Re: Michelson-Morley experiment

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/31/04 

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:46:47 -0600

Androcles wrote:

> "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:33lcj0F418475U1@individual.net...
>
>>
>>hasuinterceptor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi guys!
>>>
>>>This is my visit to this here forum. I'm googled it out because I
>>>have
>>>a question (or, as some might say it, a series of 'hidden' questions)
>>>regarding the Michelson-Morley experiment.
>>>
>>>Here are two links to the experiment just in case:
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
>>>http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html
>>>
>>>
>>>This experiment was meant to prove the existance of ether (and it
>>>failed, of course). Now, people are telling me that this experiment
>>>also proves that the speed of life is stable and is not dependant on
>>>the speed or state of the observer (A. Einstein's theory).
>>>
>>>Can anyone possibly explain to me how is that? I've went through this
>>>experiment in my mind for very long, but was unable to reach a
>>>rational conclusion as to this matter.
>>>
>>>I would appretiate any help.
>>
>>Special relativity explains the null result by setting the speed of
>>light as an observational constant. IOW, by setting the apparatus
>>perpetually *at rest* with respect to the medium in its own frame.
>>That is, if it isn't moving wrt the medium, then there would be no
>>fringe shift expected. The difference between this theory, and the
>>absolute ether theory, is that their predictions differ when the state
>>of motion of the apparatus is changed. Since the Earth changes in its
>>motion wrt any given inertial frame over the course of the year, then
>>the absolute ether theory cannot maintain that the apparatus was at
>>rest wrt the medium on every trial. I.e. it could only have been at
>>rest for a single moment, at most, wrt the medium. The special
>>relativistic solution is thus in keeping with the results, and the
>>absolute ether is an impossibility, i.e. it was disproved by the
>>experiment(s).
>>
>>Proofs of the truth of any given theory is however an impossibility,
>>and because of this, neither does MMX prove that special relativity is
>>the 'de facto' correct theory. The evolution of theory depends upon
>>the process of elimination, that is, it is possible to *disprove*
>>theories but not to prove them. Some theories may account equally as
>>well for a particular phenomenon as do other competing theories. The
>>one may OTOH take as general premises views that are contradicted by
>>experiments in other domains. These experimentally falsified theories
>>are thus clearly only *accidentally* successful in the domain to which
>>they apply well, i.e. they are special cases of a more general theory,
>>and their terms were improperly interpreted. By successive elimination
>>of faulty theories such as these, the most generally successful of
>>them are established and retained until yet more general solutions are
>>developed. This applies without question to special relativity, in
>>that it was soon discovered that its domain was limited to inertial
>>frames.
>>
>>The MMX disproves the *absolute ether* theory in that an absolute
>>ether, through which light propagates in wave-like motion, would have
>>resulted in the observation of fringe shifts. No fringe shift was
>>observed, that is, none that corresponded to motion wrt an absolute
>>space (absolute ether). IOW, the MMX proved only one thing, i.e. that
>>light doesn't propagate through a fixed (stationary in all points wrt
>>itself) medium.
>>
>>There are however several competing theories remaining that also were
>>not disproved by the experiment. OTOH, each of those theories makes
>>quantitative predictions in other domains as well, and many can thus
>>be filtered out through other means. The most successful of those, in
>>the macroscopic domain, has been general relativity, of which special
>>relativity is a limiting case valid when there are no gravitational
>>fields present in the system under study, or a good approximation when
>>those fields are negligible in magnitude. Though it isn't the most
>>intuitive solution, it is the most versatile theory by far (of those
>>that have been considered), in that it describes the greatest number
>>of behaviors with the least number of premises. Though special
>>relativity successfully accounts for the null result of the MMX, it
>>isn't a general solution, no more so than some of its competitors, and
>>was later superseded by general relativity for this very reason.
>>
>>As Androcles notes, the ballistic model of light equally well explains
>>the null results of the MMX. What he consistently fails to note,
>>however, is that special relativity *is* a ballistic model, one that
>>simply defines the terms *time* and *distance* differently than does
>>Newton. Thus the equations of motion in special relativity differ in
>>form from those that Androcles expects.
>>
>>Don't get into the relativity debate. I argued for years against
>>special relativity only to find that it was my very objections that
>>were the premises that led to general relativity. The problem seems to
>>be that those handful who actually understand the theory are typically
>>inept at relating that understanding. And then there are those who
>>claim to understand it but don't, and are prone to make statements on
>>its behalf that simply do not follow from the theory. IOW, there are
>>idiots on both sides of the debate, and your best bet is to forget
>>about trying to have serious discussion about it on usenet.
>>
>>Richard Perry
>
>
> Good advice, Richard. However, I have difficulty with your assertion
> that GR is a valid model since it takes no account of such empirical
> data as
>
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Compare.JPG
>
> Both diagrams have distance vertically and time horizontally. The
> vertical distance is many many light years. The observer is at top and
> the source at bottom.
>
> In the upper diagram, the speed of light is constant and the spacing
> between the lines occurs at transmission, whereas in the lower diagram
> the speed of light is added to the speed of the source, the spacing
> between the lines occurs only at the position of the observer. Either
> way, the observer sees the same effect, but must invoke general
> relativity's time dilation for the upper diagram. See
> http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/taylor-lecture.pdf
> If we add velocities, the lower diagram is correct and the interval
> between the pulses is regular at transmission, but is seen to be
> irregular, but if we believe what we see then the pulses are transmitted
> irregularly at source.
>
> I strongly suggest that Occam's Razor makes the lower diagram the
> correct one.
>
> I see nothing of value in pretending spacetime is distorted "out there"
>
> to make agreement with our subjective observations. Objectively, the
> velocity of light must be source dependent.
>
> You say "The special relativistic solution is thus in keeping with the
> results, [of MMX]" but I have to take issue with that.
>
> The x-axis arm of MMX is length contracted by
>
> xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the y-axis arm has no contraction.
>
> Standing alone, that might then be in agreement with Lorentz's analysis
>
> of contraction and re-introduce the aether. Except for one thing:
>
> Michelson was assuming would be c-v, c+v in one arm but not the other.
>
> Einstein claims it to be c (the same c) in both arms.
>
> Same speed of light, one arm shorter than the other. That produces a
> shift.
>
> Now, if Einstein had proposed a longitudinal time dilation and not a
> transverse time dilation, it might still possibly manage to be
> fringeless,
>
> and indeed Einstein DOES say tauX = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
> What is definitely missing is tauY = (t-vY/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
> He got into trouble with his transverse and longitudinal mass, too.
>
> Androcles

