Measuring The Relative Velocity Of Light

[quantumdude]

make sure you include the data about scientists getting light to travel 100 times faster than normal calculated speeds using cold caesium chamber and group resonance beams of light.

I will indeed track down that paper. In the mean time, please do read what the actual experimenters had to say about it:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/fyi/news/08/21/speed.of.light/#3

according to einstein's "time" that speed makes the pulses received out of the other end of the chamber happen BEFORE the pulses are introduced to the entrance chamber.

That is indeed the prediction of SR. Now the question is, were the photons that came out of the chamber the same as those that went in?

the result? using light to measure instant time is a bad idea. DERIVING time from light is a better idea. using synchronicity to define time is the best idea.

You believe this because you still do not understand the necessity of SR for electrodynamics.

 

[ram1024]

does it matter that the light wasn't the same particles as what went in? not in the slightest.

think of a hose filled with water. you start forcing water into one end and water starts coming out the other side. this was water already in the hose, not water you put in, your water doesn't come out till later

but what IS accomplished is the speed of information transfer IS faster than light speed. the modality of synchronizing events "by light" is trumped by this new "speed". if something CAN be faster than light, what's to say something can't be even faster than THAT thing. which was why i was saying deriving instances of time is a good way to handle things, using known speeds of light is a good thing. but using light as a governor of when things happen in "time" is not so good, as things traveling faster than it "information" will go back in time, which is Unpossible <Ralph Wiggum>

 

[quantumdude]

does it matter that the light wasn't the same particles as what went in? not in the slightest.

Of course it matters!

Given permission by the city, I could rig up a series of streetlights to turn on--one at a time--in such a way that it appears that there is one light that is moving faster than 'c', when nothing is actually moving at that speed.

 

[ram1024]

yes, but you couldn't rig it to change the order of events as they appear according to viewing "by light" as "time" as they have done in the lab.

there's no prediction or preplanning. the photons exit the chamber about 300 times sooner than they should have using direct light beam transmission

that's called "faster than light" in any definition of the term :D

doesn't matter than it wasn't LIGHT moving faster than LIGHT. INFORMATION did.

 

[quantumdude]

doesn't matter than it wasn't LIGHT moving faster than LIGHT. INFORMATION did.

But the experimenters themselves never claimed that they could send information faster than light. How could you possibly claim to know it?

 

[ram1024]

there was an event on one side and a reaction on the other side, a reaction that happened 300 times faster than SHOULD have happened using light speed as a measure.

think binary. a bit of information "1" was sent into the tube. a bit of information "1" was received 300 times faster than it would have been using direct light transmission over the same distance.

THAT is why.

 

[quantumdude]

there was an event on one side and a reaction on the other side, a reaction that happened 300 times faster than SHOULD have happened using light speed as a measure.

think binary. a bit of information "1" was sent into the tube. a bit of information "1" was received 300 times faster than it would have been using direct light transmission over the same distance.

THAT is why.

The experimenters also reported that part of the pulse was detected at the exit before it was detected at the entrance, and yet Wang (the head scientist) specifically denies that he could use the effect to send information back in time. Furthermore, every analyst of this experiment has concluded that information was not sent faster than light. Aren't you even the least bit curious as to why? Don't you feel compelled to consult the literature on the experiment? Doesn't the first hand testimony of the people who designed the experiment and witnessed the effect carry any weight with you? Or are you satisfied with your simplistic explanation based on only a partial knowledge of what actually occurred in that lab?

 

[ram1024]

Aren't you even the least bit curious as to why?

i've already read about "why"

they're coming to the wrong conclusion trying to intercept the whole pulse,

ANYTHING coming out the other end can be taken as that "bit" of data.

align 4 tubes <arbitrary number> and transmit using all 4, by moving to another "tube" while waiting for the one you just used to complete in rotation you can transmit data AT LEAST 4 times faster than the speed of light.

with 300 tubes you could utilize the full capabilities of this speed. course the "switching" would have to be damn complex for that ;D

in any case I'm sure they adequately realize the potential of their results, but don't want to "give" any of the technology away if they can help it.

 

[quantumdude]

i've already read about "why"

Somehow, I don't think you have read the articles that appeared in the research journals.

they're coming to the wrong conclusion trying to intercept the whole pulse,

Well, you should email them right away!

Here's their Science director's webpage:

http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/chadi

ANYTHING coming out the other end can be taken as that "bit" of data.

But it is not the case that anything coming out can be seen as intelligible information.

in any case I'm sure they adequately realize the potential of their results, but don't want to "give" any of the technology away if they can help it.

What they want is to make a name for themselves, not to get patents. Scientists publish their results freely in journals such as Physical Review Letters. These scientists are no exception.

 

[wespe]

Before we go on, do you agree that the Lorentz contraction was created to explain why we DID NOT measure a change in the speed of light when it traveled against the aether during the Michelson-Morley experiment?

Yes. The contraction would cancel the effect of aether resistance.

I do know that Einstein replaced the Lorentz contraction, but wasn't it still used to explain why we DID NOT measure a change in the speed of light when it traveled against the aether?

Well, since aether was dismissed, it isn't currently used to expain anything about aether. As I wrote before, if you want to assume aether exists, you can treat it like any other frame of reference, and the length contraction explanation would appy.

However, there's another issue. Suppose you simply explain MMX result with length contraction. There is no need to abandon absolute space, and all observers could agree on how their lengths would compare. But according to SR, observers will not agree. I think that's an important point.

 

[ram1024]

you don't seem to be understanding me.

ANYTHING coming out the other end is "Data"

it either IS or ISN'T, 1 or 0. this is the principle behind binary computing.

the data coming out the other side doesn't need to do anything other than exist

 

[wespe]

No, it isn't. The length of the boxcar is contracted according to the following formula:

L=L₀/γ

That is not the simple ratio of speed to boxcars-per-second.
...

Tom,
in post #186, Grounded already found out his assumption did not match with SR's predictions. It would help if you could help me answer his questions after that post because I'm no expert and you seem to be. Thank you.

 

[quantumdude]

you don't seem to be understanding me.

ANYTHING coming out the other end is "Data"

it either IS or ISN'T, 1 or 0. this is the principle behind binary computing.

the data coming out the other side doesn't need to do anything other than exist

I understand you just fine. But what you aren't understanding is that in order for "information" to travel from one spacetime point to another, the carrier of information has to do more than just "exist". It has to be causally connected to the source so that something intelligble can be communicated. If the people who did the experiment do not claim that they could send information faster than light, then who are you to claim that they can?

Do yourself a favor: Read up on this.

 

[ram1024]

the tube IS connected the receiving end to the source. i have no idea what you're talking about but if i want to transmit "Hi Mom" in binary 300 times faster than the speed of light to the target location, i take 6 bytes of data (8 bits per byte) and through the system pipe of 48 tubes this "information" is transferred to the other end 300 times faster than light speed would reach.

thus if the computer on MY end was capable of deciphering those 48 bits and displaying them instantly, i could have them on MY screen before i would see them on YOUR screen, if you flashed them on YOUR screen AND transmitted them through the tube system at the same time.

 

[Hurkyl]

The problem is that the experimental setup is transmitting "Hi Mom" subluminally.

