It very much does. Just like with a light clock, without length contraction, the M&M experiment would show it taking more time for light to make the circuit with and against the motion, and less time when it moves perpendicular to the motion. The difference should have been noticed and the Newtonian models were falsified when it wasn't.The reason why I brought up this problem was due to it resembling the M&M experiment. — Gampa Dee
It's a postulate, not something that can be known. Special relativity used a fairly strong version of the postulate, that light actually goes the same speed regardless of inertial frame choice. Some later papers took much of that metaphysical assertion away and used a weaker statement, that the laws of physics (including any measurement of light speed) are the same relative to any inertial frame.Einstein claimed the light’s velocity is invariant without any specific reason why
Nothing in any of relativity suggests an aether. Other theories do, but the additional postulate does not result in any empirical differences, so it's useless.while Fitzgerald pointed to the light’s velocity in the medium (ether) as being the cause
I assure you that the M&M experiment was performed in many different inertial frames. The statement above is false and Einstein would certainly not have said anything to that effect.So in the case of the M&M experiment, Einstein would claim that there was no length contractions nor time dilations involved because there was no different inertial frames to measure....
Immediately falsifiable by having two light sources moving at different speeds emit a flash when they pass each other. A distant observer would see one flash from the approaching source sooner than the one from the receding source, thus falsifying Einstein's postulate. Such a result is not observed. Light speed is empirically demonstrated to be independent of the speed of the light source.But, what if the light speed was c relative to the source (sort of particle theory)
An observer cannot be outside any frame. He's in all of them, just not stationary in them all.The observer outside of the frame
M*M didn't have light sources moving at different velocities AFAIK.It seems that, in this case, the M&M experiment would have been predictable.
So in the case of the M&M experiment, Einstein would claim that there was no length contractions nor time dilations involved because there was no different inertial frames to measure.... — Gampa Dee
Pretty much that. It asserts a preferred frame despite the fact that local detection of such a frame is not possible since empirical physics isn't any different in other inertial frames. Einstein saw no need for the additional premise when it served no predictive purpose.The difference is that in Fitzgerald's theory the frame of reference of the ether was a privileged frame of reference in which light traveled, while Einstein showed that the ether was not needed in the theory and that the frame of reference can be any inertial frame of reference. — PhilosophyRunner
Well, light travels in all frames, but the speed of light is isotropic (same speed in all directions) only in the preferred frame. Remember, everything is in all frames of reference, but a thing is stationary only in one of them.According to Fitzgerald: Light traveled in the ether frame of reference.
The experiment was the observer in M&M. In very few experiments are humans actually necessary while the experiment is running.this is not relevant to the M&M experiment as both the observer and experiment are in the same frame of reference.
On the other hand, the monoclastic neutrinal differentiation of the autosomatically-determined spin value inherent in all such equitational bivalent transmogrifications cannot be entirely ignored, wouldn't you agree? — alan1000
Particularly if we keep in mind the various M&M chromatic values which may be obtained at little expense in our own time. — alan1000
The reason why I brought up this problem was due to it resembling the M&M experiment.
— Gampa Dee
It very much does. Just like with a light clock, without length contraction, the M&M experiment would show it taking more time for light to make the circuit with and against the motion, and less time when it moves perpendicular to the motion. The difference should have been noticed and the Newtonian models were falsified when it wasn't. — noAxioms
Einstein claimed the light’s velocity is invariant without any specific reason why
It's a postulate, not something that can be known. Special relativity used a fairly strong version of the postulate, that light actually goes the same speed regardless of inertial frame choice. Some later papers took much of that metaphysical assertion away and used a weaker statement, that the laws of physics (including any measurement of light speed) are the same relative to any inertial frame.
The latter wording allows for the existence of a preferred frame despite no local way to detect it. — noAxioms
So in the case of the M&M experiment, Einstein would claim that there was no length contractions nor time dilations involved because there was no different inertial frames to measure....
