Michelson- Morley's experiment

[jostpuur]

... and even E=MC2 could be derived without using relativity concepts!

I don't bother following the links of the OP, but this claim alone at least is not wrong.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504486 E = mc^2 Without Relativity

 

[pmb_phy]

I don't bother following the links of the OP, but this claim alone at least is not wrong.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504486 E = mc^2 Without Relativity

Now that you mention it, it appears that my own derivation need to use relativity. I.e. ifI took the low velocity limit then it might work. That page is located at

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm

Pete

 

[jostpuur]

So hunarahmad explains, that if light consists of particles that fly around like bullets, then the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't prove that these particles would go with the same speed c in all frames.

There is no point in responding that hunarahmad would be wrong, because the Michelson-Morley experiment was intended to detect the ether in which light waves would have propagated, because even though Michelson-Morley experiment was intented to detect the ether in which light waves would have propagated, that does not contradict what hunarahmad was saying.

(Edit: If this was too messy, check out an explanation below in my second post, where I attempt to make it clearer.)

hunarahmad was quite right with his conclusion, but on the other hand it has little relevance because light does not consists of particles that fly around like bullets.

 

[pmb_phy]

So hunarahmad explains, that if light consists of particles that fly around like bullets, then the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't prove that these particles would go with the same speed c in all frames.

There is no point in responding that hunarahmad would be wrong, because the Michelson-Morley experiment was intended to detect the ether in which light waves would have propagated, because even though Michelson-Morley experiment was intented to detect the ether in which light waves would have propagated, ..

The purpose of the ether was to give it a medium/frame of reference with which it traveled at c. The method of detection of the ether was to measure the velocity of light relative to it. The interferometer was designed such that the interference pattern would change as the apparatus was rotated. Due to the lack of change in the interference pattern it was deduced that the speed of light was independent of the velocity of the aether since the null result demonstrated that the light waves have the same values in different frames of reference. In this way hunarahmad seems correct to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong though. I'm only 80% sure of that description.

hunarahmad was quite right with his conclusion, but on the other hand it has little relevance because light does not consists of particles that fly around like bullets.

In what sense do you say that? Light consists of particles that behave in a quantum manner, i.e. in some cases they behave as if they have particle properties (and at other times they have wave properties). I can see why hunarahmad would have a problem understanding the speed of light postulate given his picture of photons as bullets. I myself would have a hard time describing it. Especially when one is speaking of a single photon. However Dr. Willis Lamb wrote a paper called Anti-photon, W.E. Lamb, Appl. Phys, B 60, 77-84 (1995)

Abstract. It should be apparent from the title of this article that the author does not like the use of the term "photon", which dates from 1926. In his view, there is no such thing as a photon. Only a comedy of errors and historical accidents led to its popularity among physicists and optical scientists. I admit that the word is short and convenient. Its use is also habit forming. Similarly, one might find it convenient to speak of the "aether" or "vacuum" to stand for empty space, even if no such thing existed. There are very good substitutes for "photon", (e.g. "radiation" or "light") and for "photonics" (e.g. "optics" or "quantum optics"). Similar objections are possible to use of the word "phonon", which dates from 1932. Objects like electrons, neutrinos of finite rest mass, or helium atoms can, under suitable conditions, be considered to be particles, since their theories then have a viable non-relativistic and non-quantum limits. This paper outlines the main features of the quantum theory of radiation and indicates how they can be used to treat problems in quantum optics.

I believe I can get hold of of a few articles related to this thread. They are

Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Relativity, by J.G. Fox, Am. J. Phys., 30:297, April 1962

Second Postulate of Special Relativity, by W.R. Haseltine, Am. J. Phys., 32:173, Feb. 1964

If anyone would like a copy if/when I get my copy please e-mail me and let me know.

Pete

 

[genneth]

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html

Perhaps that would be an interesting review for those concerned with these matters.

 

[jostpuur]

There is no point in responding that hunarahmad would be wrong, because the Michelson-Morley experiment was intended to detect the ether in which light waves would have propagated, because even though Michelson-Morley experiment was intented to detect the ether in which light waves would have propagated, that does not contradict what hunarahmad was saying.

The purpose of the ether was to give it a medium/frame of reference with which it traveled at c. The method of detection of the ether was to measure the velocity of light relative to it. The interferometer was designed such that the interference pattern would change as the apparatus was rotated. Due to the lack of change in the interference pattern it was deduced that the speed of light was independent of the velocity of the aether since the null result demonstrated that the light waves have the same values in different frames of reference.

Your response seemed confusing, and I was forced to notice that my own post wasn't very clear either. I explain my previous post again.

Humarahmad: "If light consists of particles that fly around like bullets, then the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't prove that these particles would go with the same speed c in all frames."

Respones: "You didn't understand it. The experiment was supposed to detect motion relative to the ether in which light waves would have propagated."

Do you see the lack of logic? That is what I'm criticizing.

 

[Mentz114]

Pmb_phy

Light consists of particles that behave in a quantum manner, i.e. in some cases they behave as if they have particle properties (and at other times they have wave properties).

Not true. The only time light shows particle-like properties ( eg localization, momentum) is when they interact with matter. In between we cannot say they are particles traveling freely in space, because they are not. The photon is the quantum of the EM field, it is not a particle.

 

[pmb_phy]

Pmb_phy

Not true. The only time light shows particle-like properties ( eg localization, momentum) is when they interact with matter. In between we cannot say they are particles traveling freely in space, because they are not. The photon is the quantum of the EM field, it is not a particle.

