|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Interstitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR
Intersitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR ~v~~ Jeff Root: I get what you are arguing: The amount of contraction seen in an object at a given point in space is different for observers moving at different speeds relative to the thing being observed. And that seems self-contradictory. Not quite, Jeff. Let me show you an example: We have two interstitial bodies traveling at different velocities with overlapping geometric SR frames of reference, AF and CD which align in the following way: A--------------(C---v2------D)------v1-----------F And different MM type experiments are conducted across CD and across AF by observers in each frame of reference at the same time. But since the velocity of AF is different from the velocity of CD different contraction factors would have to apply to each. However because AF and CD overlap one another in space this cannot be. Hence both frames of reference cannot both be contracted in exactly the way needed to explain the null results of MM conducted seperately across each frame of reference at the same time on any uniform basis. Thus uniform material or geometric contraction of the type needed to explain the null results of such experiments is not possible. ~v~~ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Interstitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:15 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote: Intersitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR ~v~~ Jeff Root: I get what you are arguing: The amount of contraction seen in an object at a given point in space is different for observers moving at different speeds relative to the thing being observed. And that seems self-contradictory. Not quite, Jeff. Let me show you an example: We have two interstitial bodies traveling at different velocities with overlapping geometric SR frames of reference, AF and CD which align in the following way: A--------------(C---v2------D)------v1-----------F And different MM type experiments are conducted across CD and across AF by observers in each frame of reference at the same time. But since the velocity of AF is different from the velocity of CD different contraction factors would have to apply to each. However because AF and CD overlap one another in space this cannot be. Hence both frames of reference cannot both be contracted in exactly the way needed to explain the null results of MM conducted seperately across each frame of reference at the same time on any uniform basis. Thus uniform material or geometric contraction of the type needed to explain the null results of such experiments is not possible. ~v~~ ~v~~ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Interstitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:07:33 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote: On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:15 -0700, Lester Zick wrote: Intersitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR ~v~~ Jeff Root: I get what you are arguing: The amount of contraction seen in an object at a given point in space is different for observers moving at different speeds relative to the thing being observed. And that seems self-contradictory. Not quite, Jeff. Let me show you an example: We have two interstitial bodies traveling at different velocities with overlapping geometric SR frames of reference, AF and CD which align in the following way: A--------------(C---v2------D)------v1-----------F And different MM type experiments are conducted across CD and across AF by observers in each frame of reference at the same time. But since the velocity of AF is different from the velocity of CD different contraction factors would have to apply to each. However because AF and CD overlap one another in space this cannot be. Hence both frames of reference cannot both be contracted in exactly the way needed to explain the null results of MM conducted seperately across each frame of reference at the same time on any uniform basis. Thus uniform material or geometric contraction of the type needed to explain the null results of such experiments is not possible. On 24 Dec 2006 20:57:30 -0800, "GSS" wrote: Lester Zick wrote: On 23 Dec 2006 08:50:09 -0800, "GSS" wrote: George Dishman wrote: [. . .] Not quite. What the MMX actually measures in the time difference between the arrival of the same beam-split wave front after traversing the two paths. Not quite. What the MMX actually measures is the *phase* difference between the waves after traversing the two paths. Phase difference is just 2*pi*f*t where f is the frequency and t is the time difference so they are essentially the same thing. That is on the assumption that frequency f is not influenced by the motion of the emitter or reflector of light. But we know that the thermal motion of atoms and molecules does affect the frequency of emitted light. So it is not unreasonable to expect that the frequency f could be influenced by the motion (speed) of the emitter or reflector. The alternative explanation of MMX referred below is based precisely on this dependence of f on the speed of motion of the emitter or the reflector. Gurcharn, I don't know if you're familiar with all my previous posts on this subject but this is precisely what is required to produce the anticipated positive results for MM. No, I don't know to which particular post you are refering to. AFAIK the MMX type experiments have been repeated many times and in many forms. But in each and every case the result depends on the interference phenomenon controlled by the phase difference of reflected beams of light in two perpendicular arms of the setup. Well it's controlled by the phase difference as manifested of the combination of relative velocity of light and beam frequency. Appended here is the recent message I was referring to: (On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 00:17:07 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote: "Lester Zick" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:32:19 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote: "Lester Zick" wrote in message ... Yeah, look, George, maybe this was a bad idea after all. At least on this particular subject I know considerably more than you seem to think you do since I researched the subject in detail for five years both in the journal, scientific, and popular literature and understand the mechanics involved thoroughly. I can only surmise you were being