The "magic" is that the entry to the tube delays acknowledging the transmission until just before the exit receives it. This generates the illusion that the information went from the entry to the exit superluminally.

 

[quantumdude]

the tube IS connected the receiving end to the source.

I know that. Just like in my streetlight example, the lights are connected to my switch. That doesn't mean I can send information faster than light with them.

i have no idea what you're talking about but if i want to transmit "Hi Mom" in binary 300 times faster than the speed of light to the target location, i take 6 bytes of data (8 bits per byte) and through the system pipe of 48 tubes this "information" is transferred to the other end 300 times faster than light speed would reach.

thus if the computer on MY end was capable of deciphering those 48 bits and displaying them instantly, i could have them on MY screen before i would see them on YOUR screen, if you flashed them on YOUR screen AND transmitted them through the tube system at the same time.

LOL, well one thing is clear: You are certainly content to make a few simplifying assumptions when the problem gets difficult! The truth is that you have no idea of what your computer screen would say. You are just guessing that your machine will be able to interpret the pulse. The real scientists who did the real experiment in a real laboratory, on the other hand, disagree.

Why are you being so stubborn about this? The experimenters themselves said that what you have proposed cannot be done. Why don't you listen to them?

Here's an excerpt from a news report in which one of the experimenters was quoted.

From http://www.msnbc.com/news/435007.asp?cp1=1

"All this might make it sound as if the NEC researchers found a way to send a message at speeds faster than 186,000 miles a second — which could theoretically open the way for a sort of time travel. But the researchers contend that is not the case. Their experiment dealt with smooth changes in a pulse, and “a smooth function cannot carry information,” Dogariu said.[/color] Sending information — for example, the flashes of a laser semaphore — would require sharper variations in frequency that could not be processed in the type of finely tuned atom chamber used by the NEC researchers.

Color added by me, for emphasis.

 

[ram1024]

i KNOW that.

why do you think i said 48 chambers? because each ONE would be transmitting one BIT of information (either ON or OFF) to the destination.

}}|  | | || | | || | ||| || | |  |  || ||  |   || {{ - light in tubes
}}1000101011010101101011101101010010011011001000110{{ - interpreted data

assume that all that crap up there translates to "hi mom" a string of 6 character expressed in binary.

each BIT of information can be transmitted to the other end of the tube 300 times faster than light speed.

it is instantly processed by my computer and displayed on the screen (assume so to make a point).

if you displayed the words "HI MOM" on your screen AND sent the data down the tubes AT THE SAME TIME (co-local simultaneity DOES exist) then i would receive those 48 bits of data FASTER than looking over and waiting for the light from your screen to register "HI MOM" to my eyes.

we're talking 62 billionths of a second though for a 50 ft pipe of caesium, so the real result is "big deal?"

but what this DOES say is using light for simultaneity DOES fail for transmission of information at superluminal speeds. in essense, if light is your limiter for this situation then the message DOES come out on the receiving end BEFORE it was sent in, calculated with light simultaneity

 

[quantumdude]

i KNOW that.

You say that, but then you steamroll right over the troublesome part of the problem.

Right here:

it is instantly processed by my computer and displayed on the screen (assume so to make a point).

!

That's exactly the problem! You can't just assume that this can be done.

Again, I ask: Why are you being so stubborn about this? Why don't you believe the people who were there, when they tell you that this sort of pulse cannot be used to do what you say it can? What makes you think you know better than them, without ever having done any work in this field?

 

[ram1024]

the crux of the argument is information being transmitted at speeds faster than can be accomplished by light.

i was never arguing you that it's not feasible to do so because we lack the computing power to process that information at those speeds.

not once :D

 

[ram1024]

What makes you think you know better than them, without ever having done any work in this field?

you're just unwilling to conceed towards superluminal information transfer. logically if you think about it, and you know anything about information transmission you would KNOW what I'm saying is reasonable.

they know it too since they work in the business. I'm pretty sure "it can't be done" is either fog to keep competition away from what they're going to pioneer as new technology OR their data is faulty and they have no idea what they're talking about (their experiment is a sham).

take whichever of those two conclusions makes you feel the safest... :D

 

[geistkiesel]

True, the observer can't measure any change in his own mesauring stick (or better, there isn't any change according to him). But he does measure the measuring sticks in other frames shorter than his measuring stick. "his measuring stick has also contracted" is from the perspective of other frames.

Imagine you and I are holding 1 meter measuring sticks in the direction of each other. We both agree when we are at rest wrt each other. Then let us approach at a speed. I would see your meter contracted, and you would see my meter contracted. We would both think our [own] meters didn't change [it's always the other's meter that changed] and we would not agree on whose meter is shorter. But from a third person's perspective, both of our sticks might have been contracted. Everyone is correct according to oneself

I think there may be a contradiction here and that you may have erred slightly, Let us expand the situation. Two observers wih 1 meter rods are moving such that a stationary observer will see a length contraction to .9m on each rod and these observers are moving parallel and in the same direcion to each other. Clearly the rods would look the same to both observers, agreed?

Now we have the observers moving towad each other, but each is ignorant of he oher's presence. The grouind observer will will see a contraction to both rods to .9m each. Your statement that each observer would think the other's rod has changed and no agreement could be made, I Iassume you are placing each in the position of an effective stationary observer wrt the other. With a stationary observer noting changes, she still sees the rods shoren to .9c. But let us have the rods placed parallel and close to each other when they pass (or from an SR perspective when A passess B or B passes A) by each other.

It would be physically impossible for each of the moving obsevers to claim hat their rod was longer than the other. First their relaitive speed with respect to the stationary observer is the same, and hence the stationary observer keeps the books straight from his perspective.

However when passing next to each other there could be no disagreement between the observers as any disputes could be resolved with a simple inspection. So my question is what is the value, the wort, the utility of using assumed stationary frames when measuring relative velocity? The mathematics may allow you to do that and SR may allow you to do that, but there is the physical impossibility that the assumptions could ever be realized in practice, and then what of the assumed frame changes, i.e. to the rods?

The point is that making an assumption that an observer on a moving frame is stationary and the other moving, (and vice versus) just because the mathematics appears to alllow this kind of comparison is contradicted by physical law. Moving bodies do not enjoy the arbitrary luxury of starting and stopping at the will of an observer in that particlular frame, under any circumstances, yet this seems to be a common practice among SR theorist describing reality..

Just to overkill a tad. If one rod is shortened to .9m and the other to .5m as measured by a third observer then each could claim, re SR, that the other rod had shortened to .4m? How long would this assumption be demonstrably true, if ever? Especially when they pass next to each other and see the differences? Which they would see if their eyes were a few wave lengths from herods as they slid past, agreed?

If SR maintains this posture then it would have to conclude, as you said in your post, that each sees the other as shortening, but can the rod that is .9m wrt the stationary observer appear as .4m wrt to the other moving observer? Especially at the instant the rods were located next to each other, clearly visible to both? Couldn't each observer jump in the other's shoes and see the rods from the other's perspective? Apparently SR says you can. Each observer with the mere mental decision can place themselves in the other's position or themsleves at rest, or at any velocity compatible with the observed velocity as measured by the stationary observer?

