Michelson- Morley's experiment

  • Thread starter hunarahmad
  • Start date
  • #26
russ_watters
Mentor
19,860
6,282
Even if the room were opened you will get the same result because the bullet and the observer in the same inertial frame.
No. The motion of bullets is most certainly affected by wind. Hunters and snipers have to account for it.
 
  • #27
Oh, and while you're at it, please re-read the PF Guidelines that you have agreed to.

Zz
.

well, I couldn't continue this discussion because I couldn't guarantee you that there will be no violation (freedom limit is too narrow here)

thank you for everyone replied.
 
  • #28
Let me add this:

Discussion is just like fighting and in fighting there is one winner but for knowledge the winners are both because both sides get more information.
When I said this idea is wrong, this means that its wrong in my point of view may be I'm wrong. For me this forum is not a peer-reviewed journal to be afraid that my claiming will be disproved if I were 100% sure that my claiming is right, then why I release it in this forum I will release it in a scientific journal.
 
  • #29
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,664
You should also ask yourself "Now why did I agree to those Guidelines if I didn't want to follow follow them in the first place? After all, I knew what I was agreeing to and the criteria that they have imposed on anyone participating here. So why did I still continue to do what I know they don't allow?"

Zz.
 
  • #30
30,136
6,567
My question is that does any one 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?
I like this site:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

It has a list of many specific peer-reviewed experiments that have been published testing various predictions of special relativity. I would encourage you to start there, and go to your local university library for copies of any interesting manuscripts. The experimental evidence, as you can see, is overwhelming. Special Relativity is correct.

But the accuracy of a theory is not measured by the time which it has survived for e.g Newton's lows lasts for 300 years without any one notice an error
I am always somewhat troubled by this kind of statement. Newton's laws are still correct in the sense that they accurately describe a wide variety of phenomena and they have been extensively tested and verified. Relativity did not find an "error" in Newton's laws, but instead simply identified an unknown limitation in the domain of applicability of Newton's laws. Specifically, Newton applies when v<<c and in this limit Special Relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics.

You are undoubtedly correct that at some point there will be another theory that "surpasses" relativity, but it will do so in a similar manner. The new theory will reduce to relativity in some limit. If it did not, then the new theory would be incompatible with decades of experimental evidence. Thus, even when relativity is surpassed it will still be useful and still correctly describe a wide variety of phenomena, just as Newton's laws still do.

-Regards
Dale
 
  • #33
2,111
18
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
2,946
0
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 independant 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
 
  • #35
980
2
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html [Broken]

Perhaps that would be an interesting review for those concerned with these matters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
2,111
18
jostpuur said:
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 independant 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
5,428
291
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 travelling freely in space, because they are not. The photon is the quantum of the EM field, it is not a particle.
 
  • #38
2,946
0
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 travelling 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
 
  • #39
2,946
0
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
 
  • #40
f95toli
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,037
536
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.
 
  • #41
5,428
291
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.
 
  • #42
179
0
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?
 
  • #43
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.
 
  • #44
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 with out 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 click here

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 with out 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 any one 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.
 
  • #45
2,946
0
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
 
  • #47
5,428
291
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.
 
  • #48
2,946
0
My question is that does any one 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 [Broken]

And you're all set.

Best wishes

Pete
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Michelson- Morley's experiment

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
10
Replies
229
Views
30K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
727
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
757
Replies
9
Views
504
Top