There is no contraction of either arm in special relativity, the
interferometer is at rest wrt the medium in its own frame. If OTOH we
assume a frame in motion wrt the interferometer, then the speed of
light is c both ways wrt our moving frame, but however the arms are
now in motion. Thus wrt our moving frame, the two-way speed of light
is c/gamma^2 wrt the longitudinal arm and c/gamma wrt the transverse
arm. Thus the longitudinal arm must be contracted by a factor 1/gamma
in order to provide a null result. You can alternately use your
ballistic model in a Galilean context to provide the same result.
You're not only frame jumping, but mixing models as well.

Richard Perry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Michelson-Morley experiment
    ... >> the speed or state of the observer (A. ... neither does MMX prove that special relativity is ... the lower diagram is correct and the interval ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Michelson-Morley experiment
    ... That is, if it isn't moving wrt the medium, then there would be no ... absolute ether theory, is that their predictions differ when the state ... neither does MMX prove that special relativity is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Axis_of_evil_in_CMB:_suspicious_coincidence à la Miller
    ... to invalidate the very foundation of Theory of Relativity. ... Light speed isn't constant wrt an accelerated frame of reference. ... space wrt some "stationary" observer, then wrt an observer in motion ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Special (Relativity) for da pickle
    ... But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of Beer one year ago, drank all ... century much of the success has been in the realm of Relativity: ... Relativity, applicable to gravity, and Special Relativity, particularly ... classical dynamics/relativity did not transform Maxwell invariantly. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
    ... "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website" ... Relativity but rather the showing that mathematics could used to make ... - Generating the Gravity Transformations ... This text is provided to correct residual errors in Special Relativity ...
    (sci.physics)