 

[quantumdude]

the crux of the argument is information being transmitted at speeds faster than can be accomplished by light.

i was never arguing you that it's not feasible to do so because we lack the computing power to process that information at those speeds.

not once :D

Guess what? I never mentioned computing power either. Not once!

The problem at hand is not that we lack the technology to interpret the signal, the problem is that the signal that can break the lightspeed barrier is physically incapable of carrying information.

you're just unwilling to conceed towards superluminal information transfer. logically if you think about it, and you know anything about information transmission you would KNOW what I'm saying is reasonable.

I do know a thing or two about information transfer, and I "KNOW" that what you are saying is just wishful thinking.

they know it too since they work in the business.

Oh, they know it too, do they? Is that why they are saying it can't be done? That's a strange way of saying that they agree with you.

i'm pretty sure "it can't be done" is either fog to keep competition away from what they're going to pioneer as new technology OR their data is faulty and they have no idea what they're talking about (their experiment is a sham).

take whichever of those two conclusions makes you feel the safest... :D

I'm not going to take either one of your options, because they are both idiotic.

Tell you what. You construct a superluminal communications system and send me a message at 300 times the speed of light. Go ahead and try it, if you're so sure. Send me a message at 300 times the speed of light, and I'll believe you.

Waiting...

 

[wespe]

Let us expand the situation. Two observers wih 1 meter rods are moving such that a stationary observer will see a length contraction to .9m on each rod and these observers are moving parallel and in the same direcion to each other. Clearly the rods would look the same to both observers, agreed?

When they are moving like that, they are stationary wrt each other. Agreed.

Now we have the observers moving towad each other, but each is ignorant of he oher's presence. The grouind observer will will see a contraction to both rods to .9m each. Your statement that each observer would think the other's rod has changed and no agreement could be made, I Iassume you are placing each in the position of an effective stationary observer wrt the other.

I did not place them in somewhere else

With a stationary observer noting changes, she still sees the rods shoren to .9c. But let us have the rods placed parallel and close to each other when they pass (or from an SR perspective when A passess B or B passes A) by each other. It would be physically impossible for each of the moving obsevers to claim hat their rod was longer than the other.
However when passing next to each other there could be no disagreement between the observers as any disputes could be resolved with a simple inspection.

It is possible due to relative simultaneity. The ends of both rods will not meet at the same time according to both frames. The disagreement in simultaneity in turn makes both see the other's rod shorter than his own.

First their relaitive speed with respect to the stationary observer is the same, and hence the stationary observer keeps the books straight from his perspective.

So my question is what is the value, the wort, the utility of using assumed stationary frames when measuring relative velocity?

"using assumed stationary frames when measuring relative velocity". I don't follow.

The mathematics may allow you to do that and SR may allow you to do that, but there is the physical impossibility that the assumptions could ever be realized in practice, and then what of the assumed frame changes, i.e. to the rods?

In reality, I think length contraction is supported by muon decay observations.

The point is that making an assumption that an observer on a moving frame is stationary and the other moving, (and vice versus) just because the mathematics appears to alllow this kind of comparison is contradicted by physical law. Moving bodies do not enjoy the arbitrary luxury of starting and stopping at the will of an observer in that particlular frame, under any circumstances, yet this seems to be a common practice among SR theorist describing reality..

The point is, you can't detect which one is really stationary, can you? Just because something is bigger doesn't mean it is more stationary. Without any support that aether exists, it is meaningless to say something is really stationary.

Just to overkill a tad. If one rod is shortened to .9m and the other to .5m as measured by a third observer then each could claim, re SR, that the other rod had shortened to .4m?

It depends on relative speeds. I don't think that simple calculation will do to find relative length. Check the gamma formula. L=L0/gamma

How long would this assumption be demonstrably true, if ever? Especially when they pass next to each other and see the differences? Which they would see if their eyes were a few wave lengths from herods as they slid past, agreed?

To understand it clearly, assume the rods are very very long. You can't see both ends at the same time, how will you compare them as they pass next to each other? You must place synchronized clocks on each end and make two simultaneous measurements. That's is where relative simultaneity kicks in.

If SR maintains this posture then it would have to conclude, as you said in your post, that each sees the other as shortening,

yes

any velocity compatible with the observed velocity[/I] as measured by the stationary observer?

Well they can calculate what each other measures. But SR predicts their own measurements will be like that: each see own rod normal and the other's shorter.

As I said numerous times, I'm no expert and I may have understood some things wrong, I'm just trying to help by my best. But why act like you are hearing what I claim the first time. Check out the usenet FAQ if you didn't already.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
barn and pole paradox is especially relevant to this

 

[geistkiesel]

[Tom - this is just an intejection for your consderation.

Frame to frame references’

When those describing some aspect of SR use the terms that “the moving frame1 can consider itself stationary and the moving frame2 as moving” I ask is this a legitimate dynamic in mathematical analysis?. From this we get assumptions that a moving train, for instance, can consider itself at rest and the platform as moving. Now we know that only trains actually move and the stationary platforms remain stationary. In fact it is a physical impossibility for the described assumption to ever be realized, despite the allowed freedom and even encouragement of mathematical models to exploit the frame referencing processes as described.

What is the physical justification for manipulating models in this manner?

Here is a general and generic problem; two moving observers with the same velocity are side by side with one-meter rods in each of their frames. A stationary observer sees the rods shortened to .9m each, which goes unrecognized by the moving observers. Now we have the observers moving toward each other with the same shortened rods as observed from a stationary observer. SR theory allows either frame to consider itself as stationary and, I assume, that the other’s rod is .8m. Each will perceive the other’s rods as shorter than their own. When the observes get next to each other and the rods are measurable, at least by comparison, it would seem ludicrous to allow both observers at this point to determine any of the rods as shorter than the other. Where is the cut off point? Where is the frame referencing assumption limited, if at all?

It appears to me that even the simplest example of one frame assuming a v = o posture, giving all velocity to another frame, or the inverse, and the consequential time dilation and frame shortening is nothing but a mathematical contrivance to have the observers determine which is shorter or longer at their singular decision.

I trust you can appreciate the seriousness of this item, which is one of many that minimize any enthusiasm from serious consideration of studying SR in depth. I believe you when you say SR will predict what ever you say. I will not be engaged in any discourse on what is or is not SR theory and what are its affects. I assume the truth of the matter and if I see an objection I will scrutinize that which I observe. You have seen my posts, I have seen yours, and it is about time we recognize that we aren’t going to change anyone’s mind easily. In fact minds don’t get changed in matters like these without conscious decisions being made.

Ram1024 made a good suggestion that we strive for some real experiments to conduct. If sufficient professional creativity is applied we can design the experiments in threads. I was considering the experiment you referenced where the speed of light c wrt to some gamma particles (if I recollect) moving at .99c was measured. . Assuming the validity of the experiment as run what could be adjusted to determine if any objections originating in the forum can be exploited such as Grounded’s added velocity scheme, or moving platforms radiating photons from A and B to M the midpoint etc.

It is going to get very dry when the enthusiasm begins to wear thin and only the diehards are still going at it.

