Sun's light beam and diffraction grating

[Alvydas]

Hello.

Lets say we have 2 small holes (1&2) which makes tiny light beam from the Sun's light.
(similar to laser beam)
......1|......|2...
(Sun) -> >-------------------------------------|dg|-----{order 0}-------(Earth)
......1|......|2...

|dg| is diffraction grating perpendicular to the light beam.
Holes and grating moves together with the Earth.

Will this grating effect direction of light propagation and how much?
Lets consider only order 0 for simplicity.

I mean the Earth is moving around the Sun.
How this will effect the result?

Thanks.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't think the light that is in order 0 is affected at all.

 

[mfb]

I mean the Earth is moving around the Sun.
How this will effect the result?

It modifies the position where you see sun in the sky (more interesting for other stars, however). In your setup, it does not matter. Your can view your lab as inertial system. In theory, if your experiment is extremely precise, you could measure the rotation of earth. But I think this is just a theoretical option.

Order 0 just appears in a straight line behind the holes.

 

[Alvydas]

Thank you.
But still would be nice to talk with someone who would like to make this experiment.
I mean small possible deviation up to 0.1mm per 1 m.
At good laboratory I suppose it would take only 15 minutes of time,
but difficult to reach necessary acuracy without specific equipment.
Of course instead of holes some optics can be used to form narrow beam from the Sun.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Thank you.
But still would be nice to talk with someone who would like to make this experiment.
I mean small possible deviation up to 0.1mm per 1 m.
At good laboratory I suppose it would take only 15 minutes of time,
but difficult to reach necessary acuracy without specific equipment.
Of course instead of holes some optics can be used to form narrow beam from the Sun.

You don't need to do an experiment. You can calculate what happens. If the grating has zero thickness then the 0th order spectrum surely must involve no change in angle because the path distance for the beam will not change. What are you expecting and what is your justification, in theory?

 

[Alvydas]

You don't need to do an experiment. You can calculate what happens. If the grating has zero thickness then the 0th order spectrum surely must involve no change in angle because the path distance for the beam will not change. What are you expecting and what is your justification, in theory?

Some old theories suggest some difference between direction of light propagation
and perpendicular to wave front for this setup.
Diffraction grating likely would be sensitive to detect such difference.

So why just not make measurements to be sure?
Especially because it is extremely cheep and quick experiment for people who already have necessary equipment.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Which old theory? Do you have a ref?

 

[Alvydas]

Which old theory? Do you have a ref?

You know before relativity there was 3 main views to photon:
ballistic photon, wave in motionless ether and wave in entrained ether.
This experiment is for comparison relativity with entrained ether.
See picture:
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1410/entrainedether.png

If we have observer on the Earth light from the Sun is coming a little diagonally
(due Earth motion)
By classical view wave front 1 is still parallel to the surface of the Earth.
Because ether movement do not effect impulse of the photon
light will hold his initial direction after coming to Earth's ether.
So entrained ether will not contradict to stellar aberration (opposite to widely prevalent misunderstanding), but there is unclear situation with waver front 2.

If front of individual photon equals to front 2 we have strange photon
where line of movement differs from perpendicular to its wavefront.
This can be detected by simple initially described experiment with diffraction grating.

But still this experiment is not very clear, because we are in atmosphere and photons many times re-emits by atoms of it.
Re-emitted photons may have usual orientation of wave front (perpendicular to line of motion).
Therefor ideally would be nice to make such experiment on a satellite (outside atmosphere)
and to use only holes and diffraction grating to avoid mentioned re-emitting inside optical instruments.

I hope this is what you asking for.
I do not know who initially proposed entrained ether,
but I know this version was widely discussed by science community of that time
and was made some mistake with stellar aberration.
And I really do not know any other contradictions to experiment,
(please say if you know)
but this branch was dropped somehow without future development prior to relatyvity.

 

[mfb]

I do not see why this should give a 0. maximum anywhere but in the straight line behind the holes.

It is possible to develop aether theories which make the same predictions as special relativity. But they are needlessly complicated, and therefore they are not used any more. In addition, SR is not about light only - we have so many effects which agree with SR very well.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I should have thought that the Michelson Morley experiment would have been a much more sensitive way of showing that there is no motion 'through an aether' and it works on the same principle as the suggested 'diffraction grating' method - namely trying to detect an effect on a diffraction pattern due to wave motion through some sort of 'medium'. MM showed there is none.