somewhat economical in your descriptions because your reply mixed together parts of three quite different theories. My comments were mainly just making sure it was clear which of your comments applied to which of the theories. Most of your comments are valid but only for certain theories. The parsimony was only directed at determining the degree of interest and what direction it might lie in. That's OK, it just reminded me of the other conversation where you talked about an "inverse square velocity curve". You meant "a velocity curve derived from an inverse square gravitational force" while I took it to mean "a velocity which depends on the inverse square of the radius" so we ended up at cross purposes. Yeah, reductionist expressionism I suppose. I've always tended towards a maximum economy of expression where possible. Sometimes it costs me. My point regarding one monochromatic light source only having one frequency should be self-evident so I don't understand why you are objecting to that. But you know that's exactly the problem. Michelson went to great lengths to ensure the light was monochromatic. So we're looking for an exotic unobvious explanation.The difficulty is that if we can discount Einstein's geometric and Lorentz's physical contraction hypotheses we're only left with a couple of experimental variables, one of which could be frequency if we understood all the mechanics involved. The problem is that a change of the frequency of the source would cause a change of fringe spacing but not a shift of the zero point since both beams are taken from the single source and remain in phase at the point of splitting. Even if one beam changed frequency but the other didn't (e.g. we use two separate sources), what you get is a fringe pattern that drifts at a rate determined by the beat frequency. Granted given the single source. However Michelson-Morley used unpolarized light whereas Kennedy-Thorndike (KT) used plane polarized light. My idea is that Einstein's frequency dilation comes into play any time a light source is moving according to the relative bidirectional velocity of light normal to the direction of the beam. And the degree of dilation is governed by the bidirectional relative velocity of light along the E vector. Now the splitting mirror remains fixed with respect to the light source but does come into play because the mirror's 45 degree axis of split lies normal to the platform and in MM would have preferentially reflected and excluded sodium light from the source with polarization angles perpendicular to the axis of platform rotation. Thus MM would have effectively used predominantly plane polarized and interference fringes would have predominantly resulted from the interaction of plane polarized light just as in KT. (By the way if memory serves KT used unequal arm lengths just to demonstrate that had no effect.) Now this effect I call frequency conjugation where plane polarized light is dilated in frequency according to the bidirectional relative velocity of light along the E axis of polarization. And this is where Einstein's so called time dilation actually comes from.If you remember he never actually showed any physical mechanism for time dilation, he just posits it as a mechanically ambiguous dilation in "time". Please excuse the length and complexity of explanation but the effect is rather complex in mechanical terms but almost certainly does exist. At least I can demonstrate the effect as a composite conjugation of frequency and relative path length.I've actually done all the compound trig calculations in three dimensions and they clearly show that unless the experimental platform is traveling through space exactly normal to the path of travel, Michelson's original expectations should be and I'm certain can be realized. All that's really necessary is to use and keep the light polarized normal to the plane of the platform and along the axis of platform rotation. Then frequencies along both mutually perpendicular paths will remain constant. The experiment is just too simple not to work. I can do the former on quite solid theoretical grounds .. I don't believe you can for SR, though you might manage for Lorentz Aether, but that's another discussion. Well this theoretical explantion is really quite brief and applies equally to any form of supposedly uniform platform contraction such as would be required to cause the null effects posited either by Einstein or Lorentz. It's what I call the problem of interstitial bodies. All nominally solid bodies are composed of myriads of particles traveling at myriad different velocities and directions. In principle we could have performed MM or KT between the earth and moon and some other body at right angles to them. Then we might have simultaneously conducted an identical experiment within the spatial boundaries of the first experiment. Consequently we'd have different contraction factors applicable to common regions of space and if contraction could be true the experiment would have to succeed to some extent in one or the other and consequently as a matter of mechanical principle would have to succeed to some degree in both. No way around it. Nor would it do any good to suggest that the underlying effects of velocity can average out because any average would represent a first order effect but the supposed contraction, frequency dilation, and changes in relative path length are all second order effects. I think you can see why the conjugate frequency dilation effect I describe above becomes essential to any conceivable mechanical explanation for the null results of MM. It's just that any uniform path length contraction of the type required to explain the null results of relative motion studies like MM is physically impossible. .. so either Michelson's expectations should be realized or we're looking for an exotic explanation (by which I mean exotic effect in the physical sense). Even Michelson himself once remarked that perhaps we don't know quite enough about the physics involved to do these experiments. Well he would, wouldn't he ;-) Sure. I would have too. It's just that he was operating under the umbrella of classical rationalism. His experiment ought to work; it was just too simple not to work. And yet it didn't. And he could conceive of no reasonable explanation. And it's taken more than a full century now to explain why it didn't work and how it can work. You remember the "less than 10% of anticipated experimental results" Michelson did manage to obtain? I think they came from the part of light polarized normal to the