Go Back   Physics Help Forum > High School and Pre-University Physics Help > Light and Optics

Light and Optics Light and Optics Physics Help Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Oct 7th 2014, 11:38 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 18
Some things are known from Olde, Sir. If i had a billion or so dollars to toy with, i would certianly finance the experiment i suggested to prove my point! I have thought about a similar Earth-bound experiment using a centrifugal disk; gradiated wall; and, light emitters/detectors mounted both on the disk, the wall and at a 90 degree tangent to the wall. However, i am not sure we have engineered the materials that could take the stress of the rpm's at which the wheel would have to spin to effect 30,000m/s at the rim?
logandiez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7th 2014, 02:38 PM   #12
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,780
Originally Posted by logandiez View Post
Does ANYONE really understand what gravity is? How about this: gravity is a manifestation of the oscillatory energy of the quantum 'bitts' that compose the mass-energy component of the primary particles; these 'bitts' b work something along the line of a canoe being rocked in the water gently, creating a backwash effect that draws a dropped paddle close to the canoe.
If you can explain gravity better than that, i would like to read your explaination. As i understand it, the FORCE of gravity and WHY it attracts mass is pretty much a mystery the Physics Community is spending a great deal of time and money trying to explain: correct? I reckon my explaination is as good and close to reality as any other currently out there.
Einstein said gravity curves space. I never said he described gravity AS curved space. When observation proved light passing near the sun was deflected at almost TWICE what Einstein had predicted it would be deflected by gravitational force, he revised his theory with the "curved space" concept giving reason for the extra degrees of deflection RATHER THAN looking for the obvious explanation, to wit, that a Force TWICE AS STRONG as gravity (at near distances) is what caused the light to deflect what it did: Electromagnetic Force.
"Spacetime" ... an interesting concept to be sure. S.P.A.C.E. = Simultaneous Probable And Circumstantial Events which give rise to the three-diminsional Cosmos as we know it and the dynamic forces which hold SPACE open creating distances. "Temphyst SPACE" = temporal-physical Simultaneous Probable And Circumstantial Events ... that is Causality which is the whole of what our Cosmos is. IF there is in fact a "curvature" in what constitutes "Space" in the current cosmological physics community, then that curvature is factually "temphyst" and "SPACE." However, other than the deflection of light at near distances to massive bodies (which can be explained equally as logical be Em Force), we really have NO other evidence to suggest that Space can be curved ... it could as easily consist of some form of as yet unidentified energy plasma that massive bodies are suspended in.
Scientific Researchers MUST ALWAYS keep an open mind unless and until there is absolute conclusive proof that a theory is correct. When you don't keep an open mind ... you get the "Flat Earth Syndrom." (i.e. believing the untrue even when someone presents evidence to the contrary)
Read this and we can talk about it.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7th 2014, 02:40 PM   #13
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,780
Originally Posted by logandiez View Post
Some things are known from Olde, Sir. If i had a billion or so dollars to toy with, i would certianly finance the experiment i suggested to prove my point! I have thought about a similar Earth-bound experiment using a centrifugal disk; gradiated wall; and, light emitters/detectors mounted both on the disk, the wall and at a 90 degree tangent to the wall. However, i am not sure we have engineered the materials that could take the stress of the rpm's at which the wheel would have to spin to effect 30,000m/s at the rim?
(Shrugs) Then we are at an impasse. You can certainly write a paper on it and suggest the experiment. That is good science. What is not is to insist that your experiment will work and that you are going to reject other experiments as wrong without data to support your thesis.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7th 2014, 07:32 PM   #14
Physics Team
 
ChipB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ USA
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by logandiez View Post
If i had a billion or so dollars to toy with, i would certianly finance the experiment i suggested to prove my point!
No need to spend a bilion dollars - all you need is a web browser. I suggested earlier that your theory is called "Emission Theory," and their have indeed been experiments made and measurements performed that discredit it. I suggested you read en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory, but it seems you either haven't or perhaps did but chose to ignore it. To me the most convincing argument against this theory is the effect it would have in how astronomers view tightly rotating binary stars. Given their high rate of rotation and great distance the effect of varying speeds of light from the pair would be easy to see. If Emission Theory was correct the light we see from the star that is in a portion of its orbit heading toward Earth would reach us before the light from its companion which at that moment is receding from Earth, so the pair would seem asymmetrical and the orbital speeds would seem to vary greatly. But that's not what we see.