 

[Alvydas]

I do not see why this should give a 0. maximum anywhere but in the straight line behind the holes.

It is possible to develop aether theories which make the same predictions as special relativity. But they are needlessly complicated, and therefore they are not used any more. In addition, SR is not about light only - we have so many effects which agree with SR very well.

In case if such wave exist where perpendicular of wave front differs from direction of propogation two adjacent slitts of diffraction gratings would be reached not simultaneously.
I mean when difraction grating are exactly perpendicular to light patch.
So light would bend a little.

I do not state here that SR is wrong by current experiments.
But you can not be sure eactly 100% that situation will not change.
If you are interested purely in nature, not in current status you can not be sure 100%.
At least a little little less.
But alternative views , even wrong views can suggest better experiments
because you start thinking in terms of differences.
I do not mean differences between Newton and SRT.
I mean differences between SRT and the best current alternatives you can find.
Even not excepted by science community.
From these differences can be generated ideas for interesting experiments.
Without these alternatives you would not find even ideas for such experiments.

 

[Alvydas]

I should have thought that the Michelson Morley experiment would have been a much more sensitive way of showing that there is no motion 'through an aether' and it works on the same principle as the suggested 'diffraction grating' method - namely trying to detect an effect on a diffraction pattern due to wave motion through some sort of 'medium'. MM showed there is none.

Lets made mind experiment.
Lets put all MMX to photo sensityve matierial and run ether wind with velocity v.
You will have hologram with periods
l1=l0 * sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) along perpendicular arm and
l2 = l0 * (1-v^2/c^2) along arm parallel to ether wind.
This is some type of standing wave formed by not sinusoidal sum of two rays mowing back and force. But nice point is that they will form sinusoidal hologram.
This is easy to test on a simulator.
Now why not to guess that hard bodies are also standing waves.
If so they must contract in ether wind by the same amount.
So MMX can not measure anything from this point of view.

Similar point was proposed by H.Lorenz in his LET, but with the same amount of relative contraction l2/l1 = sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)

Again I am not saying that SRT is wrong by current data, but if alternative view gives so close results it is much easier to look for better experiments in terms of differences.

 

[mfb]

In case if such wave exist where perpendicular of wave front differs from direction of propogation two adjacent slitts of diffraction gratings would be reached not simultaneously.

It does not matter - you can use a diffraction grating with any direction if incoming wave fronts. The 0th maximum will be where the light spot would be without grating.

I do not state here that SR is wrong by current experiments.

That would be a silly statement ;).

But you can not be sure eactly 100% that situation will not change.

You can never be, as always in science.

I just do not see where other theories would predict other results, at least for the 0th maximum.

I do not know any (interesting) theory which agrees with SR in all experiments within the current precision, but predicts measurable deviations somewhere. As far as I know, most tests of SR just look for any deviation, without testing a specific theory. With GR, things are different, and there are theories like MOND.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Lets made mind experiment.
Lets put all MMX to photo sensityve matierial and run ether wind with velocity v.
You will have hologram with periods
l1=l0 * sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) along perpendicular arm and
l2 = l0 * (1-v^2/c^2) along arm parallel to ether wind.
This is some type of standing wave formed by not sinusoidal sum of two rays mowing back and force. But nice point is that they will form sinusoidal hologram.
This is easy to test on a simulator.
Now why not to guess that hard bodies are also standing waves.
If so they must contract in ether wind by the same amount.
So MMX can not measure anything from this point of view.

Similar point was proposed by H.Lorenz in his LET, but with the same amount of relative contraction l2/l1 = sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)

Again I am not saying that SRT is wrong by current data, but if alternative view gives so close results it is much easier to look for better experiments in terms of differences.

You can't test an idea like this on a "simulator" because the simulator would have your basic idea already built into it.

MMX, surely, demonstrated that there is no "wind" so how would a non-existent wind produce any effect?

 

[Alvydas]

You can't test an idea like this on a "simulator" because the simulator would have your basic idea already built into it.

MMX, surely, demonstrated that there is no "wind" so how would a non-existent wind produce any effect?

Yes , length contraction is some type of ad-hoc.
But it looks enough realistic.
It comes from analysis how simplest hologram (a single mirror and photo sensitive surface on it)
would look like if ether wind would really exist.
It is easy to find that ether wind would not destroy the hologram, just periods would become shorter
by mentioned proportions.