 

[geistkiesel]

When they are moving like that, they are stationary wrt each other. Agreed.

I did not place them in somewhere else

I only meant that one could say one or the other was moving or stationary at will.

It is possible due to relative simultaneity. The ends of both rods will not meet at the same time according to both frames. The disagreement in simultaneity in turn makes both see the other's rod shorter than his own..

If both fames are moving with velocity v wrt a stationary frame and they pass each other head on, must not the rods measure the same lengths? If the rods are 1/10 mm from each other and approximatey 1 meter long (meaning both obsevers can see the other's rod at the same time they see their own).. They have to see the same thing wouldn't they? Especially if the lengths were confirmed by a stationary observer. So what iof the efficacy of assuming one is moving the other stationary? And Where the observers make this determination?

In reality, I think length contraction is supported by muon decay observations.

i am not disputing SR experiments, I am simply trying to determine if the assumptions that either frame may consider itself as moving or stationary when the two frames are making measurments of each other's physical characteristics..

The point is, you can't detect which one is really stationary, can you? Just because something is bigger doesn't mean it is more stationary. Without any support that aether exists, it is meaningless to say something is really stationary.

Well an electron mocing at .99999c in a SLAC accleration experiment measured wrt an electron at T = 2 degrees Kelvin , absolute zero velocity could be approximated without any significant loss of experimental integrity.
That is my point in fact. If no one can tell, why assume the impossible to achieve something, just because the mathematics allows the operation?

Wespe, would you ever make the physical assumption that a train station was moving and the train right there in fornt of the station was stationary, assuming you noticed a relative motion between the two?

I say you would not. What then is the value or even validity of making such an assumption? You might do it to solve some aspect of a problem but you would never assume the physical reality of the assumption.

To understand it clearly, assume the rods are very very long. You can't see both ends at the same time, how will you compare them as they pass next to each other? You must place synchronized clocks on each end and make two simultaneous measurements. That's is where relative simultaneity kicks in.

You mean one couldn't simply photograph the front and tail ends of the rods as they pass through a measuring scheme and determine which is which? Supposed we had the rods start with equal lengths and kept them fairly close to each other as their velocity was manipulated and then we measured to see which was the shorter? I don't understand your simultaneity comment.

Well they can calculate what each other measures. But SR predicts their own measurements will be like that: each sees her own rod normal and the other's shorter.

right each can do this but they can't both be correct when the nitty meets the gritty at some common measuring spot, can they? This iis what I mean about mathematics of SR allowing and even encouraging this type of assumption. IS it physically possible, then if so is it physically reasonable?

 

[wespe]

You mean one couldn't simply photograph the front and tail ends of the rods as they pass through a measuring scheme and determine which is which? Supposed we had the rods start with equal lengths and kept them fairly close to each other as their velocity was manipulated and then we measured to see which was the shorter? I don't understand your simultaneity comment.

This seems to be the key point, so I'll comment on this only.

Yes, you can photograph them. But, you must also take note of the times of the taken photographs. Suppose, just suppose, that your rod is 2 meters long and the passing rod is 1 meter long and there is no contraction. Naturally, the ends would not pass each other at the same time, and the photographs would be taken sequentially. By knowing the difference in these time values, you could calculate how long the other rod is. Now, make the other rod 2 meters again. Due to relative simultaneity, the ends cannot meet at the same time, and you would calculate a length smaller than 2 meters, just like the above example. And since relative simultaneity is mutual, so is length contraction. If you ask why can't they meet at the same time: because that would be a moment simultaneous in both frames, which is not ok with relative simultaneity. (Of course I know you don't accept relative simultaneity, but when all the effects are combined, SR seems consistent within itself.) [the above explanation may be a simplification and may be not 100% correct, that's just how I think it is explained]

 

[grounded]

Originally Posted by grounded
Before we go on, do you agree that the Lorentz contraction was created to explain why we DID NOT measure a change in the speed of light when it traveled against the aether during the Michelson-Morley experiment?

Yes. The contraction would cancel the effect of aether resistance.


Well, since aether was dismissed, it isn't currently used to expain anything about aether. As I wrote before, if you want to assume aether exists, you can treat it like any other frame of reference, and the length contraction explanation would appy.

You missed my point, I do not believe in the aether.

The MMX was testing the relative speed between a ray of light and the aether.

This is the experiment they conducted with the interferometer:

If a ray of light is moving through space in the direction of the ether flow at 300,000 km/sec (186,000 mi/sec), and an observer is moving in the same direction as the ether flow at 29 km/sec (18 mi/sec), then the light should move past the observer at the rate of 299,971 km/sec (185,982 mi/sec); if the observer is moving in the opposite direction of the ether flow, the light should move past the observer at 300,029 km/sec (186,018 mi/sec). It was this difference that the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect.

Since there is no aether, there was no change in speed.

My point is, if there is no aether, the MMX was accurate. Agree?

Why are we still trying to make up reason why it isn't accurate?

Suppose you simply explain MMX result with length contraction.

Can you tell me why we have to explain the results?

We didn't measure a change in speed because there is no aether that resists the motion of light.

Why did Lorentz and Einstein have to explain why we didn't measure the resistance?

 

[geistkiesel]

This seems to be the key point, so I'll comment on this only.

Yes, you can photograph them. But, you must also take note of the times of the taken photographs. Suppose, just suppose, that your rod is 2 meters long and the passing rod is 1 meter long and there is no contraction. Naturally, the ends would not pass each other at the same time, and the photographs would be taken sequentially. By knowing the difference in these time values, you could calculate how long the other rod is. Now, make the other rod 2 meters again. Due to relative simultaneity, the ends cannot meet at the same time, and you would calculate a length smaller than 2 meters, just like the above example. And since relative simultaneity is mutual, so is length contraction. If you ask why can't they meet at the same time: because that would be a moment simultaneous in both frames, which is not ok with relative simultaneity. (Of course I know you don't accept relative simultaneity, but when all the effects are combined, SR seems consistent within itself.) [the above explanation may be a simplification and may be not 100% correct, that's just how I think it is explained]

What about one photograph of two rods that fit within the photgraph? If the rods are close enough and the shrinking large enoiugh then the observers could determine the relative speeds and motions of each other, could they not?

One definition I have here is: "Events simultaneous with reference to the stationary frame are not simultaneous with respect to the moving frame, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity)."

Not to beat a dead horse but this definition was taken from Einstein's train experiment where the fact that the moving platform was moving and that an observer once located at the midpoint of the A and B photon sources in the stationary frame has moved from that midpoint and thereby she surrenenders any chance of measuring the photons simultaneous arrival at the midpoint in the stationary frame, or simply she is no allowed to to determine the photons were emitted sijultaneously in any manner excepts measuring the simultaneous arrival of the photons at M in the stationary frame. There is no reference by Einstein or any other source I have been able to find that suggest the the measured speed of light is an element determining whether events are simultaneous.

At this point then it matters not that we are using the photons as the medium determining simultaneity. It is from the mere measurement of the photons in sequence at B then A that contains the definition of simultaneity. What is somewhat disturbing is the statement where observers in the moving frame "must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash at B took place earlier than the lightning flash at A." All other means of determining simultaneity have been discarded.

