MMX and the extinction theorem

In summary, It is well understood that when conducting experiments to measure the velocity of light from moving sources, extinction effects must be considered. However, Fox's research has shown that prior to the 1960s, all such experiments were flawed on this basis. This raises questions about why early MM type experiments are not subject to the same flaws and why this is not commonly mentioned. While Fox dismisses concerns about MM experiments, the reason for this dismissal is not clear. It appears that MM experiments may not be testing the same theories as other moving source experiments, such as emission theory.
  • #1
pgf
7
0
It's well understood that extinction effects must be considered when conducting experiments to measure the velocity of light from moving sources. Fox showed that all such experiments prior to the early 60s were flawed on that basis.

I'd like to understand why early M-M type experiments aren't flawed in the same way, or, if they are, why no one mentions it.

For instance, in the often-cited FAQ on SR experiments (http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html), many of the moving source experiments are flagged with comments regarding whether extinction criticisms are warranted, but none of the M-M type experiments.

In the third cite below, Fox even seems to dismiss concerns about M-M experiments (second paragraph), but the reason for the dismissal isn't clear.

Is there something about the methodology of interferometry experiments which renders extinction irrelevant? I wouldn't have thought so, but I never see it discussed.

I'm not a physicist -- just an educated layman -- so perhaps I'm missing something subtle. Or, maybe even something obvious!

paul


* Fox, J. G. (1962), "Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Special Relativity", American Journal of Physics, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp. 297-300
* Fox, J. G. (1965), "Evidence Against Emission Theories", American Journal of Physics 33 (1): 1–17
* Fox, J. G. (1967), "Constancy of the Velocity of Light," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 57, 967-968 (which seems to be available here: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Fox_1967.pdf )
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I just did some more searching of the forum, and this note from pmb_phy in 2008 summarizes my thoughts on this. The original is here:
* https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1784283&postcount=67
but I'll quote the relevant part:
As for how the extinction theorem effects the Michelson-Morely experiment(MMX); when analyzing the results of the Michelson-Morely experiment one assumes that the Earth is moving through the ether. The MMX was at rest on the Earth.Since the source of light was at rest with respect to the MMX it also follows that the source was at rest on the Earth. The source of light therefore moved relative to the ether. Let one of the two interferometer be parallel to the direction of motion (Arm A) the other is then perpendicular to it (Arm B). According to the ether theory the speed of light relative to the MMX has one value when traveling parallel to Arm A and another value when traveling antiparallel to it. The interferometer was designed to detect these different speeds of light. However according to the extinction phenomena the light will travel at a speed which is relative to the medium, in this case air, and thus there is no expected difference in the speeds of light parallel or antiparallel to Arm A. This means that the MMX cannot detect the ether. ...

What do you believe is wrong with the above analysis of the MMX experiment?
 
  • #3
MMX is not subject to extinction because it is not measuring the speed of light. It is measuring anisotropy in the speed of light. As such, extinction effects are irrelevant.

Extinction is only relevant for measurements of the speed of light.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
DaleSpam said:
MMX is not subject to extinction because it is not measuring the speed of light. It is measuring anisotropy in the speed of light. As such, extinction effects are irrelevant.

I think I need more explanation than that. If the light paths being measured for anisotropy are extinguished and reemitted (at a different velocity) by the air surrounding the device, then how can the results of the experiment not be affected?
 
  • #5
Because they are extincted (extinctioned, extinguished?) on both paths. The MMX detects anisotropy in the speed of light, not the speed of light. If there were anisotropy in the speed of light then there would be anisotropy in 1/n times the speed of light. And vice versa.
 
  • #6
What about the final, shared path to the detector or eyepiece? It feels like extinction there should mask any differences created in the divergent paths. But my "feeling" about this isn't worth much -- I realize that. :-)
 
  • #7
What is extinction?
 
  • #9
pgf said:
What about the final, shared path to the detector or eyepiece? It feels like extinction there should mask any differences created in the divergent paths.
Why would you think that?
 