In suggesting that an existing widely accepted and verified theory is wrong, you need to show how your theory both does a better job at explaining a natural phenomenon that the existing theory does not, and also show that your theory is consistent with other phenomenon that the current theory does as well. So, for example, the effect that velocity has on mass is well known and verified under Special Relativity. Do you have a competing explanation?
ChipB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14th 2014, 01:25 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 18
Okay, let me posit a thought experiment question:
We have a spaceship travelling in Cosmic Space at 99.95% C velocity that has a large laser mounted on its prow. We fire the laser: AT WHAT VELOCITY will the laser pulse leave the spaceship; and, at what velocity would the light pulse be moving THROUGH COSMIC SPACE?
If Einstein, et.al. are correct that C is the MAXIMUM ATTAINABLE velocity Mav through Space; then the laser pulse would be limited to a velocity of only 0.05% C through Cosmic Space as it leaves the relative reference frame of the spaceship, hence, the crew of the ship would observe the light pulse to crawl slowly away from them; while a stationary observer would see the light flash by their position at C. Such observation by the crew would, then, negate relativistic mandate that light is ALWAYS observed as being at C velocity. On the other hand, if the crew observes the laser pulse to flash from their nose cannon at C velocity; then the pulse would be moving away in Cosmic Space at 1.9995% C, would it not?
logandiez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14th 2014, 02:17 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 552
Originally Posted by logandiez View Post
Okay, let me posit a thought experiment question:
We have a spaceship travelling in Cosmic Space at 99.95% C velocity that has a large laser mounted on its prow. We fire the laser: AT WHAT VELOCITY will the laser pulse leave the spaceship; and, at what velocity would the light pulse be moving THROUGH COSMIC SPACE?
If Einstein, et.al. are correct that C is the MAXIMUM ATTAINABLE velocity Mav through Space; then the laser pulse would be limited to a velocity of only 0.05% C through Cosmic Space as it leaves the relative reference frame of the spaceship, hence, the crew of the ship would observe the light pulse to crawl slowly away from them; while a stationary observer would see the light flash by their position at C. Such observation by the crew would, then, negate relativistic mandate that light is ALWAYS observed as being at C velocity. On the other hand, if the crew observes the laser pulse to flash from their nose cannon at C velocity; then the pulse would be moving away in Cosmic Space at 1.9995% C, would it not?
Logandiez, I can sympathize with not liking SR and its conclusions. (I feel more that way about Quantum Mechanics which I think makes much more bizarre statements.) However, I don't think the thought experiment you propose shows a weakness. If I was looking for a weakness in SR I would go for the twin paradox. (Especially the statement that says that two inertial observers passing each other in opposite directions both claiming that the other person's clock is running slow which to me seems absurd!!)

How SR gets around the inconsistency that you propose is by stating that time slows down for the crew so that the clock in the spaceship runs slower than a clock with a stationary observer standing outside the spaceship. So while a stationary observer would think that the crew might say see the light pulse moving at 0.05C their clock or the passage of time inside the spaceship, travelling at 0.95C, has also slowed down and also their perception of space, in the direction they are going, will appear compressed so that they also see light moving away at speed C (according to their own clock). In this way the theory is not inconsistent when you use these different clocks to make the calculations.

This is a simple easy to understand video which has helped me understand what people are talking about.
Eugene Khytoranski Video on Relativity
kiwiheretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14th 2014, 02:46 PM   #17
Physics Team
 
ChipB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ USA
Posts: 2,347
Thanks logandiez - your thought experiment is very clear and lets us see exactly what the confusion point is. Hopefully this can help clear it up for you.

Einstein postulated that the velocity of light c is constant for all observers in all inertial frames. This is a really strange and counter-intuitive idea. He hit upon this from realizing that the M-M experiment showed there is no aether, and the Maxwell equations show that there is a speed of light in vacuum that is fixed and independent of the velocity of the source. From this postulate (at the time not yet proven), Einstein developed the Special Theory of Relativity, again built on the proposal that c is constant for all observers. Hence, using your though experiment: the ship traveling at 99.95% the speed of light is moving at that speed relative to something - you haven't said what. You used the term "cosmic space" as if to mean some known, constant, and "unmoving" body. But another of Einstein's postulates, cribbed from Galileo, is that all velocities are relative. So - when you say the ship moves at 99.95% the speed of light I will assume that this is a speed as measured by someone outside the ship, perhaps stationed on Earth. That observer on Earth measure the pulse of light as it passes by and finds that the speed of the light pulse is 3x10^8 m/s relative to Earth. Meanwhile the crew on board the ship also measures the speed of the same light pulse as it exits the prow of their ship and they get the same result - that the pulse of light is traveling at 3 x 10^8 m/s relative to their ship. This is the big thing about SR - it states that both observers get the measure the same speed of light relative to their own reference frames, even though they both acknowledge that there is a relative velocity between the reference frames. This is not at all like standard relative velocities as we are used to experiencing in every day life and as articulated originally by Galileo. In daily life if I have the ability to throw a baseball at 100 MPH, and I stand on a train going at 100 MPH then if I throw the ball forward to an observer on the ground the ball will be traveling at 200 MPH. In math terms: if v1 is the speed of the baseball as I throw it and v2 is the speed of the train, then the relative velocity of baseball to ground is Vr=v1+v2. But at relativistic speeds GR shows that this common-sense thinking doesn't apply. If you are on a train traveling at 95% the speed of light and shine a laser beam forward that departs your laser gun at the speed of light, to an observer on the ground that laser pulse travels at the speed of light. In other words Vr is not equal to v1 + v2, but rather obeys Vr = (v1+v2)/1-v1v2/c^2). Example: if v1 = 0.95c, and v2 = 0.95c, the Vr = 0.998c, not 1.9c as you might otherwise expect.