If this was, and it is the current definition of simultaneity then the definition is flawed. The only question the moving observer needs to do in order to determine whether the events in the stationary frame were simnultaneous is to determine whether the photons were emitted simultanously, or not. The fact that the photons were observed sequentially in the moving frame does not limit to that process. The observers could make a number of a measurements and analyses that could verify whether the photons could be detected as being emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. In other words if the observers in the moving frame can determine the photons were emitted simultaneously in the mcving frame then simultaneiity of the events is satisfied.

I claim I have done this in a number of posts and links.

But let us proceed on and see what is the result of the finding the photons were not enmitted simultaneously. Here every reference body has its own particlular time, unless we are told the reference body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.

The absolute nature of time is scrapped from the adoption of the "most natural definition of simultaneity". i.e. the sequential detection of the B and A photons.

The definition seems to be saying that knowing the photons were emuitted in the stationary frame does not rescue simultaneity as the observers have concluded the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame,by virtue of the sequential measurement iof the A and B photons.

Therefore, I conclude that any determination that the photons were emitted simultaneously will restore the simultaneous characteristic of any particlular process.

From this loss of simultaneity moving observers will determine their own destiny of motion independent of stationary observers or observers in other inertial frames.

The mere fact that the moving observer at M, the midpoint of the photon sources, moved the instant the photons were emitted negated the survival of simultaneity, as it appears, the mere fact of detecting the photons sequentially set the chain of physical action that negagted absolute time, simultaneity and the propagation of light in vacuo become measurably constant in all inertial frames.

If only the moving observer could determine the photons were emitted simultaneously, from her observation limited by the intrinsic parameters of her moving frame, there would be no special relativity.

Special Relativity hangs by a thin and questionably fragile thread. I surmised I was close [I claim I've done it] to showing a way the moving observer could very easily determine whether the photons were emitted simultaneously or not from the panicked manner in which one of the posters to my thread began unleashing a barrage of ridicule, smirking, insults and purposfully confusing my posts and claiming conclusions and statemens in the post that were not made or inferred. He is a mentor so I suppose he is immune to any corrective process.

The French have a word for it: Sabotage.

 

[wespe]

You missed my point,

sorry my bad

I do not believe in the aether.

The MMX was testing the relative speed between a ray of light and the aether.

This is the experiment they conducted with the interferometer:

Since there is no aether, there was no change in speed.

My point is, if there is no aether, the MMX was accurate. Agree?

Why are we still trying to make up reason why it isn't accurate?

Well, if speed of light doesn't change in one frame, and also in another frame which has a relative speed wrt that frame, there are consequences.. namely relative simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction (this time between those frames).

Grounded, I feel like I'm just repeating what I had read somewhere. It would really make things faster if you did some reading on your own and discuss only what bothers you.

Here are some good lectures:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/lecturelist.html

 

[wespe]

What about one photograph of two rods that fit within the photgraph? If the rods are close enough and the shrinking large enoiugh then the observers could determine the relative speeds and motions of each other, could they not?

Well, the photograph machine has a shutter thing that opens and closes quickly and let's light in. We assume it opens simultaneously over all the points of the photo sensitive film, and so we assume we can take a photo of a single instance. But according to the passing frame, it will not be simultaneous, so possibly the taken photo will be blurry. I'm not really sure. But instead of making the rods small, make the photograph machine large, then you can't get away without synchronization procedure. Remember a very long shutter will not really be rigid.
[edit: oops I didn't answer your question. Yes, if you measure the shrinked length, and you were given the rest length, you can calculate the gamma and therefore relative speed and everything. But you can also measure relative speed directly. no time, have to go now..]

One definition I have here is: "Events simultaneous with reference to the stationary frame are not simultaneous with respect to the moving frame, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity)."

Not to beat a dead horse but ...

Geistkiesel, I'm not willing to go into that discussion again with you. Simply, Einstein defines a method to test simultaneity and shows that according to that method the results are so. You can't discuss that. If you don't like it, find a method to test your version of simultaneity and test it in both frames and show that the results are same. Maybe someone else will reply to your post. I'm done in this thread.

 

[ram1024]

I do know a thing or two about information transfer, and I "KNOW" that what you are saying is just wishful thinking.

apparently you don't know enough. go read how data today is sent in binary bits <mostly>

apply some rational thinking on how the simple states of ON and OFF are combined together to create meaning. use some of that wondrous brain power you tote about on your neck every day to understand there's no need to get any other "information" from a single "pipe" EXCEPT 1 or 0. which is WHAT they DID get.

48 bits of data through 48 channels <pipes> reaching the other end 300 times faster than the speed of light. let's assume on the other end you see THIS:

01101000
01101001
00000000
01101101
01101111
01101101

each line being the ends of 8 pipes
each pipe transmitting merely ON or OFF
each line translating to 1 letter

the message reads "hi mom"

it's simple, why are you confounded by it?

 

[Hurkyl]

On / off? I didn't know anybody still used that!

 

[swansont]

there was an event on one side and a reaction on the other side, a reaction that happened 300 times faster than SHOULD have happened using light speed as a measure.

think binary. a bit of information "1" was sent into the tube. a bit of information "1" was received 300 times faster than it would have been using direct light transmission over the same distance.

THAT is why.

Note that the experiment showed the light leaving before the peak of the pulse entered. It's anomalous dispersion - the pulse was reshaped. It's a mistake to think of the light pulses as infinitely narrow.

 

[ram1024]

doesn't matter what "leaves"

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

The Velocity of VISIBLE LIGHT is absolute. The relativity can’t be applied to it.
At increasing of frequency the properties of light would be changed :
Visible light--> X-ray-->Gamma-->Particles

 

[Ingvar Astrand]

The light is light to understand

To Michael F. Dmitriev and the Forum:

The visible light is the frequency spectrum that your eye's retina reacts on as resonance absorption. In that meaning is visible light constant. But you don’t see (or yet understand) that redshift that is wave-elongation that is caused of an entropy-effect that drives the radiation towards equilibrium in the supra-leading temperatures in the cosmic background radiation's heat death.

Redshift implies wave-elongation, which implies that the electrodynamic waves increase in velocity that is proportional to the increased velocity. Light's velocity is the stroboscope-frozen spectrum that the eye reacts on and we do not se or understand (yet) that all the electrodynamic waves that increase in velocity have higher velocity than the light's velocity. Electrodynamic waves accelerates (1.986 x 10^-26 km/s^2) and it is not the galaxies or the universe that expands.

Planck did not find or understand that the difference between the wave-units that is 6.63 x 10^-34 is the fractional entropy-elongation of the waves that is proportional to the wavelengths. This is also the explanation to the redshift and the right redshift-constant that will replace Hubble’s misinterpreted redshift-constant. It is not the universe that is expanding -- but it is the electrodynamic waves that accelerate away.

My theory and its beautiful equations also explain Pound-Rebka's misinterpreted Mossbauer-experiment that is not a gravitation-effect. It also explains by insight and right values -- compared to the measured data -- the Pioneers' anomalous acceleration. Both those "experiment" have the same explanation and computing method of algorithmic equations.

