher frequency
> another would have fewer waves at lower frequency

Statement above may not stand up.” Number of waves” that exist in two light paths (between light source and mirror : go and back) may A & B to observer X, and may C & D to observer Y.

They will be different for observers X and Y provided they have different inertial reference frames, that doesn’t disprove relativity it is just one of the things that makes it strange.

Lets say someone shot a laser from the earth to mars. Observer 1 is on mars observer 2 is traveling just below the speed of light along side the laser. From the reference of the observer 2 traveling along side the laser, the laser would reach mars when the observer was half way to mars. Observer 1 on mars would see the laser and observer 2 arrive at the same time. Also for observer 2 he would arrive at mars instantaneously while observer 1 would say it took him a couple minutes. The strangeness of these results doesn’t make them false.

 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2009 12:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2007-08-31

Hi Nakayama,

Trying it again?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3458/

Reread the thread, and read some good physics books.

And read the usenet FAQ on relativity, specially this:

http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2009 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
danlhinz - 07 February 2009 10:55 PM

Why would you try to refute relativity by using a 130 year old failed experiment based on the idea of aether?

Why was it a “failed experiment”?

Didn’t it succeed in proving there was no aether?  Isn’t that why it is famous?

Isn’t an experiment a success if it eliminates error?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2009 01:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 21 February 2009 10:37 AM

Why was it a “failed experiment”?

Didn’t it succeed in proving there was no aether?  Isn’t that why it is famous?

Isn’t an experiment a success if it eliminates error?

psik

I understand your point: but M&M wanted to measure the velocity of the earth in the aether, they did not want to find out if the eather existed. In this sense, the experiment failed, because M&M wanted to measure something that does not exist at all.

See The most famous failed experiment.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2009 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

Failed experiments have been the basis for a number of important leaps. M-M is the most famous, but there are others. Oersted’s failed demonstration of the lack of any effect of electricity on magnets created electromagnetism and quickly led to electric motors and generators. Fleming’s problems with cell cultures led to the discovery of penicillin. Toss in the discovery of the 3ºK background microwave radiation as a related discovery while you’re at it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2009 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10

My point was more that M-M really didn’t tell us anything significant about relativity. It only eliminated a theory semi-related to relativity.

 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2009 04:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2007-12-10

In a book “Special Relativity” By French, A.P. 1971, it’s written that the air 0.1mm thick is enough to extinguish the memory of light source’s motion. The notion of extinction seems to be about light speed (in the medium). In a forum (in English), i was shown a web-site below. See a heading “Optical Extinction”.

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

The extinction seems the most reasonable explanation for the result of Michelson-Morley experiment (as to vacuum, the emission supports). But no book doesn’t refer to “extinction” by air. Bad dream !!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2009 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

I believe that I have French’s book. Could you provide me with a page number for that quote? I’ll look it up for context.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2009 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2007-12-10

It is in 5-2 : “emission from light sources moving at high speed” (translated from Japanese edition). It seems to be consistent with Pauli’s writing. And common explanations on M-M experiment look unreliable and unreasonable to me.

Correction on my late post : (as to vacuum, the emission theory supports). But no book refers to “extinction” by air.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2009 03:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

First, I must apologize; I was wrong, I do not have French in my library. This is rather disconcerting to me, as I am positive that I once had that book. In any event, I did a little poking around and what you’re referring to arises from the Ewald Ossen Extinction Theorem, which is a very old theorem (pre-relativity). It is really an alternate way of calculating wave behavior at the junction between two materials of different indexes of refraction. We all know that the beam of light will be refracted at this junction, but the wave equation for the light wave is discontinuous. What Ewald and Ossen did was to figure out a way to calculate the process by which the light ray bent, maintaining the integrity of the wave equation. The trick was to, in effect, mathematically destroy the incident wave and replace it with a new wave. However, this transition is not instantaneous in the medium; the light wave must travel some distance for this to happen. The distance it must travel is called the extinction distance. Inside the extinction zone, the two wave equations are discontinuous.

That’s how I recall it from grad school.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2009 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10
Chris Crawford - 10 March 2009 03:28 PM

First, I must apologize; I was wrong, I do not have French in my library. This is rather disconcerting to me, as I am positive that I once had that book. In any event, I did a little poking around and what you’re referring to arises from the Ewald Ossen Extinction Theorem, which is a very old theorem (pre-relativity). It is really an alternate way of calculating wave behavior at the junction between two materials of different indexes of refraction. We all know that the beam of light will be refracted at this junction, but the wave equation for the light wave is discontinuous. What Ewald and Ossen did was to figure out a way to calculate the process by which the light ray bent, maintaining the integrity of the wave equation. The trick was to, in effect, mathematically destroy the incident wave and replace it with a new wave. However, this transition is not instantaneous in the medium; the light wave must travel some distance for this to happen. The distance it must travel is called the extinction distance. Inside the extinction zone, the two wave equations are discontinuous.

That’s how I recall it from grad school.

You seem to know something about everything.

 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2009 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

Yes, I hold a Master of Science degree in Everythingology.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1