axis of rotation not preferentially excluded by the splitting mirror. Fine by me except I don't really know what you mean by "galilean" except I assume from what you say you mean an inert aether. The term is used quite often to indicate an aether in which Galilean relativity applies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princip...ean_relativity I'm sure you know of the principle so perhaps you haven't come across the term being applied to distinguish between aether theories. True. I've heard of Lorentzian aether and Lorentzian aether drift. Interesting, I haven't heard of the latter since the Lorentz transforms mean any drift speed becomes undetectable. Well "Lorentzian aether" is really only my term. Since I don't really care about the aether I haven't bothered to classify these kinds of things rigorously. The aether is there and presumably is has some kind of properties in what terms I really couldn't say. The fact that light travels through it as a medium is all that's really necessary to conduct relative motion experiments of the Michelson-Morley type. Apart from that I've only heard of the aether in purely inert terms. "Inert"? That may be "Galilean" by another name. Probably. By "inert" I just mean the aether doesn't participate in and isn't an experimental variable in relative motion studies of the Michelson-Morley variety. If you want to pick up the other conversation, by all means do so. There shouldn't be a problem discussing the table and confirming Kepler's Law since we can check all my figures with a calculator if you like and your welcome to trim the rest if you feel it would become argumentative. You know, George, I really don't doubt your numbers or Kepler's Law. What puzzles me though are that we have the inverse square law of gravitational attraction where f~1/rr and I'm just trying to reconcile that in my own mind as producing some kind of specific different orbital velocities at different r's for circular orbits.The web source I went to confirmed Kepler's Third Law but used it to justify inverse square gravitational force instead of vice versa. I don't mind revisiting the issue but it's difficult to sit down and put all the conceptual blocks in order to do the calculations to get tt~rrr. Same reason I haven't revisited my explanation for the Pioneer anomaly yet. I just don't want to crunch the numbers. In fact I never wanted to and if I hadn't run into that serendipitous coincidence I would never have raised the issue at all except in purely speculative terms. You don't need to do the numbers, try working through the equations in small steps. Start with the gravitational force as inverse square. Turn the equation for centrifugal force in terms of speed and radius around and find the speed to balance the gravitational force. Find the circumference from the radius and divide the circumference by the speed to get the period. (E&OE) Yeah, George, I know. Fact is everything you see me talking about here and in previous posts is all the product of twenty years ago. Then I knew I'd have to calculate the compound effect of relative path length and conjugate frequency dilation to prove it actually consistently worked in mechanical terms in three dimensional trigonometric terms. So I got some trig books out of the library and started crunching numbers. Eventually the numbers ran to several typed pages and the last equation was at least a couple of pages in length. And I knew I'd have to make an effort to calculate the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury to have any kind of credibility whatsoever. So I went to the library and researched some numbers on the distribution of mass and velocities of rotation within the sun to calculate the effect of what I call "gravitational doppler". (Fortunately the library lay at the foot of my street.) But that was twenty years ago and now I'm really not so sure I care all that much anymore. Now I'm really more just talking concepts and willing to leave the calculations to others. ~v~~) [. . .] With the type of constraints proposed by you for conducting a physical measurement, I also feel that the verification of the notion of 'length contraction' through physical measurements may not really be possible. Under the circumstances, I agree that we should explore the possibility of using some indirect methods like improved MMX. By improved MMX, I mean a MMX type experiment where instead of comparing the phase difference in two beams of light on perpendicular arms, we could compare the actual pulse propagation times over the perpendicular arms. If you agree, I may propose a more detailed feasibility for physically conducting such an improved MMX type experiment. I disagree here, Gurcharn, with the particulars you suggest. I consider phase comparison perfectly adequate for an improved Michelson-Morley experiment. Sorry Lester, here I too cannot agree with you. Phase comparison in MMX leads to misleading interpretation of the result precisely due to the assumption of invariant nature of frequency f with the motion of emitters and reflectors. Well I can agree with your observation, Gurcharn, in general terms. But the difficulty can be resolved as outlined above in my message to George. Nor do I understand exactly how you would go about comparing actual pulse propagation times if not by means of phase comparisons. Kindly refer to my previous discussions with George in this thread at Sl. No. 13 onwards. http://groups.google.com/groups?as_u...oglegroups.com GSS In any event the only requirement for a successful version of MM would be to conduct the experiment using only light with its E vector polarized normal to the plane of platform rotation. As I remember I mentioned this to George early on before we began quibbling over various unrelated issues. I've done the 3D trig analysis for what I call frequency conjugation together with Lorentz transforms for the anisotropic dilation in the relative speed of light and it shows the anticipated results for MM should be realizeable. ~v~~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark frames | Thomas Womack | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | September 24th 04 10:54 PM |
Dark Frames | Stuart M | UK Astronomy | 5 | March 16th 04 05:18 PM |
Registax and Dark Frames | W. Watson | CCD Imaging | 2 | February 13th 04 11:07 PM |
Selecting frames for stacking... | justbeats | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | December 7th 03 11:50 PM |
ISS caught in a few frames | Robin Leadbeater | UK Astronomy | 4 | October 4th 03 11:44 PM |