I assure you that the M&M experiment was performed in many different inertial frames. The statement above is false and Einstein would certainly not have said anything to that effect. — noAxioms
But, what if the light speed was c relative to the source (sort of particle theory)
Immediately falsifiable by having two light sources moving at different speeds emit a flash when they pass each other. A distant observer would see one flash from the approaching source sooner than the one from the receding source, thus falsifying Einstein's postulate. Such a result is not observed. Light speed is empirically demonstrated to be independent of the speed of the light source. — noAxioms
The observer outside of the frame
An observer cannot be outside any frame. He's in all of them, just not stationary in them all. — noAxioms
The length contractions in Fitzgerald's theory is the same as that in Einstein's special relativity - they are both Lotentz transformations. The difference is that in Fitzgerald's theory the frame of reference of the ether was a privileged frame of reference in which light traveled, while Einstein showed that the ether was not needed in the theory and that the frame of reference can be any inertial frame of reference. — PhilosophyRunner
To put is more simply:
According to Fitzgerald: Light traveled in the ether frame of reference. This frame of reference was moving relative to an observer on Earth. Lorentz transformations can be used to explain length contractions due to the observer and ether being in different frames of references.
According to Einstein: The ether is not needed in the theory. Length contractions due to Lorentz transformations are observed when the observer is in a different inertial frame of reference to the experiment, but this is not relevant to the M&M experiment as both the observer and experiment are in the same frame of reference. — PhilosophyRunner
Yes and no. Particles would also have taken longer to go the greater distance with the grain than the shorter distance against it.I agree with what you wrote, except, the Newtonian model would have predicted a null result as Newton believed that light was made up of particles. — Gampa Dee
Empirical evidence? Einstein didn't originate the claim. He just ran with it without dragging in the baggage that everybody else tried to keep.Einstein claimed the light’s velocity is invariant without any specific reason why
The heck he didn't. It was explained via Minkowskian geometry. The contraction (and the underlying 4D geometry) derives directly from the frame-invariant speed of light, even if there was a preferred frame. The geometry and contraction were both a byproduct of the work of Minkowski and Lorentz, so that too wasn't something Einstein originated. Lorentz was first, but clung to the 3D ether model like Fitzgerald. That model added complications preventing the special version of the theory coming out before Einstein's, and preventing a general version from coming out until nearly a century after Einstein's.it seems to me that Fitzgerald allowed a mechanism for the length contraction to exist, being the ether, whereas Einstein did not have any mechanism
OK. For me it falls under Occam's razor: The simpler model is the more likely one, proposing the fewest additions and complications.for what I understand...and for me, it seems that the postulate of the invariant speed of light would fall into the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” category.
It predicted no such thing since the particle would have longer to go this way than that way. The contraction (which both theories describe, but Newton does not) explains the null result of M&M.My “personal” opinion would be that the particle theory, which would have predicted a null result
He would not have said anything of the sort since the frame of the light source was trivially demonstrated not to matter.But what I am saying is that Einstein “would have said” the M&M experiment did not contain any time dilation or length contraction because the light source and observer were on the same inertial frame,
Doubt it. You need a laser to run an interferometer. I've never heard of anybody managing to run one with ambient light.As for the M&M experiment performed on different frames, I think that the sun (being on a different inertial frame) was used as a source of light
Then an easy experiment would show it. As I said, this is easily falsified.But, what if the light speed was c relative to the source (sort of particle theory)
I agree with what you wrote, except, the Newtonian model would have predicted a null result as Newton believed that light was made up of particles.
— Gampa Dee
Yes and no. Particles would also have taken longer to go the greater distance with the grain than the shorter distance against it.
