Re: MMX and Zeno


N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear riedt1:
>
> <riedt1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1115019484.251963.31580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 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, you are correct. It is not an
> > explanation but merely a comparison with
> > Zeno's Paradox.
>
> You said:
> >> > The absence of interference in MMX can be
> >> > explained by applying the arrow paradox of
> >> > Zeno to the experiment.
>
> You apparently didn't realize that there was an interference
> pattern.
>
> > I believe Zeno thought about the
> > problem of objects moving in the same
> > direction with differing speeds.
>
> No need to "think"... *know*
> URL:http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm
> <QUOTE>
> The Achilles: The slower will never be overtaken by the quicker,
> for that which is pursuing must first reach the point from which
> that which is fleeing started, so that the slower must always be
> some distance ahead.
> <END QUOTE>
> Note how, though it talks about differing speeds, it doesn't
> describe the fact that interference is seen.
>
> > 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.
>
> Right. The second series is more than 1, with the terms
> provided. I am not sure how to extend it based on the
> "funniness" of the second term.

The second example should be 9/10+9/100+9/1000....etc.

>
> > Perhaps he knew of
> > the addition and subtraction of velocities like
> > c+v and c-v.
>
> Not likely. No one at that time expected c to be finite, to the
> best of my knowledge. Which would leave c+v = c-v = c, as you
> well know.

Zeno did know that any faster speed will overtake any slower speed
despite your quote above. My example of c and v applies to light and
the velocity of the earth which of course were not known to him but if
we use a (speed of arrow) and t (speed of target) instead, the same
relationships (a+t and a-t) applies. It is no different from the logic
of c+v and c-v. Addition and subtraction of velocities is universal and
has the same logic in respect of light and all moving objects.

>
> > Today many
> > in this newsgroup do not.
>
> It depends on what your "common sense" requires of nature.
>
> David A. Smith

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wang / Sagnac Devices
    ... I do disagree with your comments about the emission theory. ... measure wavelength with an interferometer. ... into the interferometer at different speeds, ... can predict the location of the first interference minimum for the c-v ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wang / Sagnac Devices
    ... I do disagree with your comments about the emission theory. ... measure wavelength with an interferometer. ... into the interferometer at different speeds, ... can predict the location of the first interference minimum for the c-v ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wang / Sagnac Devices
    ... I do disagree with your comments about the emission theory. ... measure wavelength with an interferometer. ... into the interferometer at different speeds, ... can predict the location of the first interference minimum for the c-v ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wang / Sagnac Devices
    ... I do disagree with your comments about the emission theory. ... they only travel at c in each direction. ... Two waves, one frequency, two speeds, two diffraction angles. ... can predict the location of the first interference minimum for the c-v ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wang / Sagnac Devices
    ... The fundamental tenet of emission theory is that light in vacuum ... Relativity says the same thing. ... If the light happens to have different speeds, ... the interference we would expect if it was not always the same. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading