Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz

On Apr 6, 4:57 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 4, 9:33 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 4, 2:51 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 3, 3:13 am, Peter Riedt <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 2, 4:22 pm, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

What is its width?

Harald

Harry, it is as thick as your head. If you want to answer a real
problem, tell me why the contraction conjecture by Lorentz is better
than an expansion conjecture which explains the MMX null result just
as well.

Peter Riedt

     Because your model implies other phenomena that haven't been
observed. In particular, your model implies that there would be a
birefringence associated with the motion of the earth through the
heavens. Lorentz not only derived the contraction and time dilation,
he was able to explain the absence of birefringence. Yourmodel does
not provide any criterion for selecting which effects of motion can be
observed and which effects can not be observed.
     In ordinary experience, changes in size at constant temperatures
are associated with stresses. Stresses cause birefringence. Yet, there
is no birefringence. Scientists have looked for effects like this.
However none has been seen.
    Furthermore, one would expect from your model  a torque on
electrical coils caused by the earths motion. After all, an electrical
coil has to move through the field it generates. No such torque has
been observed. Lorentz's model shows not only how a contraction can
occur in an object, but why coils with electric current on earth don't
show a torque.
     Your "expansion model" had no general assumptions in it. It does
not really explain the "why" of the contraction, even in the case of
the MMX experiment. Further, it does not explain the absence of
birefringence in moving objects.
     I base this on what I read in "The theory of Electrons," by H. A.
Lorentz, written 1915. In particular, I am looking at Chapter V,
"optical phenomenon in moving bodies", pages 168-231 in my Dover
second edition (released 1952).
    It isn't just a matter of explaining the null results of MMX, it
is explaining the null results of other optical experiments.
     Lorentz does analyze the MMX as well as acknowledge that
Fitzgerald thought of this idea for contraction, first. However,
Fitzgerald did not explain the null results of the birefringence
experiments, the torque experiments, etc. Lorentz theory led to
predictions that an entire set of experiments will show null results.
Einstein may have generalized the theory even further, but it was
Lorentz who showed that the MMX was not alone in being an anomaly.
  Because H. A. Lorentz did not explicitly use the MMX to derive his
Lorentz contraction. The work of Lorentz is not a phenomenological
model. Lorentz's "theory of the electron" was derived using principles
that were independent of the results of the MMX. He did develope the
theory partly to explain the MMX experiment, but his mathematics were
based on Maxwell's equations. Even had there been no MMX, an analysis
using similar principles would have led to the inevitability to a
length contraction and a time dilation.
     However, this general approach to moving bodies does something
more important. It shows us what other null results to look for. Yes,
Fitzgerald gave use the Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction." However,
Lorentz also gave us the prediction that no birefringence will ever be
found due to to absolute motion. He not only explained the length
contraction and time dilation, he gave use a more general theory. This
theory explained why Fresnel found the non-null results he did in
moving fluids, but why there were null results in the MMX experiment.
    If I am wrong, you will be able to expand your model to explain
why motion induced birefringence has not been detected, despite more
than a century of scientists looking for it. The Fresnel experiments
do not measure motion induced birefringence, as you will see from
reading Lorentz's book. Please explain the absence of motion induced
torque in an electrical choke. Then, maybe someone will be interested
in your model.

Darwin, Lorentz’s Electron Theory requires an ether the existence of
which has been denied by relativity. Lorentz defined contraction as a
mechanical process that compresses atoms in physical objects as they
move through space and push against the ether.

    He assumed did not explicitly describe aether. However, he did
assume Newtonain forces acting on particles. He assumed Maxwell's
equations govern electromagnetic fields. He assumed a spheroidal
electron governed by a Lorentz contraction.. That is what I meant by
he had a physical mechanism. He had a model of how the submicroscopic
responded to force.

I have no model of
expansion per se but question the choice of Lorentz for contraction if expansion does the same thing in terms of equalising >the length of the two arms of the interferometer equipment and >therefore can be used to explain the null result of MMX just as >well.

    You have no model of how the submicroscopic particles that make up
the interferometer move. Yours is a completely macroscopic theory. It
doesn't deal with individual components, but it deals with the "arm"
as a whole.> If there is any re as on to
support contraction over expansion, please tell.

       Maxwell's equations applied to microsciopic particles are
consistent with a contraction. This means the laws of electrodynamics
and optics are consistent with the contraction. There is no model
relevant to microscopic particles that explains the expansion.
    I have no idea from your model how the motion of the earth affects
birefringence in a piece of glass. Your model explains the MMX
experiment and provides no prediction of any other phenomenon.
     Lets put it this way, at least the Lorentz theory was falsified.
He assumed electrons have a spheroidal form governed by the Lorentz
contraction. Scattering experiments show this isn't true. Therefore,
his physical model is wrong.
    From your expansion, there is no way to tell what shape the
electrons are in. It is a theory about the arms of the MMX, not the
atomic components. Therefore, it is quite a bit different from the
Lorentz theory.
   BTW: The contraction hypothesis was first presented by Fitzgerald.
However, he did not use Maxwell's equations or any atomic theory.
Therefore, the Fitzgerald hypothesis to the extent Fitzgerald
presented it is as unfalsifiable as yours.

BTW Michelson was
wrong in expecting a fringe shift.

    No. Given rigid arms and an aether that carries light, his
hypothesis of a fringe shift was 100% correct. Unfortunately, the arms
were not as rigid in the way he thought.

The following may be of interest to you:

Inside Science Research – Physics News No 623 #2 Feb5, 2003 P Schewe,
J Riordon, B Stein:
 Lorentz invariance, the idea that the result of a physics experiment
should stay the same whether the apparatus is motionless or traveling
at some great constant speed relative to a reference point, is taken
for granted in the theory of special relativity. Yet in recent years
some scientists have come to question this pillar of physics, and to
suggest theoretical models (called "standard model extensions," or
SMEs ) incorporating Lorentz violations and experimental ways of
settling the matter.

    This is a new theory. Good for them. However, it needs testing.
In these models, the speed of light is not>The geometry of the experiment gives it optimal
sensitivity to a number of coefficients in a generalized SME. The
Stanford group sees no such anisotropy at the level of 10-13 for
velocity-independent terms, and at the 10-9 level for velocity-
dependent terms. (Lipa et al., Physical Review Letters, 14 February
2003.)

     Looks like relativity wins again. So the speed of light is
invariant to a high degree of precision.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Darwin, excellent resume of irrelevant facts which may disguise the
simple arguments I have against contraction:

1. Michelson’s logic in expecting a fringe shift was incorrect.
2. Lorentz (and others) accepted that there should be a fringe shift
and used a mathematical gimmick to equalise the length of the parallel
arm with the length of the perpendicular arm by contraction of the
parallel arm in order to make the light path (twice over both arms)
the same length.
3. The light path can also be made the same length by expansion of the
perpendicular arm.
4. Lorentz chose arbitrarily one of two invalid alternatives.

Peter Riedt
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
    ... Lorentz not only derived the contraction and time dilation, ... the MMX experiment. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
    ... Lorentz not only derived the contraction and time dilation, ... the MMX experiment. ... He assumed electrons have a spheroidal form governed by the Lorentz ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
    ... Lorentz not only derived the contraction and time dilation, ... the MMX experiment. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
    ...     A wave propagating in an aether does not have the same properties ... arm with the length of the perpendicular arm by contraction of the ... Experiments that disprove the entire Lorentz ... transform must concentrate on the electron. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
    ... Lorentz not only derived the contraction and time dilation, ... the MMX experiment. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)