Re: What is the official SR explanation of the MMX null result?

From: John Kennaugh (JKNG_at_kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:38:03 +0100

In message <75dd81d3.0409211159.6ba92f66@posting.google.com>, Ken Seto
<kenseto@erinet.com> writes
>What is the official SR explanation of the MMX null result?

3 theories have explanations.

Ballistic theory - that the speed of light is constant w.r.t the light
source and is therefore constant w.r.t the apparatus so it matters not
which way it points or where the earth is in its orbit.

LET - that the speed of light is constant w.r.t the ether but the arm
contracts as it pushes its way through the ether. The interaction
between ponderable matter and the ether are expressed mathematically in
the Lorentz transforms.

SR - The determined speed of light is constant w.r.t the detector
detecting it as stated in the second postulate and therefore appears
constant w.r.t the apparatus so it matters not which way it points or
where the earth is in its orbit.

LET and SR are not strictly speaking different in that SR is a principle
theory and makes no attempt to explain in terms of causality what
physical process results in the determined speed of light always being
constant w.r.t the observer/detector/apparatus while LET provides a
causal explanation consistent with SR. This is not a popular idea among
relativists who prefer no causal explanation rather than the only one on
offer.

A ballistic theory is by far the simplest explanation of the result. If
you look back in history there only ever were two ideas regarding light.
One was that is was a disturbance in something (wave ether theory) the
other that particles were shot out by the source (corpuscular theory).
MMX was an experiment which predicts different results for the two
theories. The null result is the result predicted by the corpuscular
theory. When it was later found that light does indeed consist of
particles (photons/corpuscles) it should have been a pretty conclusive
result in favour of a ballistic/particle theory for light, a route
explored by Walter Ritz until his early death.

The history of Science shows that this approach was ignored and the only
apparent explanation for that is a reluctance on the part of physicists
to accept that they had backed the wrong theory for 200 years. Physicist
were willing to accept a theory (SR) based on the belief of source
independence because that is what they had believed for 200 years. While
the idea of source independence was politically acceptable it is
logically absurd unless you retain belief in the ether concept. Light
was believed to be source independent *because* of belief in the ether.
i.e. The speed of light is constant w.r.t the ether so cannot be
affected by the source. Note how often the word 'belief' appears.

If the speed of light is not dependent upon the source then it must be
dependent upon something other than the source and that 'something' must
take control of the progress of the light from the moment it leaves the
source. Not wishing to break with tradition I would call that
'something' ether whether or not it has any of the attributes which from
time to time various people, Einstein included, have ascribed to ether.

It seems likely to me that having accepted the wrong theory for 200
years, the reluctance to accept that mistake has meant that a further
100 years of physics has been based on an incorrect theory. Belief in
source independence was for 200 years based on the idea of the ether.
Doubters were silenced for a further 60 years By DeSitter's double star
evidence which was accepted because it reinforced the belief of most.
That was discredited in the 1960's as not showing anything. The
experimental evidence for source independence is hardly overwhelming
even now and the evidence for source dependence is growing. I believe
that future generations will look at the physics of the 20th century
with incredulity. 

-- 
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... You may wish to divorce physical process from the mathematics in order to preserve your belief system but I see no evidence that Einstein did. ... If you decide there is no ether then you have ... The only physical model which will give you source independence is the ... distance were axioms of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... I am not suggesting that interpreting everything in terms of relativity ... Modern physics gives a very complicated view of nature. ... ether any more. ... involved the ether the property of the ether - source independence - ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?
    ... >physics has been able to quantitatively explain, ... Isn't your dismissal of the ether because we can't ... But I remind you that source independence was a belief sustained for 200 ... >>those processes which the maths are describing. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FAQ - (the heretics version)
    ... Your concerns and arguments are perfectly valid it is just that modern physics has developed sophisticated semantics to dodge such questions. ... SR is an ether based theory - study history. ... If you ask perfectly sensible questions about the physical nature of relativity you are likely to be greeted with "Relativity is a principle theory and does not attempt to answer those sorts of questions". ... Some would claim that source independence requires it to be an aether ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... Experimental evidence of source independence. ... The explicit inclusion of an absolute velocity in a law of physics ... > and that the constant c was the speed relative to the ether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast