- #61
Antonio Lao
- 1,436
- 1
Thanks for these information. I will look them up more thoroughly.
Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone
- Thread starter paulanevill@fsmail.n
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Michelson Relativity
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the claim that the Michelson-Morley experiment has been solved, suggesting that this resolution undermines Einstein's theory of relativity. The original poster, Paul A. Nevill, asserts that Einstein was incorrect and invites others to request his solution via email. Critics argue that disproving relativity requires more than addressing the Michelson-Morley experiment, emphasizing that relativity is supported by extensive experimental evidence beyond this single test. Participants also highlight the importance of understanding classical electromagnetics and the historical context of Einstein's work. The conversation reflects a broader debate on the validity of relativity and alternative theories, such as the ether concept.
- #62
Severian596
- 286
- 0
Sure! It really was my pleasure. The book is very entertaining, and you can get a used copy pretty cheap :)
- #63
elas
The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.
Wrong. SR is not a scientific theory and recently books and TV progs on related subjects (such as "The Planets", "Universe" "Neutrinos" and "The elegant universe") are careful to draw a distinction between mathematical prediction theories that are properly classified as philosophies and scientific theories that are theories related to reality. Greene in "The elegant universe" makes the point on several occassions. If you do not have the book, you will find the quotes on my webpage (see 'Strings and vacuum' forum).
Wrong. SR is not a scientific theory and recently books and TV progs on related subjects (such as "The Planets", "Universe" "Neutrinos" and "The elegant universe") are careful to draw a distinction between mathematical prediction theories that are properly classified as philosophies and scientific theories that are theories related to reality. Greene in "The elegant universe" makes the point on several occassions. If you do not have the book, you will find the quotes on my webpage (see 'Strings and vacuum' forum).
Last edited by a moderator:
- #64
Antonio Lao
- 1,436
- 1
Einstein used to say that the objective reality has its independent existence. All physical theories can do but to approximate this reality to only a very trivial degree of model (mathmatical or physical) building. All empirical data can help in understanding the reality but not fully in the sense of complete understanding.
- #65
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,746
- 11,192
elas: The Scientific Method. Learn it, live it, love it.elas said:
- #66
2clockdude
- 23
- 0
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mattson wrote, in part:
"The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most
accurate scientific theory ever developed."
"Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?"
---------------------------------------------------------
2clockdude replies:
Well, here's what this particular SR critic has to say:
Which part of QED has anything to do with the basis of SR,
namely, Einstein's light postulate?
(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)
In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?
And the answer is, no one.
Indeed, how can it be tested?
I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).
And here is my firm prediction:
No one will rise to this challenge.
Tom Mattson wrote, in part:
"The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most
accurate scientific theory ever developed."
"Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?"
---------------------------------------------------------
2clockdude replies:
Well, here's what this particular SR critic has to say:
Which part of QED has anything to do with the basis of SR,
namely, Einstein's light postulate?
(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)
In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?
And the answer is, no one.
Indeed, how can it be tested?
I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).
And here is my firm prediction:
No one will rise to this challenge.
- #67
elas
elas: The Scientific Method. Learn it, live it, love it.
russ waters
I agree and according to leaders in the field of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and to leaders in the field of physics (including Prof. Greene author of The elegant universe), the Standard Model fails that test. I wrote at length on this subject in a forum titled 'Why all the nutcases'. If you really want to learn something look up SSK and physics on the web, it's a real education for those who mistakenly believe ST is a science subject.
russ waters
I agree and according to leaders in the field of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and to leaders in the field of physics (including Prof. Greene author of The elegant universe), the Standard Model fails that test. I wrote at length on this subject in a forum titled 'Why all the nutcases'. If you really want to learn something look up SSK and physics on the web, it's a real education for those who mistakenly believe ST is a science subject.
- #68
paulanevill@fsmail.n
- 16
- 0
2clockdude said:
That is what the interferometer does, by comparing path times. The answer is clear, just give me your email address and you shall receive a copy of the discovery.
PAN
- #69
wisp
- 179
- 0
2clockdude
Well put. The only person that I know of who carried out a similar test - using an electrical pulse instead of light - was Roland DeWitte, in 1991, and his finding show SR to be wrong. His test ran for 178 days and used a set of 3 caesium standard clocks at point A and 3 at point B.