Here is some picture (full animation maybe would be too big to place here)
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/6130/wave.png
Lets asume ether wind from right to left with velocity v
If we have mirror on left side then incoming wave :
y1 = k*sin(x/(2*pi(c+v)) +t)
and reflected wave
y2 = k*sin(x/(2*pi(c-v)) -t)
(both are gray on the picture)
Then y1+y2 = k*sin(x/(2*pi(c+v)) +t) + k*sin(x/(2*pi(c-v)) -t)
(black line) which also moves.
But it moves only inside static zones surrounded by static violet sinusoids.
y3 = 2*k*sin( x/( 2*pi*c*(1-v^2/c^2) ) ) and
y4 = -2*k*sin( x/( 2*pi*c*(1-v^2/c^2) ) )

So it forms sinusoidal hologram, but with shorter periods compare to the case when v=0.
Here are no any ad-hocs up to this point, just calculations how hologram would look if ether wind would exist.

Then comes ad-hoc idea: maybe hard bodies are some type of standing waves also.
If so they must follow the same rules (must contract by the same amount).
In this way even 0.9c ether wind will be not detectable with MMX setup, because of contraction of parallel arm by factor (1-v^2/c^2) and perpendicular by factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Nothing much new here compare to LET, because relatyve contraction stays the same,
but maybe here is a little better motyvation why hard bodies could contract.
Yes, this analogy/relation between hologram and hard body can be seen as an ad-hoc,
but also can happen that it is a good guess.
But at least we need same alternatyve views to find good experiments based on differences.
I think there is no big problem if alternatyve view is not vell developed in all posible areas.
But still it is worth for mentioned purpose (to look for experiments) if it has good agreetment with experiments in areas where it is already developed and if we are scientific minded (not sure 100% with any even the best current theory).

By the way it looks this idea also can be aplied to explain life time of unstable particles.
Smaller moving particle (perpendiculary smaller by factor sqrt(1-v^/c^2))
may move longer until it hits with some virtual particle or dark mater particle or something else. Ant it looks this explanation fits numerically to known experiments also.

 

[sophiecentaur]

MMX had to be done long before holography had been invented but precisely the same thing is involved. I can't see why you want to re-do (effectively) the experiment, bearing in mind that there are hoards of experiments which are done nowadays which both demonstrate and use the non-existence of an aether. I'm talking about all the interferometry that's done between satellites and on the ground etc.
No simulation can be used to 'prove' anything so it would be a waste of time.
The rest of your post is getting a bit speculative, I'm afraid. I ran out of steam on the way through it.

 

[Alvydas]

MMX had to be done long before holography had been invented but precisely the same thing is involved. I can't see why you want to re-do (effectively) the experiment, bearing in mind that there are hoards of experiments which are done nowadays which both demonstrate and use the non-existence of an aether. I'm talking about all the interferometry that's done between satellites and on the ground etc.
No simulation can be used to 'prove' anything so it would be a waste of time.
The rest of your post is getting a bit speculative, I'm afraid. I ran out of steam on the way through it.

There are two different statements:
relativity do not contradict to all known experiments
and
ether of light still exist.

I think these two statements do not exclude each other,
but there is no way to prove it without discussions
(private discusion also would be ok, 1 email per week would be enough).

 

[sophiecentaur]

Personally, I prefer to stick to open forum conversations.
There is "no way to prove it" without measurements, I think. There have been many discussions (and measurements) already. If you are interested in finding out more then perhaps you need to read around more.

 

[Alvydas]

Personally, I prefer to stick to open forum conversations.
There is "no way to prove it" without measurements, I think. There have been many discussions (and measurements) already. If you are interested in finding out more then perhaps you need to read around more.

Yes, in data of real measurements I am interested most of all.
But here is such problem, I am interested in measurements only where my view for sure provide results different from current theory. But such experiments still was not done.
Most known real experiments which have relation with c do not contradict to my view.
For the rest (like Probe B for example and more) my math skills is not strong enough.
You can test with any particular known experiment where math is not too complex.

 

[ZapperZ]

In case if such wave exist where perpendicular of wave front differs from direction of propogation two adjacent slitts of diffraction gratings would be reached not simultaneously.
I mean when difraction grating are exactly perpendicular to light patch.
So light would bend a little.