An observer that moves relative to the radiation from a source have his eyes' optical (light) frequency spectrum invariant but the wavelengths appears as shorter in this relation [The eye's invariable frequency = (c+observer’s velocity)/wavelength]. The wavelengths change with the observer's light-frequency and proportional to his velocity. If he travels at c+10% of c, the wavelengths of his lightspectrum increase 10%. And the observer in rest sees the light's wavelength’s spectrum as it is, proportional to his velocity that is 0 –he sees the laboratory-relation between frequencies and wavelengths.

In August you can read on my homepage www.theuniphysics[/URL] my great paper from the NPA&AAAS-conference in Denver in April 2004.

Ingvar Astrand, Sweden

 

[russ_watters]

I was away for the weekend and wow...

you guys always talk about "the data" as if it proves the theory. yet surprisingly no one brings forth the actual data.

I suggested we get off these useless thought experiments (useless because you refuse to accept what they say) and look at what the data says some time ago. In any case, you're wrong (yet again) - there are quite a number of threads where the actual data is cited, including THIS
bizarrely titled thread. It contains several weeks worth of reading material for you. Don't soil that thread with attacks though: if you want to address any of that evidence, start a new thread in TD and cite the articles posted in that thread.

Anyway, I'm not sure you realize it, but you've turned an important corner by shifting off of thought experiments and turning your attention to the evidence. Unfortunately, you have turned in the wrong direction:

make sure you include the data about scientists getting light to travel 100 times faster than normal calculated speeds using cold caesium chamber and group resonance beams of light.

Furthermore, every analyst of this experiment has concluded that information was not sent faster than light. Aren't you even the least bit curious as to why?

i've already read about "why"

they're coming to the wrong conclusion...[emphasis added]

Ok, you need to stop right there, take a step back, and consider the implications of what you are saying here.

You are saying that a peer-reviewed, published paper written by a trio of PhD's from Princeton is wrong. I'm not generally one to go resume' waving, but what qualifications do you have that can possibly come close to matching theirs and being able to say that?

It doesn't stop there though. Since this paper is peer-reviewed and published, thousands of other scientists have read it. If there was a glaring error in the paper, it would have been found. You are saying that you found an error that thousands of other scientists have missed. But you don't stop there:

in any case I'm sure they adequately realize the potential of their results, but don't want to "give" any of the technology away if they can help it.

[separate post] they know it too since they work in the business. I'm pretty sure "it can't be done" is either fog to keep competition away from what they're going to pioneer as new technology OR their data is faulty and they have no idea what they're talking about (their experiment is a sham).

take whichever of those two conclusions makes you feel the safest... :D

Now you are saying that the scientists know about your objection and agree with it, but are decieving us about what the implications of their experiment are (or, like you said before, don't realize their own experiment is flawed). And of course, you alone discovered the deception where thousands of other, more qualified scientists have not.

By the way, picking the second conclusion would mean that you are wrong (if your interpretation is based on their faulty data, then your interpretation is wrong). So you must think these scientists are lying. Either way though, there are two possibilities of why the rest of the scientific community hasn't picked up on it: either the rest of the scientific community missed the mistake too (but you caught it), or the rest of the scientific community is in on the conspiracy.

Stop and think about that. Do you really believe you are smarter than the next 1,000 physicists put together? Do you really believe there is a vast conspiracy to keep SR in place? Would that make us at PF a part of that conspiracy (and if we are, it isn't worth talking about it here, is it?)?

Ram, you've taken a left turn and left logic and reason behind you. It seemed for a while that you were making an honest effort to understand what we were saying, but not anymore. Its not too late to turn around, but you've gone far enough down that road you'll need a large, self-deprecating mea culpa to get you back a shred of respect/credibility here. If you're not just another conspiracy theorist troll, you need to turn back from that path right now.

If you're going to claim conspiracy theory regarding every experiment proving SR, further discussin is utterly useless. Why even bother?

 

[geistkiesel]

You missed my point, I do not believe in the aether.

The MMX was testing the relative speed between a ray of light and the aether.

This is the experiment they conducted with the interferometer:

Since there is no aether, there was no change in speed.

My point is, if there is no aether, the MMX was accurate. Agree?

Why are we still trying to make up reason why it isn't accurate?



Can you tell me why we have to explain the results?

We didn't measure a change in speed because there is no aether that resists the motion of light.

Why did Lorentz and Einstein have to explain why we didn't measure the resistance?

Grounded, You had better take a good look at MM and Dayton iller. Both found a relative aether velocity difference of approximately 8.5 km/se. T^his was dubbed as "zero' by hiostory. Miller's rehash of MM experiments over twenty years (MM experiments were over a few days) confirmed the 8.5 km/sec number. Dayton Miller emphacises in his 1933 paper, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 5 203 242 a must reading, that MM stated that the aether drag was less than 1/4 of the Earth orbital velocity of 30 km/sec.

Most scientists today use the 30km/sec orbital velocity which is the correct velocit wrt the sun, but the solar system is moving toward Hercules at about 22 km/sec, but Hercules is moving toward the southern apex at ~ 204 km/sec Toward Dorado, the Sword Fish 20 degress south of Canopus in the Magellenic Cloud.
The plot thickens.The average was derved using sidereal time at chosen times of the year diurnal effects!, April and Feb ? (I'm not sure) But the effect was real..

MM was not null!

start here.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

 

[wespe]

MM was not null!
start here.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

If you have bothered to read it, there was an estimate of 208 km/sec, found 8.5 km/sec, and explanation of lowered speed to 10 km/sec due to dragged aether. So whatever value you find, you can say the speed is lowered to that value. What I understand from "null" is that the result was not scientifically meaningful. But let's suppose you can measure a speed (however small) in a certain direction. Just rotate the equipment 90 degrees and the fringes would disappear. Rotate again and fringes would appear. This certain direction would be demonstratable in 5 minutes. Why didn't miller do that? It is most probably eperimental error. From the photos, the experiment looks crude. And do you think the experiment was not repeated with modern equipment? If the results were real, anyone could get a Nobel prize, but they didn't want to?

 

[geistkiesel]

If you have bothered to read it, there was an estimate of 208 km/sec, found 8.5 km/sec, and explanation of lowered speed to 10 km/sec due to dragged aether. So whatever value you find, you can say the speed is lowered to that value. What I understand from "null" is that the result was not scientifically meaningful. But let's suppose you can measure a speed (however small) in a certain direction. Just rotate the equipment 90 degrees and the fringes would disappear. Rotate again and fringes would appear. This certain direction would be demonstratable in 5 minutes. Why didn't miller do that? It is most probably eperimental error. From the photos, the experiment looks crude. And do you think the experiment was not repeated with modern equipment? If the results were real, anyone could get a Nobel prize, but they didn't want to?

It depends on what you consider crude. The experiment hasn't been repeated with quite the care since Miller, to my knowledge.
One reason Miller didn't do it is the rate of speed the device could turn. It weighed considerable floating in a bath of mercury, it wasn't a simple matter to stop and turn on a dimes., momentum is what they call it.

The vast majority of writers that i have read eferring to MM talki terms of null meaning zero, no affect stc, clearly this was not the case.
You might find the following of interest.