Krisher et al, in 1990, did a 5-day test using two clocks and light traveling down a fibre optic cable. Their result has too much noise to be conclusive, but they say it supported SR!
Well put. The only person that I know of who carried out a similar test - using an electrical pulse instead of light - was Roland DeWitte, in 1991, and his finding show SR to be wrong. His test ran for 178 days and used a set of 3 caesium standard clocks at point A and 3 at point B.
Krisher et al, in 1990, did a 5-day test using two clocks and light traveling down a fibre optic cable. Their result has too much noise to be conclusive, but they say it supported SR!
- #70
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,746
- 11,192
That's his postulate, not a prediction. The predctions based on SR are extremely broad in scope.2clockdude said:
We've been over this oh, so many times. Which one of the dozens of examples already given would you like to discuss?
This is absolutely trivial: so trivial in fact, that most scientists wouldn't consider it useful. We are far, far beyond that. GPS (designed and built by engineers using Einstein's math), for example uses the one-way invariance of the speed of light, combining SR and GR time dilation predictions. Far more sophisticated than what you suggest.
And the methodology of the test you suggest is self-evident: synchronize two clocks on a table and fire a laser between them. Simple.
wisp, I find it ironic that in some threads you trumpet how ether theory makes accurate predictions (which is to say it is mathematically equivalent to Relativity in some cases) and in other threads you say Relativity is wrong. You can' have it both ways.
Last edited:
- #71
2clockdude
- 23
- 0
russ_watters wrote:
"That's his postulate, not a prediction.
The predctions based on SR are extremely broad in scope."
You are extremely confused here.
You don't even know the meaning of the word postulate.
Let me clue you in, sir:
Postulate (verb):
a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)
Axiom (noun):
a statement accepted as true
How can a statement be "accepted as true" or "assumed to
be true" when it makes a physically impossible claim?
Einstein's light postulate is his claim that "The law in
the one-way, two-clock light speed case is invariance."
SR is based entirely upon Einstein's light postulate.
However, as I hinted at above, there cannot be such a
postulate because it calls for that which cannot happen.
That is, it calls for nature to give us the natural or physical
law in the one-way, two-clock case, but this, as anyone should
be able to see, simply cannot be.
If you think otherwise, then please tell me how - given two
clocks which are not even started - nature can give us her
law in the one-way case. Indeed, I will even let you give her
started clocks, as long as you don't force them to obtain
what you think should be the result (as did Einstein).
Einstein's clock synchronization involves forcing clocks to
obtain one-way invariance and isotropy. This is not a result
from nature. This is a mere convention.
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.
Man's input is disallowed because this controls the output.
Only Nature's input is allowed because we are looking for
the natural law when we experiment.
russ_watters wrote:
"And the methodology of the test you suggest is self-evident:
synchronize two clocks on a table and fire a laser between them.
Simple."
Simple but wrong. Try again!
"That's his postulate, not a prediction.
The predctions based on SR are extremely broad in scope."
You are extremely confused here.
You don't even know the meaning of the word postulate.
Let me clue you in, sir:
Postulate (verb):
a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)
Axiom (noun):
a statement accepted as true
How can a statement be "accepted as true" or "assumed to
be true" when it makes a physically impossible claim?
Einstein's light postulate is his claim that "The law in
the one-way, two-clock light speed case is invariance."
SR is based entirely upon Einstein's light postulate.
However, as I hinted at above, there cannot be such a
postulate because it calls for that which cannot happen.
That is, it calls for nature to give us the natural or physical
law in the one-way, two-clock case, but this, as anyone should
be able to see, simply cannot be.
If you think otherwise, then please tell me how - given two
clocks which are not even started - nature can give us her
law in the one-way case. Indeed, I will even let you give her
started clocks, as long as you don't force them to obtain
what you think should be the result (as did Einstein).
Einstein's clock synchronization involves forcing clocks to
obtain one-way invariance and isotropy. This is not a result
from nature. This is a mere convention.
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.
Man's input is disallowed because this controls the output.
Only Nature's input is allowed because we are looking for
the natural law when we experiment.
russ_watters wrote:
"And the methodology of the test you suggest is self-evident:
synchronize two clocks on a table and fire a laser between them.
Simple."
Simple but wrong. Try again!
- #72
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,746
- 11,192
Heh - you used the word correctly in the very next sentence:2clockdude said:
Perhaps you use the two interchangeably. There is a difference.
Care to elaborate on why? A common theme in all of these threads is you guys make a lot of assertions but very few actual arguments.
Last edited:
- #73
2clockdude
- 23
- 0
russ_watters wrote:
"Heh - you used the word correctly in the very next sentence:"
Let me go over it in more detail, as follows:
A statement that is accepted as true is a definition of a
postulate. Of course, if that which has been (properly)
postulated has yet to occur and involves science, then the
postulate is a scientific prediction. However, if that which
has been (allegedly) postulated simply cannot possibly occur,
then we have a problem; i.e., there cannot be a scientific
postulate or prediction of that which cannot happen.
russ_watters wrote:
"Care to elaborate on why? A common theme in all of these
threads is you guys make a lot of assertions but very few
actual arguments."
If you had fully read my last post, then you would have had
what you just asked for.
I wrote:
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.
As I also explained, only if nature can give us her result
during an experiment will the result be a law of nature.
Which part of this do you not understand?
I also explained that man cannot be allowed to interfere in
any critical way (no input from man) or we will not have
a law of nature, but a law tainted by man. (This is what
would happen if man sawed off the end of one of the rods
in the Michelson-Morley experiment during the experiment.)
It is an SR claim that two clocks will experimentally yield
light speed invariance as a law of nature. I don't care if you
call this claim an axiom, a postulate, a hunch, a wild guess,
a hypothesis, a theory, or a corn dog; it doesn't matter because
this claim calls for that which is impossible.
I hope you know the meaning of the word "impossible."
"Heh - you used the word correctly in the very next sentence:"
Let me go over it in more detail, as follows:
A statement that is accepted as true is a definition of a
postulate. Of course, if that which has been (properly)
postulated has yet to occur and involves science, then the
postulate is a scientific prediction. However, if that which
has been (allegedly) postulated simply cannot possibly occur,
then we have a problem; i.e., there cannot be a scientific
postulate or prediction of that which cannot happen.
russ_watters wrote:
"Care to elaborate on why? A common theme in all of these
threads is you guys make a lot of assertions but very few
actual arguments."
If you had fully read my last post, then you would have had
what you just asked for.
I wrote:
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.
As I also explained, only if nature can give us her result
during an experiment will the result be a law of nature.
Which part of this do you not understand?
I also explained that man cannot be allowed to interfere in
any critical way (no input from man) or we will not have
a law of nature, but a law tainted by man. (This is what
would happen if man sawed off the end of one of the rods
in the Michelson-Morley experiment during the experiment.)
It is an SR claim that two clocks will experimentally yield
light speed invariance as a law of nature. I don't care if you
call this claim an axiom, a postulate, a hunch, a wild guess,
a hypothesis, a theory, or a corn dog; it doesn't matter because
this claim calls for that which is impossible.
I hope you know the meaning of the word "impossible."
- #74
elas
UK newspapers are laughing at a recent schools football league ruling that no team shall be allowed to win by more than 14-0 (to avoid humiliation). So the team that won 29-0 was recorded at 14-0.
Now consider all the debates about the speed of light and assume that our instruments are not allowed to record a greater speed than X; if all light traveled at a speed of 2x or greater, then all instruments will record a speed of X regardless of direction. This will not alter the red shift, so the distance calculations using red shift will remain the same, but any use of the measurements to calculate time will be open to question.
Next assume that light traveling in particle form is restricted to speed X (the maximum speed of particles) and light traveling in a purely wave form does so at a speed of 2X or greater and you have a possible explanation to the behaviour of light.
All our experiments are conducted using particles or the waves created when photons collide with electrons. But over the vast distances of inter-galatic space the photons disperse leaving the released wave to travel through the gravity frame or graviton field, indendently of electromagnetic particles. Hence the problems of inter-galatic light transmission.