I do not state here that SR is wrong by current experiments.
But you can not be sure eactly 100% that situation will not change.
If you are interested purely in nature, not in current status you can not be sure 100%.
At least a little little less.
But alternative views , even wrong views can suggest better experiments
because you start thinking in terms of differences.
I do not mean differences between Newton and SRT.
I mean differences between SRT and the best current alternatives you can find.
Even not excepted by science community.
From these differences can be generated ideas for interesting experiments.
Without these alternatives you would not find even ideas for such experiments.

I don't get it.

There are dozens of other similar measurements that are WAY more sensitive than this (Kennedy-Thorndyke, for example) to detect such variations, if any. They haven't detected any. What makes you think that this particular one, that is considerably coarser than those experiments, is any better? Are you saying that your set up is more sensitive than LIGO or LISA, for example? How?

Zz.

 

[Alvydas]

I don't get it.

There are dozens of other similar measurements that are WAY more sensitive than this (Kennedy-Thorndyke, for example) to detect such variations, if any. They haven't detected any. What makes you think that this particular one, that is considerably coarser than those experiments, is any better? Are you saying that your set up is more sensitive than LIGO or LISA, for example? How?

Zz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy–Thorndike_experiment
It is really surprisingly how people can ravel with such simple things.
Lets consider my contraction for simplicity because it has not any essential difference for this experiment but it is easier to see.
Let we have 1 arm with size of L0 at rest (no ether wind).
Now let's we move parallel to ether wind , we have contraction by factor
L = L0*(1-v^2/c^2)
and we have overage velocity c = c0(1-v^2/c^2)

(c+v and c-v always gives such overage velocity for 2 way travel for any distance)

So T = 2*L/c =2*L0/c0

For perpendicular motion
L = L0*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and overage (one way also) velocity
c = c0*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

So T = 2*L/c =2*L0/c0

Rotation of arm do not change travel time.
The same for LET , just here contraction is by factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) less.
But it do not effect T which will be T0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for all orientations.

If for single leg travel time do not vary due rotation than for 2 legs difference will stay the same
independently of their length.

LIGO / LISA just big MMX

 

[ZapperZ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy–Thorndike_experiment
It is really surprisingly how people can ravel with such simple things.
Lets consider my contraction for simplicity because it has not any essential difference for this experiment but it is easier to see.

No, this has nothing to do with "easier to see" but rather more sensitive. That was what I asked!

You have provided zero argument on why this would be a more sensitive experiment than those that I described. An easier experiment but having worse sensitivity does nothing to advance our knowledge. It may be a cute thing to do as a pedagogical demonstration, but it doesn't provide new knowledge or testing in a new, uncharted area of physics.

Provide a reason why it would be more sensitive than, say, the one that's done in Ch. Eisele et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. v.103, p.090401 (2009). Here, they tested for the anisotropy within the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl model, and tested it up to a sensitivity of 0.6 parts in 10^17! Can your set up do better? How?

Zz.

 

[Alvydas]

No, this has nothing to do with "easier to see" but rather more sensitive. That was what I asked!

You have provided zero argument on why this would be a more sensitive experiment than those that I described. An easier experiment but having worse sensitivity does nothing to advance our knowledge. It may be a cute thing to do as a pedagogical demonstration, but it doesn't provide new knowledge or testing in a new, uncharted area of physics.

Provide a reason why it would be more sensitive than, say, the one that's done in Ch. Eisele et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. v.103, p.090401 (2009). Here, they tested for the anisotropy within the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl model, and tested it up to a sensitivity of 0.6 parts in 10^17! Can your set up do better? How?

Zz.

If entrained ether exist,
lets say masses drag it approximately proportional to their g^2 (when small velocities)
So near the Earth ether almost completely moves with it.
(Idea of entrained ether I guess it is older then SRT, dragging proportion by g^2 also was found from other authors.)
But it is unclear how photon cross intermediate zone.
Almost for sure it holds impulse and therefor direction.
But it is more unclear about wavefront of individual photon.
If it not change during this travel in vacuum (from Sun to Earth)
than it can be detected by mentioned experiment on a satellite.
On the Earth surface we can detect another (not original) photon re-emitted in atmosphere with correct wavefront.
So experiment on the Earth surface has very small reliability. We need satellite to avoid atmosphere.

But even on a satellite the is no guaranty, because photon my have another properties
which allow him to change waterfront by traveling from one ether zone to another.