The same could be said about light waves, i.e. they only show wave properties when they interaction with matter. If you have any evidence of your assertion "photon is the quantum of the EM field, it is not a particle" then I'd like to see it. Reference to the physics literature would be fine.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

Do you see the lack of logic? That is what I'm criticizing.

Answer this one question: Do you believe that the OP came here to learn or to tell everyone his new theory?

Pete

 

[f95toli]

If you have any evidence of your assertion "photon is the quantum of the EM field, it is not a particle" then I'd like to see it. Reference to the physics literature would be fine.

Pete

Any book about quantum optics covers this. E.g. Gerry&Knight "Introductory Quantum Optics".

The photon is neither a particle nor a wave; it is a mathematical construct which sometimes exhibits wave- or particle-like behaviour. There is simply no way to understand it in terms of classical concepts like waves or particles.

 

[Mentz114]

If you have any evidence of your assertion "photon is the quantum of the EM field, it is not a particle" then I'd like to see it.

Pete, this is probably not the place to discuss the nature of photons since there are loads of threads about this. It seems to me that photons are not helpful when discussing Michelson-Morley.

Chapter 19, 'The Light-Quantum' in 'Subtle is the Lord' ( A.Pais) is worth a read.

 

[bino]

If we shoot a laser threw a large pain of glass that is move perpendicular to the laser would it have any effect on the motion of the light? Other than the effect of the change in densities?

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

E=mcc without conservation laws

I don't bother following the links of the OP, but this claim alone at least is not wrong.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504486 E = mc^2 Without Relativity

You mention E=mcc without special relativity but with conservation laws. Have a look please at
Relativistic dynamics without conservation laws

Subjects: Physics Education (physics.ed-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:physics/0605203v1 [physics.ed-ph]
where E=mcc is derived from special relativity but without using conservations laws.

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

MM experiment interpretation by radar detection

Hi everyone I'm a new member

Despite I'm not graduated from college of physical science, but I'm super interested in physics. this summer I tried to study relativity theory by my self with some good references, I was very happy when I get to understand the concepts of relativity and I convinced my self that the ultimate relative speed between any two objects is (C) based on the results of Michelson- Morley's experiment.

but when I investigated more carefully about this experiment I realized that the source of light emission which they used were fixed on the same Earth which the mirrors and detector were fixed on, (previously I thought that they were using a fixed star as a source of light or some thing like that) so there was no relative motion between the emitter and the detector how could fringes occur in this state?? What If we assumed that the light composed of particles, the results of this experiment could be easily explained just by Galilean transformations without using Lorentz transformation.

I searched the net and I found many other researches proves that of Michelson- Morley's demonstration has many fatal errors could not be trusted to prove any thing, e.g try this research (a pdf document).
also try this one http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/michelson.html

And also I found this site:
http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/index.html
the author of this site is a strong supporter of classical physics and he claims that time dilation, length contraction, perihelion of mercury, every thing could be explained by classical physics and even E=MC2 could be derived without using relativity concepts!

Now, at the end of this summer I'm near a bout to loss my confidence in relativity theory unless someone from this lovely forum save me.

My question is that does anyone has a strong evidence rather than Michelson- Morley's experiment to show me that C is the ultimate relative speed between any two objects even if they approach opposite direction to each other with a velocity more than 200000km/s?

And thank you

Please have a look at
Illustrating the Michelson-Morley experiment
Abstract: Considering that the rays in the Michelson-Morley interferometer perform the radar detection of its mirrors, we use a relativistic diagram that displays, at a convenient scale, their location and the path of the rays. This approach convinces us that the rays that come from the two arms interfere with zero phase difference without using the usual ingredient, length contraction.
Subjects: Physics Education (physics.ed-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:physics/0510178v1 [physics.ed-ph]
Critical comments are appreciated.
I think that the MM experiment is important because is puts under question the absolute character of lengthts and implicitly of time intervals.

 

[pmb_phy]

Pete, this is probably not the place to discuss the nature of photons since there are loads of threads about this. It seems to me that photons are not helpful when discussing Michelson-Morley.

Chapter 19, 'The Light-Quantum' in 'Subtle is the Lord' ( A.Pais) is worth a read.

Thanks. I've been anxious to read that book. I will look it up as you suggest. However do you believe that the interpretation Einstein was going by to be the modern in interpretation? I am not disagreeing with per se. Lamb seems to think that there are no such particles as a photon. Since he's a Nobel Laureate then I take his assertions seriously. Especially since he was part of the group of people who developed Q.E.D. Perhaps you're expressing exactly what Lamb has expressed in that article. If yoyu would like to read that article let me know and I'll find a way to get it to you.

Best wishes

Pete

 

[pervect]

I've moved some meta-discussion to the general forum

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=188583

 

[Mentz114]

Pete,
I've PM'd you about the Lamb stuff.

For anyone just browsing this, 'Subtle is the Lord' is a must read. Also Einstein's 1917 paper 'On the Quantum Theory of Radiation', where he shows that transfer of momentum between atom and 'photon' ( he never uses the word) is necessary and sufficient to give Planck's black-body distribution. One of the first papers to use h. It is translated and reprinted in 'Sources of Quantum Mechanics', Dover 1967, ed. Van Dr Waerden.

 

[pmb_phy]

My question is that does anyone has a strong evidence rather than Michelson- Morley's experiment to show me that C is the ultimate relative speed between any two objects even if they approach opposite direction to each other with a velocity more than 200000km/s?

And thank you

Hi Huna

I did some research and found an article that addresses your question. I place a PDF file of it in my other website.

Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Special Relativity, J.G. Fox, Am. J. Phys, 30:29, Apr., 1962

Just click on - http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/Fox_1962.pdf

And you're all set.

Best wishes

Pete