  • #10
pgf said:
It's well understood that extinction effects must be considered when conducting experiments to measure the velocity of light from moving sources. Fox showed that all such experiments prior to the early 60s were flawed on that basis.

I'd like to understand why early M-M type experiments aren't flawed in the same way, or, if they are, why no one mentions it.

For instance, in the often-cited FAQ on SR experiments (http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html), many of the moving source experiments are flagged with comments regarding whether extinction criticisms are warranted, but none of the M-M type experiments.

In the third cite below, Fox even seems to dismiss concerns about M-M experiments (second paragraph), but the reason for the dismissal isn't clear.

Is there something about the methodology of interferometry experiments which renders extinction irrelevant? I wouldn't have thought so, but I never see it discussed.

I'm not a physicist -- just an educated layman -- so perhaps I'm missing something subtle. Or, maybe even something obvious!

paul


* Fox, J. G. (1962), "Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Special Relativity", American Journal of Physics, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp. 297-300
* Fox, J. G. (1965), "Evidence Against Emission Theories", American Journal of Physics 33 (1): 1–17
* Fox, J. G. (1967), "Constancy of the Velocity of Light," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 57, 967-968 (which seems to be available here: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Fox_1967.pdf )

My understanding of the situation is that MM type experiments won't test emission theory at all, which seems to be the sort of theory that Fox is interested in testing.

For instance Wiki (which is unfortunately not necessarily reliable) says:
Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment.

From your URL http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Fox_1967.pdf
We are not concerned here with experiments of the Michelson Morley type, which have conclusively disproved of the Ether. We are concerned rather with experiments which are meant to ... distinguish between SR and ... Ritz's emission theory.

So it appears that Fox, at least, thinks that the MM experiments do disprove some classes of theories, but not others.

There have been some replications of the MM done in vacuum (See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html if this is of interest.

G. Joos, Ann. Phys. 7 385 (1930). An excellent repetition of the MMX, in vacuum.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #11
What about the final, shared path to the detector or eyepiece? It feels like extinction there should mask any differences created in the divergent paths.
Why would you think that?

Why would I think that? Ignorance, no doubt. But here goes: If the only difference between the divergent light paths is expected be their velocity, then extinction in the final light path, which will presumably equalize their velocities, would seem to eradicate what is hoped to be measured.
 
  • #12
An interferometer measures phase differences. Over the last leg they don't accumulate any more phase difference, but that doesn't alter the phase they already accumulated. Extinction doesn't change that at all.

You seem to think that extinction results in completely unknown behavior of light. It does not, it simply gives a characteristic length over which light is expected to interact with matter in the known way. It is important for measurements of the speed of light and tests of the ballistic theory of light.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
DaleSpam said:
An interferometer measures phase differences. Over the last leg they don't accumulate any more phase difference, but that doesn't alter the phase they already accumulated. Extinction doesn't change that at all.

You're right this seems to be the crux of my problem. I have trouble picturing light being reemitted with a new velocity without also being reemitted with a new phase. But clearly that's not what happens.

Thanks for your patience!
 
  • #15
You are welcome. I am glad I could help.
 

What is MMX?

MMX stands for "Mars Meteorite Xperiment" and is a proposed NASA mission to collect samples from the Martian moon Phobos and return them to Earth for analysis.

What is the extinction theorem?

The extinction theorem, also known as the "Extinction Principle", is a mathematical concept that explains the reduction in brightness or intensity of a light source as it travels through a medium, such as the Earth's atmosphere.

How does the MMX mission relate to the extinction theorem?

The MMX mission will use the principle of the extinction theorem to analyze the surface of Phobos. By measuring the changes in light intensity as it travels through the moon's atmosphere, scientists can gather information about the composition and structure of the surface.

What are the goals of the MMX mission?

The main goals of the MMX mission are to analyze the surface and interior of Phobos, study the Martian environment and its influence on the moon, and search for evidence of past or present life on Mars.

When will the MMX mission take place?

The MMX mission is currently in the planning and development phase and is expected to launch in the mid-2020s, with a return to Earth in the early 2030s.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
59K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
15K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top