It is just a chance to find new phenomena, not a guaranty even from entrained ether view point.

But it is a little better than nothing.
MMX and Kennedy-Thorndyke equals to nothing. I just showed why.
If we agree with this point I will go to modification you proposed.
If not please provide some explanation why.
Because your new modification is much based on these two.

 

[ZapperZ]

If entrained ether exist,
lets say masses drag it approximately proportional to their g^2 (when small velocities)
So near the Earth ether almost completely moves with it.
(Idea of entrained ether I guess it is older then SRT, dragging proportion by g^2 also was found from other authors.)
But it is unclear how photon cross intermediate zone.
Almost for sure it holds impulse and therefor direction.
But it is more unclear about wavefront of individual photon.
If it not change during this travel in vacuum (from Sun to Earth)
than it can be detected by mentioned experiment on a satellite.
On the Earth surface we can detect another (not original) photon re-emitted in atmosphere with correct wavefront.
So experiment on the Earth surface has very small reliability. We need satellite to avoid atmosphere.

But even on a satellite the is no guaranty, because photon my have another properties
which allow him to change waterfront by traveling from one ether zone to another.

It is just a chance to find new phenomena, not a guaranty even from entrained ether view point.

But it is a little better than nothing.
MMX and Kennedy-Thorndyke equals to nothing. I just showed why.
If we agree with this point I will go to modification you proposed.
If not please provide some explanation why.
Because your new modification is much based on these two.

But if those experiments equals to nothing, your will too! You are rotating your setup to be either along, or perpendicular to the ether wind. This is the exact configuration that all of these experiments can do!

And even after all this that you think you have something "new", then the next step is NOT to discuss it here, but to send it out for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, per the PF Rules that you had agreed to.

Zz.

 

[Alvydas]

But if those experiments equals to nothing, your will too! You are rotating your setup to be either along, or perpendicular to the ether wind. This is the exact configuration that all of these experiments can do!
Zz.

Maybe there is some misunderstanding, I do not rotate my setup at all.
Just put diffraction grating with proper orientation
and take it away to measure light beam dislocation for both cases.
If incoming photon would have unusual orientation of its wave front
it would change direction of order 0 a little.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Maybe there is some misunderstanding, I do not rotate my setup at all.
Just put diffraction grating with proper orientation
and take it away to measure light beam dislocation for both cases.
If incoming photon would have unusual orientation of its wave front
it would change direction of order 0 a little.

Why?

 

[ZapperZ]

Maybe there is some misunderstanding, I do not rotate my setup at all.
Just put diffraction grating with proper orientation
and take it away to measure light beam dislocation for both cases.
If incoming photon would have unusual orientation of its wave front
it would change direction of order 0 a little.

Er.. it DOES rotate... in relation to an external "ether" if there is any! The Earth moves around the sun, and the Earth spins on its axis, and at some point, your set up is now perpendicular in space to the direction you had it before!

You appear to not have read much of those experiments that I mentioned, especially the ones that have been carried out over long periods of time to account for the change in orientation of the setup!

Zz.

 

[Drakkith]

Maybe there is some misunderstanding, I do not rotate my setup at all.
Just put diffraction grating with proper orientation
and take it away to measure light beam dislocation for both cases.
If incoming photon would have unusual orientation of its wave front
it would change direction of order 0 a little.

The direction of the 0 order doesn't change. It's a straight line through the grating. (Ignoring refraction effects)

 

[Alvydas]

Why?

Maybe this picture will be more clear how I see photon crossing "rubicon" between two ethers.
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6566/photonl.png

 

[sophiecentaur]

Maybe this picture will be more clear how I see photon crossing "rubicon" between two ethers.
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6566/photonl.png

But that's just a 'made up' picture, on which you have imposed your idea. There is no justification for it at all. You need to quote some examples of measurements having been made or some theory which would justify it. Afaik, there is no theory (quite the reverse, in fact) and that accounts for why no one has even tried this method of trying to find an effect that other (better) measurements have found not to exist. You keep ignoring the fact that there are so many other equivalent measurements that confirm the non-existence of your magic aether - why? You are discounting everyone else's knowledge and opinions at a stroke.
Why waste more of your time and effort when simply getting into the subject in adequate depth would show you where your idea is a non-starter.