But the interferometer used by M&M leverages the wave nature of light, something known back in Newton's time since particles don't explain rainbows. I don't know when interferometers were invented. — noAxioms
Einstein claimed the light’s velocity is invariant without any specific reason why
Empirical evidence? Einstein didn't originate the claim. He just ran with it without dragging in the baggage that everybody else tried to keep. — noAxioms
it seems to me that Fitzgerald allowed a mechanism for the length contraction to exist, being the ether, whereas Einstein did not have any mechanism
The heck he didn't. It was explained via Minkowskian geometry. The contraction (and the underlying 4D geometry) derives directly from the frame-invariant speed of light, even if there was a preferred frame. The geometry and contraction were both a byproduct of the work of Minkowski and Lorentz, so that too wasn't something Einstein originated. Lorentz was first, but clung to the 3D ether model like Fitzgerald. That model added complications preventing the special version of the theory coming out before Einstein's, and preventing a general version from coming out until nearly a century after Einstein's. — noAxioms
As I said, there are some empirical tests one can perform to see who is right, but not that one where results can be physically published in a journal. — noAxioms
for what I understand...and for me, it seems that the postulate of the invariant speed of light would fall into the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” category.
OK. For me it falls under Occam's razor: The simpler model is the more likely one, proposing the fewest additions and complications. — noAxioms
My “personal” opinion would be that the particle theory, which would have predicted a null result
It predicted no such thing since the particle would have longer to go this way than that way. The contraction (which both theories describe, but Newton does not) explains the null result of M&M. — noAxioms
But, what if the light speed was c relative to the source (sort of particle theory)
Then an easy experiment would show it. As I said, this is easily falsified.
The binary star thing doesn't work since there is no way to know when the light you're looking at was emitted. Both stars continuously emit light. You need two relatively moving sources that simultaneously, in each other's presence, emit a short pulse. The further away the emitter the better since it would give one pulse more time to outrun the other, showing up as two pulses at different times at the detector. No such thing is seen. — noAxioms
Distant galaxies receding over c would not be visible due to the light approaching too slowly to stay inside our event horizon, but there they are, with Webb telescope finding ever more distant ones. The visible universe would be far smaller if light speed was dependent on emitter motion. — noAxioms
Special relativity theory (early 20th century) posited the frame independent fixed speed (not velocity, which is frame dependent) of light. The M&M experiment (late 19th century) neither presumed nor demonstrated the fixed frame independent speed of light.From what I understand, in the M&M experiment, the velocity of the light would be c through all paths within a particle theory of light. — Gampa Dee
He postulated it. He said essentially, If it were true, then yatta yatta yatta...Einstein claimed the light’s velocity is invariant without any specific reason why
Your questions are valid, and I'm the first to admit the validity of alternate theories that do not hold to Einstein's postulate.First, I hope that I’m not sounding as if I think little of the genius of any/all physicists who were at the same time developing QM.
Because it has since been shown that light speed is not a function of the velocity of the emitter. It might be different from one frame to the next, but it's not a function of emitter velocity.I was just wondering why Einstein, who did mention the particle characteristic of light for QM, did not think that this could also be the solution for the M&M experiment
Picture a light clock moving at 0.866c with mirrors separated by a distance of 1. Presume no length contraction. Move the clock with the mirrors to the sides. Light travels a distance of 1 to the left and 1.732 up to get to the other side, a total distance of 2. Another 2 to get back. So it runs at half speed since it has a distance of 4 to go instead of 2 when the clock is stationary.I don’t understand why you say one path would be longer than the other?
Technically, they're rapidities, not velocities. The former adds the normal way (a+b) as opposed to velocity with adds the relativistic way, in natural units: (a+b)/(1+ab)that is, the receding galaxies with a velocity greater than c would not be interpreted as having those velocities.
From what I understand, in the M&M experiment, the velocity of the light would be c through all paths within a particle theory of light.
— Gampa Dee
Special relativity theory (early 20th century) posited the frame independent fixed speed (not velocity, which is frame dependent) of light. The M&M experiment (late 19th century) neither presumed nor demonstrated the fixed frame independent speed of light.
The speed of light is not dependent on whether one uses a particle or wave model for it. — noAxioms
I don’t understand why you say one path would be longer than the other?