The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)




I do not understand you. I read Miller to say that th average he found for the erth was around 8.5 km/sec as an ether drag. Michelson Morley found like numbers. but M stated that their value was less than 1/4 he rbital velocity of 30km/sec . therefore the 8.5 value is significnt no matter how you look at it. Miller also found the largest results diurnally using sideral time (April and Feb if I remember) The 208 km/s was the velocity of Hercules toward the southern apex, a direction clearly not considered by astronomers, even to day I presume. While we are moving approximately 20 km/s toward hecules hecules is moving over 200 kms to the south.

 

[wespe]

It depends on what you consider crude. The experiment hasn't been repeated with quite the care since Miller, to my knowledge.

You should try to extend your knowlegde then.
I searched for Repetitions of the MMX
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
I searched for the last one in the list (1979)
http://fangio.magnet.fsu.edu/~vlad/pr100/100yrs/html/chap/fs2_07053.htm
See, it "has been repeated with quite the care since Miller". (4000-fold improvement).
Also, still, anyone can repeat the experiment. Instant nobel prize. not.

One reason Miller didn't do it is the rate of speed the device could turn. It weighed considerable floating in a bath of mercury, it wasn't a simple matter to stop and turn on a dimes., momentum is what they call it.

Yes and this type of device is very sensitive to any movement so you can't just rotate it without effecting the results. Plus there are every kinds of effects from the environment including non uniform gravity. That's why the non-zero results have to be considered carefully.

The vast majority of writers that i have read eferring to MM talki terms of null meaning zero, no affect stc, clearly this was not the case.

Please see:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=null
"Of no consequence" "Amounting to nothing"

Note that in the above 1979 paper, there is of course some measured random data, but the result is interpreted as null by the experimenters because it is not meaninful compared to estimated values and considering experimental errors.

You might find the following of interest.

Not very interesting because it doesn't say anything new. As I said before, sure, if the results are confirmed, the theory would be invalid. What we are discussing is the confirmation part.

I do not understand you. I read Miller to say that th average he found for the erth was around 8.5 km/sec as an ether drag. Michelson Morley found like numbers. but M stated that their value was less than 1/4 he rbital velocity of 30km/sec . therefore the 8.5 value is significnt no matter how you look at it. Miller also found the largest results diurnally using sideral time (April and Feb if I remember) The 208 km/s was the velocity of Hercules toward the southern apex, a direction clearly not considered by astronomers, even to day I presume. While we are moving approximately 20 km/s toward hecules hecules is moving over 200 kms to the south.

I don't understand you either. I don't think you comprehend what you read and you just quote parts taken from somewhere without any grasp. I already knew you have a problem understanding what relative speed is, but this is just too much...

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

To Michael F. Dmitriev and the Forum:

The visible light is the frequency spectrum that your eye's retina reacts on as resonance absorption. In that meaning is visible light constant. But you don’t see (or yet understand) that redshift that is wave-elongation that is caused of an entropy-effect that drives the radiation towards equilibrium in the supra-leading temperatures in the cosmic background radiation's heat death.

Redshift implies wave-elongation, which implies that the electrodynamic waves increase in velocity that is proportional to the increased velocity. Light's velocity is the stroboscope-frozen spectrum that the eye reacts on and we do not se or understand (yet) that all the electrodynamic waves that increase in velocity have higher velocity than the light's velocity. Electrodynamic waves accelerates (1.986 x 10^-26 km/s^2) and it is not the galaxies or the universe that expands.

Planck did not find or understand that the difference between the wave-units that is 6.63 x 10^-34 is the fractional entropy-elongation of the waves that is proportional to the wavelengths. This is also the explanation to the redshift and the right redshift-constant that will replace Hubble’s misinterpreted redshift-constant. It is not the universe that is expanding -- but it is the electrodynamic waves that accelerate away.

My theory and its beautiful equations also explain Pound-Rebka's misinterpreted Mossbauer-experiment that is not a gravitation-effect. It also explains by insight and right values -- compared to the measured data -- the Pioneers' anomalous acceleration. Both those "experiment" have the same explanation and computing method of algorithmic equations.

An observer that moves relative to the radiation from a source have his eyes' optical (light) frequency spectrum invariant but the wavelengths appears as shorter in this relation [The eye's invariable frequency = (c+observer’s velocity)/wavelength]. The wavelengths change with the observer's light-frequency and proportional to his velocity. If he travels at c+10% of c, the wavelengths of his lightspectrum increase 10%. And the observer in rest sees the light's wavelength’s spectrum as it is, proportional to his velocity that is 0 –he sees the laboratory-relation between frequencies and wavelengths.

In August you can read on my homepage www.theuniphysics[/URL] my great paper from the NPA&AAAS-conference in Denver in April 2004.

Ingvar Astrand, Sweden[/QUOTE]
Ingvar Astrand,
As far as I have understood, your theory connects a change of a wave length (frequency) with acceleration of this wave. Then the speed of radiowave in a long-wave range should multiply exceed the speed of visible light. Experiments with these radiowaves does not give the basis for such conclusions.
Do you have another results?


Michael

 

[geistkiesel]

To Michael F. Dmitriev and the Forum:

The visible light is the frequency spectrum that your eye's retina reacts on as resonance absorption. In that meaning is visible light constant. But you don’t see (or yet understand) that redshift that is wave-elongation that is caused of an entropy-effect that drives the radiation towards equilibrium in the supra-leading temperatures in the cosmic background radiation's heat death.

Redshift implies wave-elongation, which implies that the electrodynamic waves increase in velocity that is proportional to the increased velocity. Light's velocity is the stroboscope-frozen spectrum that the eye reacts on and we do not se or understand (yet) that all the electrodynamic waves that increase in velocity have higher velocity than the light's velocity. Electrodynamic waves accelerates (1.986 x 10^-26 km/s^2) and it is not the galaxies or the universe that expands.

Planck did not find or understand that the difference between the wave-units that is 6.63 x 10^-34 is the fractional entropy-elongation of the waves that is proportional to the wavelengths. This is also the explanation to the redshift and the right redshift-constant that will replace Hubble’s misinterpreted redshift-constant. It is not the universe that is expanding -- but it is the electrodynamic waves that accelerate away.

My theory and its beautiful equations also explain Pound-Rebka's misinterpreted Mossbauer-experiment that is not a gravitation-effect. It also explains by insight and right values -- compared to the measured data -- the Pioneers' anomalous acceleration. Both those "experiment" have the same explanation and computing method of algorithmic equations.

An observer that moves relative to the radiation from a source have his eyes' optical (light) frequency spectrum invariant but the wavelengths appears as shorter in this relation [The eye's invariable frequency = (c+observer’s velocity)/wavelength]. The wavelengths change with the observer's light-frequency and proportional to his velocity. If he travels at c+10% of c, the wavelengths of his lightspectrum increase 10%. And the observer in rest sees the light's wavelength’s spectrum as it is, proportional to his velocity that is 0 –he sees the laboratory-relation between frequencies and wavelengths.

Ingvar I made some calculations assuming an arbitrary wavelength of 10^-8meters, for the condition of a stationary observer. A complete wavelength will pass the eye in (10^-8)/(3x 10^8m/s) = .3333 x 10^-16 seconds for a frequency of 1/.3333 x10^-16 = 3.0000x 10^16/sec.