This is weird enough, but if you follow through to logical conclusions like Einstein did, there are implications on length dilation, time dilation, relativistic mass changes, and strange effects of how two observers will disagree about whether two events are simultaneous or not. This is all very logical but non-intuitive. But there are many observations and experiments done over the past 100 years that all confirm that the results of SR and GR are in fact correct. Examples include the advance of the perihelion for the orbit of Mercury about the sun and gravitational deflection of light by massive objects (gravitational lensing). And the effect on the mass of an object depending on its velocity is confirmed every time a synchotron is used to smash atomic particles together.

I hope this explanation helps.

Last edited by ChipB; Oct 16th 2014 at 08:51 AM.
ChipB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16th 2014, 08:24 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 132
Let's see if I can help.

Originally Posted by logandiez View Post
We have a spaceship travelling in Cosmic Space at 99.95% C velocity that has a large laser mounted on its prow. We fire the laser: AT WHAT VELOCITY will the laser pulse leave the spaceship; and, at what velocity would the light pulse be moving THROUGH COSMIC SPACE?
I'll substitute the CMBR reference frame for cosmic space. The laser pulse is moving at c relative to the CMBR reference frame, and according to external observers is moving at 0.05% c relative to the ship. Note though that the ship's crew claim that the laser pulse leaves the ship at c.

Originally Posted by logandiez View Post
If Einstein, et.al. are correct that C is the MAXIMUM ATTAINABLE velocity Mav through Space; then the laser pulse would be limited to a velocity of only 0.05% C through Cosmic Space as it leaves the relative reference frame of the spaceship
Not correct. The laser pulse moves at the speed of light c relative to "cosmic space" or the CMBR reference frame, and at 0.05% c relative to the ship according to external observers, and at c according to observers on the ship.

Originally Posted by logandiez View Post
hence, the crew of the ship would observe the light pulse to crawl slowly away from them; while a stationary observer would see the light flash by their position at C.
Not correct. All observers see light moving at c relative to them, because of the wave nature of matter. I recommend you read The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close.

Originally Posted by logandiez View Post
Such observation by the crew would, then, negate relativistic mandate that light is ALWAYS observed as being at C velocity. On the other hand, if the crew observes the laser pulse to flash from their nose cannon at C velocity; then the pulse would be moving away in Cosmic Space at 1.9995% C, would it not?
No. Speed is distance over time. The crew see the pulse departing at c because they are subject to time dilation and length contraction. Think of them as being subject to slow motion. The pulse leaves their ship slowly, but they're slowed down, so they think it leaves their ship at the normal speed of light.

Originally Posted by logandiez
Does ANYONE really understand what gravity is?
I like to think that I do.

Originally Posted by logandiez
How about this: gravity is a manifestation of the oscillatory energy of the quantum 'bitts' that compose the mass-energy component of the primary particles; these 'bitts' b work something along the line of a canoe being rocked in the water gently, creating a backwash effect that draws a dropped paddle close to the canoe. If you can explain gravity better than that, i would like to read your explanation.
I can. In a fashion that's in line with Einstein and Newton and contemporary authors.
Farsight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27th 2014, 09:26 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Not correct. The laser pulse moves at the speed of light c relative to "cosmic space" or the CMBR reference frame, and at 0.05% c relative to the ship according to external observers, and at c according to observers on the ship.
That's also wrong. The laser pulse is traveling at c according to "observers", where "observers" means, "system of coordinates where classical mechanics is a good approximation". To use a different meaning of observer introduces effects of what light reached what sensor or eye when that are irrelevant to special relativity.
Not correct. All observers see light moving at c relative to them, because of the wave nature of matter. I recommend you read The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close.
Why would you do that? Isn't that guy a known crackpot? This forum is for help, not weird pseudo-science.
StarsBaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > High School and Pre-University Physics Help > Light and Optics

Tags
expectations, experiment, faulty, michelsonmorley



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Expected results from rotating Michelson–Morley like experiment? Michael77 Special and General Relativity 7 Mar 29th 2015 10:54 AM
Michelson Morley + Marosz VS MR E tesla2 Quantum Physics 4 Oct 24th 2012 10:17 AM
Michelson-Morley I measuere new facts tesla2 Light and Optics 17 Oct 18th 2012 11:05 PM
Michelson-Morley Experiment Aryth Special and General Relativity 1 Sep 1st 2009 03:25 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed