Re: MMX and Zeno
- From: riedt1@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 2 May 2005 00:38:04 -0700
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear Peter Riedt:
>
> "Peter Riedt" <riedt1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1d36893d.0504281847.417992ff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > MMX AND ZENO
> >
> > The absence of interference in MMX can be
> > explained by applying the arrow paradox of
> > Zeno to the experiment.
> >
> > Consider the arrangement of the MMX
> > apparatus. A light source emits light towards
> > a halfsilvered mirror A which redirects half of
> > it on a perpendicular path towards mirror B
> > which returns it to mirror A. The other half
> > quantity of light passes through mirror A to
> > chase a receding mirror C along the parallel
> > axis. Both mirrors B and C are supposed to
> > return the two separate beams of light to
> > mirror A where they should combine out of
> > phase as distance AC is motion adjusted
> > while distance AB remains the same. Let
> > us assume the speed of light and the
> > speed of mirror C to be in the ratio of
> > 10000:1 and distances AB and AC to be
> > 10m each.
>
> Note: the light source, and mirrors A and B all have the same
> *velocity* as mirror C.
>
> > Accordingly, when the light has reached
> > the position where mirror C was, mirror C
> > has advanced .0001m and when the light
> > gets there, C is .00000001m further
> > away and so on. The light never reaches
> > C and therefore cannot return to A to
> > interfere with the light from B.
>
> You set out to "explain", yet you end up without an explanation.
> The interference fringes are observed, so contributions from
> paths AB and AC must be present. *Changes* in observed
> interference fringes are not observed, regardless of orientation.
> This means path lengths AB and AC change proportionately to c
> along each path, if at all. This leaves SR and LET intact, and
> Zeno hanging in the wind.
>
> David A. Smith
David, you are correct. It is not an explanation but merely a
comparison with Zeno's Paradox. I believe Zeno thought about the
problem of objects moving in the same direction with differing speeds.
His paradox is a metaphor of sequences like 1/2+1/4+1/8..... or
9/10+90/100+9/1000....etc. They never add up to 1. Perhaps he knew of
the addition and subtraction of velocities like c+v and c-v. Today many
in this newsgroup do not.
Peter Riedt
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MMX and Zeno
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: MMX and Zeno
- Prev by Date: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Next by Date: Re: How do you know that acceleration is absolute? <eom>
- Previous by thread: My new physics hero...
- Next by thread: Re: MMX and Zeno
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