Picture a light clock moving at 0.866c with mirrors separated by a distance of 1. Presume no length contraction. Move the clock with the mirrors to the sides. Light travels a distance of 1 to the left and 1.732 up to get to the other side, a total distance of 2. Another 2 to get back. So it runs at half speed since it has a distance of 4 to go instead of 2 when the clock is stationary. — noAxioms
that is, the receding galaxies with a velocity greater than c would not be interpreted as having those velocities.
Technically, they're rapidities, not velocities. The former adds the normal way (a+b) as opposed to velocity with adds the relativistic way, in natural units: (a+b)/(1+ab) — noAxioms
The better empirical evidence would be something like seeing incoming ejecta before seeing the explosion that caused it, or seeing a star explode well before the neutrinos hit instead of the observed neutrinos coming just before the light. — noAxioms
Maybe. Don't know the problem.I’ve read some things concerning vector additions that I just don’t get, which maybe you could help me out with. — Gampa Dee
Well, no. In the scenario I outlined, when moving up it has a speed of .134c relative to the mirror, and in the reverse direction the relative speed would be 1.866. That still presumes light is independent of emitter speed.It seems that this would imply the light as having a speed of .5c relative to the mirror
I wasn't. I was speaking of the clock moving at .866c relative to the ether. Neither the observer nor the frame plays any role in the predictions. That's the general model that the M&M experiment was trying to measure.If you’re speaking of an observer moving at .866c, relative to the frame of the clock
If you accelerate at 10 m/sec² for 100 million seconds, you achieve a rapidity (or proper velocity) of a billion m/sec. You just add 10 a hundred million times.I would be interested in learning more about the scientific jargon...I will try to read up on this more.
Doesn't work. It's just a pdf file name without a website in front of it. I tried searching the web for any site containing that file name and got nothing.here's the link that I told you about concerning the "double star experiement"....I hope it works.
I’ve read some things concerning vector additions that I just don’t get, which maybe you could help me out with.
— Gampa Dee
Maybe. Don't know the problem.
You mean the equation a = GM/r² ? I suppose that would need a unit vector to make it into a vector acceleration and not just a scalar. Nothing on the right side as I wrong it is a vector. — noAxioms
It seems that this would imply the light as having a speed of .5c relative to the mirror
Well, no. In the scenario I outlined, when moving up it has a speed of .134c relative to the mirror, and in the reverse direction the relative speed would be 1.866. That still presumes light is independent of emitter speed. — noAxioms
With emission theory, you'd have to specify the speed of emission, not obvious with a light clock which just reflects the pulse back and forth and has no obvious emission event. I am also unsure what emission theory says about how the speed gets altered when hitting a moving mirror. — noAxioms
If you’re speaking of an observer moving at .866c, relative to the frame of the clock
I wasn't. I was speaking of the clock moving at .866c relative to the ether. Neither the observer nor the frame plays any role in the predictions. That's the general model that the M&M experiment was trying to measure. — noAxioms
I would be interested in learning more about the scientific jargon...I will try to read up on this more.
If you accelerate at 10 m/sec² for 100 million seconds, you achieve a rapidity (or proper velocity) of a billion m/sec. You just add 10 a hundred million times.
But to compute velocity relative to the frame in which you were initially stationary, you add 10 using relativistic addition, all those times. The former adds up to about 3.3c, meaning at that rapidity you move 3.3 light years for every year of your travel. But the velocity is .997c relative to Earth. That sort of illustrates the difference. So if your ship is fast enough, you can cross the 100,000 LY galaxy before you die because there's no upper limit to rapidity. — noAxioms
here's the link that I told you about concerning the "double star experiement"....I hope it works.
Doesn't work. It's just a pdf file name without a website in front of it. I tried searching the web for any site containing that file name and got nothing.
I am interested. Tried googling it, but the name is too generic to get to what you're talking about.