Now consider all the debates about the speed of light and assume that our instruments are not allowed to record a greater speed than X; if all light traveled at a speed of 2x or greater, then all instruments will record a speed of X regardless of direction. This will not alter the red shift, so the distance calculations using red shift will remain the same, but any use of the measurements to calculate time will be open to question.
Next assume that light traveling in particle form is restricted to speed X (the maximum speed of particles) and light traveling in a purely wave form does so at a speed of 2X or greater and you have a possible explanation to the behaviour of light.
All our experiments are conducted using particles or the waves created when photons collide with electrons. But over the vast distances of inter-galatic space the photons disperse leaving the released wave to travel through the gravity frame or graviton field, indendently of electromagnetic particles. Hence the problems of inter-galatic light transmission.
- #75
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,268
Elas, I think you're on to an idea that deserves more attention and study.
- #76
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
At the risk of sounding like a broken record ... a bunch of dudes and dudettes go to uni, learn about SR and GR. They get jobs working for EDO Corporation, Lockheed, etc. These companies win contracts to build and maintain the GPS system. The dudes and dudettes work hard for many months, the GPS satellites are tested, launched, tested, etc. The FAA (or whoever) pays EDO, Lockheed etc lots of $$ for delivering on their contracts; the dudes and dudettes keep their jobs, some even get paid bonuses.
Does the GPS system work as advertised? Yes.
Did the dudes and dudettes who designed, built and maintain it use GR and SR in their work? Yes.
Did they use some alternative theory/theories instead? No.
Is there a better theory/theories of physics than SR/GR? Depends what 'better' means:
-> if 'within its domain, gives predictions that match observations and experiments more closely than GR does in its (and the two domains overlap significantly)', then we're all waiting to hear;
-> if 'has a domain broader than GR's, and defaults to something very close to GR in the limit of GR's applicability' then several approaches may become such (e.g. String/M Theory, LQG), but they've a long way to go.
Lots of Greeks and Egyptians in the world today.
(Edit: fixed formats)
Does the GPS system work as advertised? Yes.
Did the dudes and dudettes who designed, built and maintain it use GR and SR in their work? Yes.
Did they use some alternative theory/theories instead? No.
Is there a better theory/theories of physics than SR/GR? Depends what 'better' means:
-> if 'within its domain, gives predictions that match observations and experiments more closely than GR does in its (and the two domains overlap significantly)', then we're all waiting to hear;
-> if 'has a domain broader than GR's, and defaults to something very close to GR in the limit of GR's applicability' then several approaches may become such (e.g. String/M Theory, LQG), but they've a long way to go.
Lots of Greeks and Egyptians in the world today.
(Edit: fixed formats)
Last edited:
- #77
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?elas said:
The inter-galactic medium (IGM) isn't empty, just has a very low electron, proton, etc density. There are a number of predictions from this low density - e.g. a mean free path of charged cosmic ray particles, inverse Compton scattering of the CMBR - many of which can, in principle, be tested (and several have been). Does elas have a prediction re what may be observed? Perhaps distant point-sources will appear different at different wavelengths (anywhere from radio to ~>1 TeV gammas)? Perhaps there will be differential travel times from distant objects, depending on wavelength, or maybe smeared images of such objects as seen through gravitational lenses (again, depending on wavelength)?
And why limit ourselves to the IGM? One effect of supernovae, esp in a young cluster, is to blow a giant bubble in the ISM (inter-stellar medium), inside that bubble the electron density may be lower than that in the IGM. Then too there are the radio lobes of QSOs and AGNs, which are also enormous regions of ultra-low density gas ...
- #78
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,268
Personally my mind is boggled at the fact that if I were to be traveling at 99% the speed of light I would still meaure a ray of light passing me to be passing me at c.
I do not know enough about SR and GR to know if you would have to contradict them to explain this. I would, however, like to know why it is.
I do not know enough about SR and GR to know if you would have to contradict them to explain this. I would, however, like to know why it is.
- #79
Antonio Lao
- 1,436
- 1
I think, one way to explain this is by the following invariant spacetime interval.
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2
as your speed increases to .99c, your ds approaches zero so that you become light itself because only light (photon) has ds=0 exactly.