 

[Alvydas]

confirm the non-existence of your magic aether - why? You are discounting everyone else's knowledge and opinions at a stroke.
Why waste more of your time and effort when simply getting into the subject in adequate depth would show you where your idea is a non-starter.

"Special relativity assumes or predicts eight new physical effects, three in the matter sector and five in the photon sector (Einstein 1905)."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.3818v2.pdf

Do you agree with this? That all experiments can be divided by these effects.
If so it is much easier to work with these 8 effects instead of very big set realizations of the same things.

 

[Cthugha]

It has already been pointed out to you that Gezari is a well known crackpot in this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=615973

Why do you keep reposting his absurd manuscripts?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Gezari says "But conspicuously absent from the experimental
record is any published attempt to directly measure the speed of light with a moving
detector to test the invariance of c to motion of the observer."
I'd like to know when c has ever been measured with a detector and source that weren't moving?
I think he must be barmy. I wouldn't rely on what he writes in the absence of supporting references.

 

[Alvydas]

It looks I have found my mistake with this setup.
See picture:
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/5486/angleu.png

Dragged ether of the Earth could be effected by Doppler effect.
Now see next picture:
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7523/angle2d.png

Wave front stays perpendicular to direction of photon move
and nothing can be detected with mentioned diffraction grating.
So my setup also equals to nothing.
But maybe here is good point also.
Now I have best ever explanation of stelar aberration from entrained ether position.
Entrained ether for sure do not contradict to stelar aberration.

Also I was too categoric about MMX. Everyone something had learned from it. I also.
Just I have found different explanation for myself.

At my last post I was cited Einstein, but took it from the place where I remember (Gezari paper).
I mean such classification by effects makes analysis of experiments much clear.
We have small finite number of the effects from SRT instead of infinite number of experiments.
Explanation of all these 8 effects have not any problems from my view point, optical effects and Mercury precession from GRT also, but not all for the moment.

And only 2 experiments I was able to find in terms of differences.
(I had some hope that this can be next one, but as see not)
For example I see differently time dilation inside big masses.
Here time becomes quicker again like far away from the mass.
Because it is not so easy to go deep down to the Earth maybe this can be tested by astronomers.

 

[Alvydas]

It has already been pointed out to you that Gezari is a well known crackpot in this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=615973

Why do you keep reposting his absurd manuscripts?

Yes, I agree he makes some mistakes even from my point of view.
But these calculations also like you say absurd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy–Thorndike_experiment
but nobody here say they (Kennedy–Thorndike) are crackpots.

Why just not to try to find where exactly people make mistakes?

 

[Drakkith]

Why just not to try to find where exactly people make mistakes?

Because your setup doesn't do that.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Why just not to try to find where exactly people make mistakes?

If you are suggesting that there is a "mistake" then you will, presumably, have some idea (calculation?) about just how big this mistake could be. How 'wrong' and by how much are you suggesting the present theory could be?
It is 'not Science' to propose just doing an experiment to see what happens; you need to make a prediction about a quantity or relationship (at least an order of magnitude) that can be verified. You initial diagram suggests an angle for the beam to be deviated. What is your suggested value of this angle?
You see, what you are proposing seems to make no sense (to me and others), so people would need some convincing if they were to bother to use it as a basis for investing in an experiment.

 

[Alvydas]

If you are suggesting that there is a "mistake" then you will, presumably, have some idea (calculation?) about just how big this mistake could be. How 'wrong' and by how much are you suggesting the present theory could be?
It is 'not Science' to propose just doing an experiment to see what happens; you need to make a prediction about a quantity or relationship (at least an order of magnitude) that can be verified. You initial diagram suggests an angle for the beam to be deviated. What is your suggested value of this angle?
You see, what you are proposing seems to make no sense (to me and others), so people would need some convincing if they were to bother to use it as a basis for investing in an experiment.

It can be I was wrong, by saying I am wrong.
Initially I had in minds deviation of angle equal to v/c.
This is easy to find because Sun's light comes perpendicularly to Earth rotation around Sun.
So income light impulse is of angle v/c from line Sun-Eath.
But all this mess is about the angle of wavefront when photon pass intermedia zone between two ethers.

At my last picture (where I was saying I am wrong) the final angle is of order v^2/c^2 not v/c.
(and the picture is not enough correct).
Somehow I made mistake by mind estimation. So this angle is not essential compare to v/c.
Better I will take some time out now to get some better understanding of all factors and prepare some better explanation.