Now when we add the obserevers speed of .1c we get the new relative velocity of 3.3 x 10^8m/s. For our unperturbed wavelength we calculate the new frequency by dividing the relative speed by the known wavelength, or (3.3x 10^8m/s)/(10^-8m) = 3.3 x 10^16/s.

Of course the wavelength is (3.3 x 10^8m/s)/(3.3 x 10^10-8m) = 10^-8m.

If the relative velocity is not considered we get 3 x 10^8m/s)/(3.3 x 10 ^16/s) = .9090 x 10^8m.

Redshift implies wave-elongation, which implies that the electrodynamic waves increase in velocity that is proportional to the increased velocity.

First you must ovecome the constant velocity of light in vacuo ~ 3 x 10^8m/s and then ovecome the implication that frequency increases cause the red shift.

It is the conclusions of some that the mere measuring of a wavelength of light does not squeeze the wavelengths shorter when passing the eye and is not affected by entropy considerations as you suggest. However, the frequency of the passing wavelengths is increased as I have calculated when the obsever's relative velocity is considered.

Does it not seem more rational that the frequency will increase rather than the wavelength decrease? Red shift is an incease in the frequency in doppler measurements, not a shortening of wavelength.

 

[ram1024]

well to the people preserving SR, you moving towards a light or away from it affects the frequency which in turn automatically affects the wavelength.

the thing is, greater frequency, but shorter wavelength doesn't mean anything to someone with time dilation and length contraction. in their units they can't detect redshift.

 

[geistkiesel]

well to the people preserving SR, you moving towards a light or away from it affects the frequency which in turn automatically affects the wavelength.

the thing is, greater frequency, but shorter wavelength doesn't mean anything to someone with time dilation and length contraction. in their units they can't detect redshift.

You are correct. The SR people do not add the relative velocity of the moving observer, therefore they will always measure a shrunken wavelength, which the ascribe to time dilation and mass shrinking etc and will always measure c = 300,000km/sec with the dilated time and shrunken mass.
I am niot considering shortened mass, only increased frequency. You are correct they use FL = C blindly. Even Maxwll only said that "a shortened wavelenth means generally a faster fr3equency" He diod not say, expressly that FL = c blindly. I have griossly parphrased maxwell in this.

But to others moving into the on coming wave front does not squeeze the wave length shorter. However, the frequency does increase. If a wave is coming you at velocity 10distance/time and you are stationary and say you detect the wave length at 1distance. Therefore the wavelength will pass you by at 1/10 (length divided by speed) = .1 (in time units) The frequency is just the reciprocal of this, or 1/.1 = 10/time.

Now move against the wave at .1 unit of speed. The combined relative speed is 1.1distance/time. Calculating the frequency using the known wave length 1, we get 1/1.1 = .9090 sec for the time the wave takes to pass you. The frquency is the reciprocal, just 1/,9090 = 1.100/time, an increase in frequency. Now let us calculate the wave length using the measured frequency but not including the velocity of the observer.

1/1.100 (wavelength velocity divided by the measured frequency) ~.9090. We have a shortened wave length by, 1 - .9090 = .091, by not considering the observer's velocity. One problem though. This calculation does not agree with SR calculation of a shortened wave length, which may mean the added velocity scenario is correct, or needs further adjustment. So there is a bit more to the story.

 

[Ingvar Astrand]

Ingvar Astrand's answer to geistkiesel:

Does it not seem more rational that the frequency will increase rather than the wavelength decrease? Red shift is an incease in the frequency in doppler measurements, not a shortening of wavelength.

No redshift implies increasing wavelengths and decreasing frequencies.
The frequencies of the wave-units that the moving observer meet increase (he meets the wave-units faster) and he sees longer waves that appears shorter to him. So the light-spectrum he sees have - depending on his eyes' invariant frequency-reaction - longer wave-lengths in the reality (relative to the space or the observer in rest).

The complicated Doppler-formulas do hardly explain what really happens.

An observer that moves forwards relative to the radiation from a source have his eyes' optical (light) frequency spectrum invariant but the wavelengths appears as shorter to him [the eye's invariable frequency = (c+observer’s velocity)/wavelength]. The wavelengths of the light spectrum that appear as (is) normal for the moving observer's eyes are wavelengths that relative to the space in rest are longer.

The apparent wavelengths are the variable parameter that is changed proportionally with the observer's velocity depending on his eyes' inherent invariable light-frequency-reaction. If he travels at c+10% of c, the wave-units he sees (appears to him) as normal are the true wavelengths that are 10% longer. And the observer in rest sees the same wavelength’s spectrum as it is, proportional to his velocity that is 0 – that is: the laboratory-relation between frequencies and wavelengths

Let me refer to your example: First: frequency = velocity / wavelength
Let us calculate a specific yellow color of 6000 A (Angstrom) or 6 x 10^-7 m.

An observer in rest sees this yellow color's (laboratory-)frequency at (3 x 10^8m/s) / (6 x 10^-7 m/n) = 5 x 10^14 n/s (Hz)

Independent of his velocity this yellow color to him always has the frequency: 5 x 10^14 n/s (Hz).

If an observer moves at c+10% of c, his yellow color's wavelength is: (3.3 x 10^8m/s) / (5 x 10^14 n/s) = 6.6 x 10^-7 m (6600 A).

My derivation of the real theory of relativity is: symmetric, understandable, calculateable, and no crazy dilation of space or time. Now you need neither Lorentz' unintelligible equation nor Doppler's hardly explainable formulation.

I have presented my wholw "unified theory of physics" with this transition calculation (translation formulation) in proceedings at conferences in Kazan State University in Russia 2003, and with NPA and AAAS in Denver 2004.
In August you can read my whole theory at: http://www.theuniphysics.info

But till then, take a look at my Denver-abstracts and see the great range of the unified theory of physics.

 

[geistkiesel]

Realist conundrum in wavelength modification during doppler measurement.

I understand your post. It seems to me arbitrary, which doesn't make it erroneous, that an intrinsic characteristic of the light, i.e. the wavelength would change, lengthen, and the frequency would be the determining factor? Do you see my "realist" conundrum?

How does the wavelength get modified during measurement anyway?

 

[ram1024]

If an observer moves at c+10% of c, his yellow color's wavelength is: (3.3 x 10^8m/s) / (5 x 10^14 n/s) = 6.6 x 10^-7 m (6600 A)

nah he's saying the color that the observer WOULD perceive as being "yellow" would be modified versus standard Earth measurements because to get that frequency he'd have to subtract his own velocity.

but the eyeball doesn't subtract velocity on its own, so on paper yellow is 6.6x10^7 m to him at that speed

 

[russ_watters]

the thing is, greater frequency, but shorter wavelength doesn't mean anything to someone with time dilation and length contraction. in their units they can't detect redshift.

Have you actually done the math or do you just assume that it works out that way?

 

[ram1024]

no i haven't, I'm not an SR person. from what i GATHER, you guys can't detect redshift as we define it, only doppler redshift from motion of the stellar bodies.

why don't YOU tell ME :D