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2
as your speed increases to .99c, your ds approaches zero so that you become light itself because only light (photon) has ds=0 exactly.
Last edited:
- #80
Antonio Lao
- 1,436
- 1
As one's speed approaches .99c, one's mass approaches infinity and one's physical dimension approaches zero. But if one becomes pure energy in the form of light, no such restrictions are imposed.
- #81
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,268
The equation looks simple enough that I might be able to make some sense out of it. What do all the variables stand for?Antonio Lao said:
- #82
Antonio Lao
- 1,436
- 1
The x-y-z stands for a Cartesian coordinate system. the t stands for time coordinate. The c is the speed of light in vacuum.
The equation is a four dimensional quadratic form for the determination of a four-dim distance ds. This form is Lorentz invariance. It is the same in any coordinate system.
The equation is a four dimensional quadratic form for the determination of a four-dim distance ds. This form is Lorentz invariance. It is the same in any coordinate system.
- #83
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,268
Do me a favor and show me what it would look like with some real numbers plugged into all the variables.
- #84
Antonio Lao
- 1,436
- 1
It's not going to be easy for me since there are more equations needed for a complete description.
I can refer some books on special relativity if it's easier for you?
But we can start by saying that ds=0, therefore
dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = c^2 dt^2
and
dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
so that
dr^2 = c^2 dt^2
and
\frac {dr}{dt} = c
I can refer some books on special relativity if it's easier for you?
But we can start by saying that ds=0, therefore
dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = c^2 dt^2
and
dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
so that
dr^2 = c^2 dt^2
and
\frac {dr}{dt} = c
- #85
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,268
Formulas and equations generally mean little to me until I plug numbers into them and try them out. I had good luck with this when I plugged some actual numbers into the lorenz transforms in SR, and came away with a much more concrete understanding of the slower clocks and shorter rods. I'm not sure what would be realistic, useful values to plug into the equation you gave. Chroot and Ambitwistor spent some time once explaining the importance of the spacetime interval to me, but I haven't ever worked one out, so it remains too vague for me to understand how it applies to the situation where going at 99% of the speed of light, I would still measure light passing me in the same direction to be passing me at c.
- #86
Antonio Lao
- 1,436
- 1
As you already have done, if you replace all v's in the Lorentz transformation equations for a Cartesian system with .99c and then calculate the spacetime interval you will not get a value of zero for the interval.
- #87
elas
]Nereid
What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?
According to Encyclopedia Britainica one of the outstanding unsolved problems of light is the transmission of light between galaxies. It does not give details.
Perhaps you give the reason yourself in your reply "There are a number of predictions from this low density". Do they all give the same answer? If not there is a problem.
My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching?
What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?
According to Encyclopedia Britainica one of the outstanding unsolved problems of light is the transmission of light between galaxies. It does not give details.
Perhaps you give the reason yourself in your reply "There are a number of predictions from this low density". Do they all give the same answer? If not there is a problem.
My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #88
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,746
- 11,192
So your explanation fits observation better even though you don't know what the problems are with the accepted explanation? Hmm...
- #89
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
The speed of light c is only locally proven, it might just change outside of our solar system, we do NOT know yet...
As for MM, there is an experiment that can be conducted that rectifies this appearance of a problem...
BTW it was a Janitor who came up with it!
As for MM, there is an experiment that can be conducted that rectifies this appearance of a problem...
BTW it was a Janitor who came up with it!
- #90
Antonio Lao
- 1,436
- 1
After reading a book on entanglement, I am not so sure whether the photons we detected by our astronomical instruments are the original photons that transmitted the information.
Entangled photons are verified by experiments to propagate beyond light speed but still cannot send a message faster than light. Entanglement is controlled by a property of no-choice. No one can choose the resulting quantum state of the photon but only the input direction for the spin or polarization. The moment one photon takes a state, the other entangled photon although light-years away, instantly takes the "opposite" state.
Entangled photons are verified by experiments to propagate beyond light speed but still cannot send a message faster than light. Entanglement is controlled by a property of no-choice. No one can choose the resulting quantum state of the photon but only the input direction for the spin or polarization. The moment one photon takes a state, the other entangled photon although light-years away, instantly takes the "opposite" state.