hunarahmad said:... and even E=MC2 could be derived without using relativity concepts!
jostpuur said: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
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.jostpuur said: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, ..
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)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.
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.
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.
pmb_phy said: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.
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.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).
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.Mentz114 said: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.
jostpuur said:Do you see the lack of logic? That is what I'm criticizing.
pmb_phy said: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
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.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.
You mention E=mcc without special relativity but with conservation laws. Have a look please atjostpuur said: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
Please have a look athunarahmad said: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
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.Mentz114 said: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.
hunarahmad said: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