Sure, 2 orbiting stars will alternate approaching and receding, but that just results in redshift and blueshift. I don't know how they'd decide that the images being looked at departed at the same time, so to speak. — noAxioms
Which I did not immediately see because you didn't reference me (reply to something of mine say) anywhere in it.I sent a post concerning this in the “The Newtonian gravitational equation seems a bit odd to me" thread. — Gampa Dee
OK, so the M&M setup isn't the optimal experiment to falsify this particle theory.Therefore, it would have predicted the nul result because of this....the light was going to be c relative to the whole experiment — Gampa Dee
Given that relativity theory was in its infancy at this time, this is a bold assumption. It's reasonable for inertial frames, but no inertial frame describes the real spacetime between stars. In the accelerating expanding frame that describes the universe at large scales, light speed (the rate at which the proper distance from Earth to an incoming light pulse) is not fixed, is not c. For instance, the light from some of the furthest objects seen by the Webb telescope was emitted from only a bit more than a billion LY away (proper distance), which is a lot closer than the emission distance of the light we see from galaxies closer by. Point is, the assumption they're making up there is not to be made lightly (pun intended).Throughout the whole debate, W. de Sitter and, to some extent, M. la Rosa as well, had taken it for granted that starlight retains, based upon the formal Ritz theory, its original velocity resultant for the entire duration of its journey from binary stars to distant observers. — Faraj
OK, I got that. I know the difference between the two now. They're both wrong, but they didn't know it at the time. Not sure if the spectra of binaries can falsify both since apparently the new-source theory produces spectra very similar to relativity theory (reflected light speed is neither c+v nor c+2v, but just c.If the combined velocity of reflected light, in the reference frame of the laboratory, is (c + v), then the ballistic theory, in question, is a new-source theory, in which starlight loses its initial velocities. By contrast, if the combined velocity of reflected light, in the reference frame of the laboratory, is (c + 2v) instead, then the ballistic theory, in question, is an elastic-impact theory, in which starlight does not lose its initial velocities. — Foraj
Check the copyright. Is it legal to paste the whole thing here? You already pasted an email address, which is against the rules for some forums.I could either continue to give you bits and pieces until we can figure out how I can send the whole thing. — Gampa Dee
I sent a post concerning this in the “The Newtonian gravitational equation seems a bit odd to me" thread.
— Gampa Dee
Which I did not immediately see because you didn't reference me (reply to something of mine say) anywhere in it. — noAxioms
Therefore, it would have predicted the nul result because of this....the light was going to be c relative to the whole experiment
— Gampa Dee
OK, so the M&M setup isn't the optimal experiment to falsify this particle theory. — noAxioms
If the combined velocity of reflected light, in the reference frame of the laboratory, is (c + v), then the ballistic theory, in question, is a new-source theory, in which starlight loses its initial velocities. By contrast, if the combined velocity of reflected light, in the reference frame of the laboratory, is (c + 2v) instead, then the ballistic theory, in question, is an elastic-impact theory, in which starlight does not lose its initial velocities. — Foraj
OK, I got that. I know the difference between the two now. They're both wrong, but they didn't know it at the time. Not sure if the spectra of binaries can falsify both since apparently the new-source theory produces spectra very similar to relativity theory (reflected light speed is neither c+v nor c+2v, but just c. — noAxioms
Check the copyright. Is it legal to paste the whole thing here? You already pasted an email address, which is against the rules for some forums.
What question do you need answered? — noAxioms
Experiments rarely prove anything. We cannot, for instance, prove that light speed is c in all directions, independent of frame. Hence it needing to be a postulate instead of something measured.Could you show me the experiments which proves this (reflected light has a speed of c)? I'd be interested.. — Gampa Dee
Nevertheless, the mirror thing can be falsified. You just have two mirrors in a vacuum in the same place moving relative to each other. Shine a light pulse at it and detect the reflected light from each. If they arrive at the same time (but different wavelength/frequency), then light speed is not a function of the motion of the mirrors. If light from the approaching mirror gets there first, then we need to rewrite the last 130 years of physics. — noAxioms
I have no idea what actually has been done. Yes, the technology is there. What you describe doesn't even change the frequency of the light, so some kind of interferometer would easily measure a speed change involving half a wavelength.My concern would be whether we would have the technology accurate enough to be able to observe whether the two light beams would have the same speed or not. — Gampa Dee
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.