MMX and the earth's rotational sagnac

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chinglu1998
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotational sagnac
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) and the Sagnac effect in relation to GPS technology. It establishes that while MMX demonstrates light's isotropy, handheld GPS units apply the Earth rotational Sagnac correction, indicating that light is not isotropic in all directions from the satellites. The Sagnac effect is significant in GPS synchronization, which occurs in the Earth-Centered Inertial frame, while the MMX experiment's design renders the Sagnac effect irrelevant. Both results support the principles of Special Relativity (SR).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity (SR) principles
  • Familiarity with the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX)
  • Knowledge of the Sagnac effect and its implications
  • Basic concepts of GPS technology and synchronization methods
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Sagnac effect and its applications in GPS technology
  • Study the Michelson-Morley Experiment and its historical significance in physics
  • Explore the differences between Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) and Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed (ECEF) frames
  • Examine the mathematical formulations of time dilation and synchronization in relativistic contexts
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, engineers, and students interested in the foundations of Special Relativity, GPS technology, and the implications of the Sagnac effect in real-world applications.

  • #31
chinglu1998 said:
No,GPS did not consider Sagnac until the 80's.
Are you just saying that until the 80s all the calculations involving GPS devices were done in the nonrotating ECI frame rather than the ECEF frame? If not, where are you getting this claim? Certainly the GPS designers would have known about the Sagnac effect, which dates back a lot further than 1973.
chinglu1998 said:
Anyway bring a modern article from a mainstream university. I want to see it.
Find it yourself--try google scholar. It's pretty obvious this isn't a matter of you accepting relativity but believing modern physicists don't accept MMX, you are trying to say physicists are wrong to accept MMX as evidence for relativity, and are using this argument to question SR itself (as evidenced by your rhetorical question "So, what is the experimental basis of special relativity without MMX?") I'm not going to play the game of looking for a source that exactly matches your specifications, but just so you can't say you weren't shown a source, here is a book that discusses modern variations on MMX on page 152 which you can read on google books, it's published by Springer which is a respected publisher of scientific texts (and the book's original publication date is 1999, this is a 2nd publishing from 2006). And here is the abstract of a published journal article which backs up my claim that rotational effects into account are not precisely zero, but in the MMX they would be too small to make any observable difference to the experimental results:

Reinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment based on the GPS Sagnac correction
By examining the effects of rotational and orbital motions of the Earth on wave propagation in the global positioning system and an intercontinental microwave link, it is pointed out that the Earth's orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations, while the Earth's rotation does contribute to the Sagnac effect. As the propagation mechanism in the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be different from that in the aforementioned ones, it is concluded that due to the Earth's rotation, the shift in interference fringe in this famous experiment is not exactly zero. However, by virtue of the round-trip propagation path, this shift becomes second order and hence is too small to observe within the present precision.
Anyway, feel free to try to continue to argue that relativity should predict a non-null result for the MMX, but you can't claim ignorance now, so doing that will probably just get you banned.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Not sure about the ban yet, but this thread is closed for now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
11K
  • · Replies 199 ·
7
Replies
199
Views
22K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
798
Replies
10
Views
858
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K