Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Aetherists and the doppler effect

  1. Mar 9, 2006 #1
    Is there somebody who knows the way in which aetgherists derive the formula that accounts for the optical Doppler effect?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 9, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  4. Mar 9, 2006 #3
    This is a very difficult question since you get a different answer depending on;

    1. what flavor of "aetherist" you are considering (some of them produce incorrect results that are different from SR, very few of them produce correct results)
    2. whether you are talking about the longitudinal or the transverse Doppler effect (which is specific to SR only and gives the "aetherists" fits)

    Why the question? if you answer this, we may be able to give you a better answer.
  5. Mar 10, 2006 #4
    It is about the aetherits who belive in the existence of an "absolute" reference frame where the one way speed of light works whereas in all the other ones only the two way one works. I have in mind the "nonlongitudinal" Dopper effect.
  6. Mar 10, 2006 #5
    This is a very interesting question. The above statement helps eliminate the tons of kooks. It leave only the theory of Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl.
    The above would object strongly to being called "aetherists", they are known
    under the name of "test theorists".
    Their theory predicts the same exact effects as SR. For every known manifestation. RMS theory is equivalent to SR.
    Having said that, there are one way light speed experiments that refute the fundamental RMS hypothesis of light speed anisotropy.
    Have a look at this thread:

  7. Mar 10, 2006 #6
    E=mcc and special relativity

    has E=mcc something in common with special relativity?
  8. Mar 11, 2006 #7
  9. Mar 13, 2006 #8
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  10. Mar 13, 2006 #9
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  11. Mar 13, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Different sign, he says.
  12. Mar 13, 2006 #11

    "Wisp theory predicts a positive change in frequency, whereas special relativity predicts a negative change. Both predicted changes have the same magnitude and will therefore have the same effect on the absorber. The results of the experiment are therefore inconclusive."

    The guy is completely ignorant of the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
    He "fixed" most of his explanations to make it look like his theory is equivalent with SR. If he "fixed" all of them, then his theory becomes irrelevant. If he leaves some different (like TDE), his theory is plain wrong.
  13. Mar 15, 2006 #12
    In the Ives-Stilwell experiment the motion of the high-speed ions relate to a case whereby the light’s source is traveling faster through the ether than the observer. And in this case the wisp theory results agree with SR (Observer is effectively stationary “<0.0015c” and source moving).

    But if the motion of the observer through the ether were greater than the light’s source, then wisp theory predicts the transverse Doppler effect (TDE) would measure differently to SR - a change of similar magnitude but opposite in sign. And the Ives-Stilwell experiment clearly doesn’t test this.
  14. Mar 15, 2006 #13
    Ha,ha, ha

    you forgot about the principle of relativity. There is only relative speed.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2006
  15. Mar 15, 2006 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2018 Award

    wisp: I think we have been MORE than "generous" in allowing you to advertize your pet theory here in spite of our Guidelines against it, simply because the OP asked for it. I was hoping that someone (you?) would point to legitimate references rather than some personal website. Obviously, my hope was obviously unfounded.

    Per our Guidelines, references such as this is not allowed. If you wish to continue, please submit your work to the IR forum. Pleaser refrain from this moment on in citing non-peer-reviewed articles such as this.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook