Fizeau's Experiment interpretation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Fizeau's experiment and its implications for the speed of light in different media, particularly in relation to special relativity (SR). Participants explore concepts of light propagation in moving media, the effects of reference frames, and comparisons with sound waves.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and equal to c, while light traveling through a medium like liquid in Fizeau's experiment travels at a speed relative to that medium, which can vary for different observers.
  • Aaron questions why Einstein applies the principle of additive velocities in his interpretation, suggesting a misunderstanding of how light behaves in different reference frames.
  • Participants clarify that the speed of the source does not affect the speed of light, emphasizing that the speed of light is invariant in a vacuum but can be affected by the medium through which it travels.
  • Aaron raises questions about whether air counts as a medium and how this relates to the Michelson-Morley experiment, suggesting that movement of the medium could explain its results without invoking SR.
  • Some participants argue that the Fizeau experiment supports the idea that a moving medium has minimal influence on the speed of light, and that SR provides a better framework for understanding these phenomena.
  • Aaron expresses curiosity about experiments involving moving light receivers and draws analogies with sound waves, questioning how the speed of the receiver affects the measured speed of sound.
  • Participants discuss the implications of sound wave behavior and how it contrasts with light, noting that the speed of sound is influenced by the motion of the receiver, unlike light.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, particularly regarding the interpretation of Fizeau's experiment and the implications for special relativity. Some views remain contested, especially concerning the role of the medium and the nature of light propagation.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the influence of different media on light speed, the historical context of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the conditions under which the principles of relativity apply. The discussion reflects varying interpretations and assumptions about these concepts.

doaaron
Messages
65
Reaction score
4
Hi all,In Einstein's book, "Relativity: The Special and General Theory", he uses the Fizeau experiment to show how the Lorentz Transform correctly predicts the addition of velocities.

I have some difficulty understanding the interpretation of the results, however. Suppose that liquid M is in reference frame F, and liquid N is in reference plane F'. Also, N is moving at velocity v wrt M. When light travels through M, assume the velocity is measured as u wrt F. If light were traveling in N, I would also expect it to travel at velocity u but this time wrt F' since firstly, the medium (N) is at rest in F', and secondly, Einstein says that the speed of light does not depend on the frame of reference. According to this principle, I would also expect light traveling in N to travel at speed u wrt both F and F'.

This is analogous to the moving train wrt a platform example, where a light shone from the front of the train would have a measured speed of c in both the reference frame of the train, and of the platform.

Why then does Einstein use a principle of additive velocities to calculate the new speed of the light?thanks for the help,
Aaron
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is the speed of light in a vacuum which is the same in all reference frames and is equal to ##c##. Light traveling through a medium such as the liquid in Fizeau's experiment travels at a constant speed relative to the medium, that speed is less than ##c##, and because it is relative to the motion of the medium different observers traveling at different speeds relative to the medium will find the light to be traveling at different speeds relative to themselves.
 
Thank you for the correction. I realize now that my train analogy was also wrong as it more relates to the effect of the speed of the source on the speed of light than the speed of the medium on the speed of light.

regards,
Aaron
 
doaaron said:
Thank you for the correction. I realize now that my train analogy was also wrong as it more relates to the effect of the speed of the source on the speed of light than the speed of the medium on the speed of light.

regards,
Aaron
Hi Doaaron, a precision may be useful here: it's a postulate of relativity (based on Maxwell's theory) that the speed of the source has no effect on the speed of light.
The train example was meant to illustrate how the same speed of light in (near) vacuum can be measured with measurement systems that are in relative motion.
 
Hi harrylin,thanks for the reply. I was aware of the stuff you mentioned (I think), but I still have a few doubts.

First, does air count as a medium, or not? If it does count as a medium, then the original results in Michelson and Morley can be explained by movement of the medium (air), and SR is not needed. I understand of course that the Michelson and Morley experiment has since been performed in vacuum, but I'm wondering how people concluded in favor of SR over movement of the medium (at the time).

Another question. In theory if your experiment consists of a light source, and a light receiver, then neither movement of the source nor the receiver should have any effect on the measured speed of light. I wonder if any experiments have been performed with a moving light receiver. Obviously such an experiment would be more difficult to set up. My curiosity is from looking at mechanical waves such as sound. For sound, I think that the speed of the source has negligible effect on the speed of the wave, but the speed of the receiver would be directly related to the measured speed of the wave (I'm not too sure about this, but that's my intuition).

I'm actually reading Einstein's book on relativity so more questions will be coming.thanks and best regards,
Aaron
 
doaaron said:
[..] I still have a few doubts.

First, does air count as a medium, or not? If it does count as a medium, then the original results in Michelson and Morley can be explained by movement of the medium (air), and SR is not needed. I understand of course that the Michelson and Morley experiment has since been performed in vacuum, but I'm wondering how people concluded in favor of SR over movement of the medium (at the time).
Hi one of the starting considerations of SR was the Fizeau experiment (see the last paragraph of that section), and which showed that a moving medium has only little influence on the speed of light. In fact, the index of refraction of moving air is close to perfect vacuum; just plug in some numbers in the Fizeau equation and you will see that the speed of light is only little affected by moving air.

As far as I know, no theory that assumes light to move at c' relative to a material medium can explain the Fizeau equation as well as many other effects that SR correctly predicts/postdicts.
Another question. In theory if your experiment consists of a light source, and a light receiver, then neither movement of the source nor the receiver should have any effect on the measured speed of light. I wonder if any experiments have been performed with a moving light receiver. Obviously such an experiment would be more difficult to set up. My curiosity is from looking at mechanical waves such as sound. For sound, I think that the speed of the source has negligible effect on the speed of the wave, but the speed of the receiver would be directly related to the measured speed of the wave (I'm not too sure about this, but that's my intuition). [..]
Also with sound, the speed of neither the source nor the receiver has any influence on its speed until it reaches the receiver - perhaps you confounded the speed of the detector relative to the used reference system with the motion of the reference system itself?
Tests with moving light sources have also been done as you can find in the Physics Faq: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

The Faq mentions elsewhere experiments with Sagnac devices which have rotating source and detector, and a variant with glass as medium shows again the Fizeau effect. Such devices are used as gyroscopes.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Sagnac
compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity#Experiments_by_Fizeau_and_Sagnac

And as a matter of fact, the GPS system is continuously verifying that neither moving sources not moving detectors have any effect on the speed of radio waves.
 
Last edited:
Hi, thanks for the reply.

Also with sound, the speed of neither the source nor the receiver has any influence on its speed until it reaches the receiver - perhaps you confounded the speed of the detector relative to the used reference system with the motion of the reference system itself?

It was just poor intuition. Since you pointed out my mistake, I have a better picture of it in my mind. Thanks for the links.Aaron
 
Hi harrylin,
Also with sound, the speed of neither the source nor the receiver has any influence on its speed until it reaches the receiver - perhaps you confounded the speed of the detector relative to the used reference system with the motion of the reference system itself?

I thought that I had understood your point here, but now I'm not so sure. So I've illustrated my experiment below.

In the experiment, we send either light or sound from a source, and calculate the speed of the wave as (d1 + d0)/(t1 - t0). My understanding is that for light, the calculated speed will be c regardless of v. However, for sound traveling in a stationary medium such as air, its speed in a stationary frame of reference will be independent of v, but the speed calculated by the receiver, (d1 + d0)/(t1 - t0) depends on v.

So where am I going wrong?thanks,
Aaron

P.S anybody is welcome to respond.

SpeedOfRX.png
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K