 

[Alvydas]

I still can not escape this crazy angle (v/c) if I stay on entrained ether positions.
By passing boundary between two ethers photon follows its initial direction because of impulse conservation.
It looks wavefront has not any reason/mechanic to change its orientation.

At this picture
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/265/photon2.png
wavefront comes exactly simultaneously to all slits of the grating,
therefore it must generate new direction for order 0 (due interference)
perpendicular to the grating.

Would be good to test in reality.
It would be very simple and cheep but reemitted in atmosphere photons likely becomes usual
(with wavefront exactly perpendicular to the direction of photon's propagation)
But I have not a satellite :) to try outside atmosphere where such interesting photons maybe may exist.

 

[sophiecentaur]

You are arguing that you could measure an effect if it existed. But it has been shown, by more sensitive methods than the one you propose, not to exist. You are saying that 'it would be nice' for someone else to invest time and money in what would be a pointless exercise. Your diagrams are just fanciful and there are no detailed calculations to back them up. You would be better to spend your time learning more of the details of this stuff and not tinkering on the periphery - coming to nonsensical conclusions. Your thinking is very very muddled and just 'approximate'.

I noticed two issues in your last post:
What do you mean by the word "impulse" in this context? Impulse has a specific meaning. Are you referring to Momentum? What actual direction is your photon traveling in?

If you look at the two vectors (v and c) on your diagram, they will have a resultant that has greater magnitude than c. That is hardly in accordance with what we know about the speed of light.

 

[Alvydas]

I noticed two issues in your last post:
What do you mean by the word "impulse" in this context? Impulse has a specific meaning. Are you referring to Momentum? What actual direction is your photon traveling in?

If you look at the two vectors (v and c) on your diagram, they will have a resultant that has greater magnitude than c. That is hardly in accordance with what we know about the speed of light.

Are here some experiments to detect separate weak photons of length 1 cm for example?
See picture:
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/1152/weakphotons.png
By placing a set of semitransparent mirrors we may obtain single photons coming from a laser.
But have someone tried it with long waves?
What is know experiments to detect very weak/long wave length separate photons?

This maybe can be helpful to understand better previous question (to understand who really is a photon).

Sorry impulse in my language equals to momentum in English. I sometime mix it therefore.
Photon travels directly Sun - Earth line with velocity c relative to Sun until he is inside Sun's ether(yellow area).
But because Earth moves diagonally to this motion classically observer on the Earth would see it
quicker than c.
Just by adding 2 perpendicular vectors v and c.
My diagram is just what observer on Earth see from entrained ether view point.
Of course it must use classical velocity addition, because this view is not based on relativity.

I do not understand a little what numbers are not clear for you when you talk about the lack of calculations?

The main reason for this experiment is :
I do not know any already done experiment who would contradict to my view.
As I told before some of them like Probe B I can not explain, because of complex math
and not enough developed view itself, but every experiment I am able to calculate I can explain it without relativity also. You may try to name a few you like, but please not big list. It just would take too much time.

 

[mfb]

There are experiments with single-photon sources. They do not use semi-transparent mirrors to produce single photons, but if you just want to reduce the photon flux, this is possible, of course.

I do not understand a little what numbers are not clear for you when you talk about the lack of calculations?

Try to predict the result of the experiment, using calculus only. No hand-wavy argumentation, just simple calculations.

 

[Alvydas]

Try to predict the result of the experiment, using calculus only. No hand-wavy argumentation, just simple calculations.

There is some problem. If I would describe particular case with some approximations specific to this experiment you would show these approximations give some wrong predictions somewhere else. But if you look how I explain experiments one by one likely you would find clear system and predictability.
Everything comes from my view what is ether + a few properties to be able well explain known experiments. These things can not be derived from something more fundamental or same principles.
Things like that can be only guessed and tested. On top of it mathematicians can build a theory.
But this/any theory is not a body, it is just like contours of currently visible body. And it is always temporary because if you extend your mathematical predictions outside current known experimental facts, this extension has no more reliability than my visual predictions.

So what is this invisible/magical/many times refused ether?
I think people already have many bits of this puzzle.
Lets imagine virtual particle which jumps quickly forth and back between virtual particle and virtual photon state. All virtual particles together forms an ether in old style understanding.
All photons moves with velocity c only relative to this ether.
But this ether of virtual particles can move in different ways.
Gravity for example generates ether flow to the direction of centers of big masses.
Therefore we have gravitational light bending, black holes and so on.
But this ether is not something like real gas, you can not compress it.
Even gravity can not do this (except black hole),
because any surplus of density of virtual particles quickly transforms to virtual photons.
Something like saturated vapor quickly transforms to water if you try to arise pressure.
This analogy with saturated vapor is very important and explains (at least shows direction for explanation) why body do not feel ether pressure when it moves constantly,
but feel when it moves with acceleration.

This is almost everything to explain any experiment, but sometimes math becomes too complex.
So for me it is easier and more interesting is to look how exactly some specific experiment fits to this view and what new experiments I can find which do not fit to current accepted theories.

 

[sophiecentaur]

@Alvydas
There have been countless experiments with satellites so you need not suggest any further, 'home-brewed' experiments to show this effect. The fact is that it hasn't been observed.
It strikes me that you are making a very common mistake here. You have studied a certain amount of this topic and you feel qualified to launch into fundamental research into Earth-shattering new ideas. I should give it a few more years of basic education in Physics before you try to change the world. At this stage, I think you could use your time more profitably than championing a cause which, in a few year's time, you will see is a non-starter. This is 'fun' but nothing else.
Do you seriously think that none of this has been considered in detail, by competent Physicists and rejected on very good grounds already?
[edit: - your last post was there since I wrote this. You seem to be refusing to consider approaching this with Maths. In that case, you are bound to fail. There hasn't been a single bit of worthwhile Physics work that has been undertaken without Maths for at least 100 years. The actual Numbers are what count in this sort of thing. For a start - how would this experiment work without a vast amount of number crunching? Analogies are in the same league as self-invented simulations; they prove nothing.]

 

[Alvydas]

@Alvydas
There have been countless experiments with satellites so you need not suggest any further, 'home-brewed' experiments to show this effect. The fact is that it hasn't been observed.
It strikes me that you are making a very common mistake here. You have studied a certain amount of this topic and you feel qualified to launch into fundamental research into Earth-shattering new ideas. I should give it a few more years of basic education in Physics before you try to change the world. At this stage, I think you could use your time more profitably than championing a cause which, in a few year's time, you will see is a non-starter. This is 'fun' but nothing else.
Do you seriously think that none of this has been considered in detail, by competent Physicists and rejected on very good grounds already?
[edit: - your last post was there since I wrote this. You seem to be refusing to consider approaching this with Maths. In that case, you are bound to fail. There hasn't been a single bit of worthwhile Physics work that has been undertaken without Maths for at least 100 years. The actual Numbers are what count in this sort of thing. For a start - how would this experiment work without a vast amount of number crunching? Analogies are in the same league as self-invented simulations; they prove nothing.]

In general you may be right about some points you are saying,
but in particular case I just maybe a little do not understand your minds about math.
Here is almost pure geometrical task with almost no calculation needed.
Because it is pure geometrical I do not understand how to describe it without visual representation.
Without picture would be even not possible to understand what I talking about.

But this is not important if this discussion do not lead to some at least very small possibility to make real experiment.

But I am here not just to post my mind. If possible I would like to learn also.
You are saying: another more sensitive measurements shows absent of ether.

This point is really the most interesting to me.

Lets take one and discuss about it.
I can not argue against textbook where it is described, only discussion with real people is worth.
But as you sow MMX family for example is not sensitive to anything if we take contraction into account.
What other experiments are sensitive to ether wind if contraction of hard bodies still exist?

 

[Alvydas]

If you are suggesting that there is a "mistake" then you will, presumably, have some idea (calculation?) about just how big this mistake could be. How 'wrong' and by how much are you suggesting the present theory could be?

Here I was talking about Kennedy–Thorndike wrong calculations and compare it with Gezari mistakes.
I was showed some post up very simple right calculations for Kennedy–Thorndike.
Travel time do not vary due rotation, so there is no any reason to use different arms.
There is extremely good example how dangerous are calculations without visual understanding.

And I afraid we can get some misunderstanding because of my poor English.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There is extremely good example how dangerous are calculations without visual understanding.

And how often is there a problem with 'visual understanding' without any calculations? Alvydas - you just can't do serious Physics without calculations. If you are serious about Physics then you will have to accept that Maths is essential. Do you find it too difficult?

 

[ZapperZ]

And considering that the explanation has been given several times already, this thread is done.

Zz.