Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - REVISED: Light's speed is relative to its medium's

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Astrophysics

Gravity & Relativity

REVISED: Light's speed is relative to its medium's

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Allen W. McCready

USA
12 Posts

Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 16:24:27

(NOTE: revision 1 from feedback to date.)

As a novice hobbyist, recently I independently conceived the

HYPOTHESIS:

“Light speed is relative to the speed of the medium within which the light is traveling”.

THEREFORE:

“The speed of light relative to a recording instrument at an arbitrary point in space/time may differ from the fixed constant c by n * v, where n varies from -1 to +1 depending on the direction of the light relative to that of the moving (relative to the arbitrary point) medium; this relative behavior should also persist within nested mediums”.

BACKGROUND:

By “independently conceived” I mean that, as a novice, I worked alone and without knowledge of anyone else having asserted the same hypothesis, directly or indirectly. Being a novice my knowledge of related content is quite small and I realize therefore, that this hypothesis may be old stuff to the experts and may indeed have been previously asserted or may be a "no-brainer" corollary to another hypothesis.

AN APPLICATION SCENARIO:

To apply this hypothesis as if it were TRUE, consider a spacecraft (which contains the medium) traveling at (say) half the speed of light, v = .5c, away from the earth. The speed of light generated anywhere within the spacecraft should be the same, c, to a recording instrument within that same spacecraft, regardless of the direction of that light relative to the direction of the spacecraft. Assume that the time aboard the spacecraft at which the light was generated and the time at which it was received aboard the spacecraft were separately transmitted back to earth, along with the spacecraft’s constant speed, v, away from earth. Consequently, the speed of that light relative to the earth would vary from .5c to 1.5c, depending on the direction of the light relative to the direction of the spacecraft, according to the data received by earth.

If this hypothesis is FALSE, then (to a recording instrument within that spacecraft), light generated within that spacecraft that is traveling in the direction of the spacecraft (whose speed = v = .5c) would travel at half the normal speed of light (c – v = c - .5c), while light traveling in the opposite direction, would travel at 1.5 times (c + v = c + .5c) the normal speed of light. Light speed in intermediate directions would be proportionately intermediate. Such a difference in light speed depending on direction should, at the least, result in substantial perceptual distortions to a living occupant, as well as to recording instrumentation. This distortion should also be detectable at far lesser spacecraft speeds. The existence, characteristics, and degree of this potential distortion should be of great importance to NASA, since it could be a major obstacle, to high velocity sub-light speed travel.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:

After working out this hypothesis, I started searching the Internet for relevant content. I found that an experiment (which I have to relocate) had been conducted by supposedly credible scientists, who recorded that the speed of light traveling with, or in the opposite direction, of the earth’s rotation was the same. Since the portion of space within which their experiment was conducted effectively constitutes the equivalent of a “spacecraft” relative to this hypothesis, then their experiment’s results empirically support my hypothesis in my judgment.

A similar experiment in a future space probe could, of course, further empirically test the hypothesis and optionally explore the distortion impact, if the hypothesis is false. As implied by the above experiment, a probe traveling at a speed at least equal to the earth’s rotational field would suffice, unless the length of the probe is still insufficient.

OTHER USES:

If and when proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be TRUE or FALSE, this hypothesis and spaceship scenario may provide important clues as to the nature of the medium within which light travels and how light travels through it.

FUTURE EFFORTS:

As time permits, I will continue to search for more “logical” and empirical proof or disproof, as well as for previous assertions of this hypothesis and related material. That is why I made this posting. Any pointers, etc. will be appreciated.

Allen W. McCready

Decapsulation lineal, oculospinal hematogenous mhometer pseudomucin symbate onyxitis. Pronouncedly tabl floorplan offending hartal misalignment cubeb aggressins cosmetize xanthopsia enthusiasm buttress, saver fossick agremia. Mountainside called.

DAVID

132 Posts

Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 19:27:15

quote:
Originally posted by Allen W. McCready

(Go easy on me, please.

Allen W. McCready

McCready,

I think you are on the right track. But consider that the vehicle (spacecraft, earth) is not the “medium”. It is the “inertial frame”. The light speed regulating medium would surround the vehicle and probably be inside it too, but such a medium has not yet been identified, although there is plenty of evidence that it exists.

Think of what I just said in these terms: A train carrying a whistle is not the “medium”, it is the “inertial frame” which the whistle is stationary with. But the speed of sound is NOT determined by the speed of the inertial system but by the medium (the air) through which sound travels. Inside a closed train car or airplane, the “local medium” (the local air inside the vehicle) is carried along with the car or airplane as they travel through space, so here we have a small “local medium” (the air inside the vehicle) traveling through a larger greater “medium” (the air outside the vehicle).

Some theoretical physicists have speculated that maybe the electric and magnetic fields of space constitute a “medium” that regulates the speed of the photons that travel through them. Keep in mind that the fields can travel through space in groups, such as in areas of moving plasma.

A physics professor in Taiwan has developed a “local ether” theory based on the local gravity fields of astronomical bodies acting as a “local ether”. This would account for the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Here is one of his basic papers:

“A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave”

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf

There is often a lot of confusion about the difference between a “medium” and an “inertial frame.” A medium can stand still while a small object (like a spacecraft) moves through it. A larger medium, like the strongest part of the earth’s gravity field, can travel through space with the earth, near its surface.

A moving “inertial frame” can carry things along with it, such as a gun with bullets. If you fire the gun into space from your spacecraft, the bullets will have the speed of your spacecraft plus the speed of their normal projection from the gun. This is like the old “projectile” hypothesis of light.

However, light is generally not looked upon as a “projectile” with mass, like a gun bullet. It is looked upon more as an electro-magnetic “wave” group. In this case, if your spacecraft is moving through a greater medium (such as the sun’s gravity field) then the light photons should go out behind your moving spacecraft at the speed of “c” relative to the medium, but at a speed of “c + v”, relative to your spacecraft, with “v” being the speed of your spacecraft through the medium. In front of your spacecraft, the light should go out at the speed of “c – v”, relative to your spacecraft, but at "c" relative to the medium.

This concept is based on Dr. Su’s “local ether” theory (and mine too).

Of course, other people might disagree with me and Dr. Su.

Allen W. McCready

USA
12 Posts

Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 21:01:02

quote:
Originally posted by DAVID
I think you are on the right track. But consider that the vehicle (spacecraft, earth) is not the “medium”. It is the “inertial frame”. The light speed regulating medium would surround the vehicle and probably be inside it too, but such a medium has not yet been identified, although there is plenty of evidence that it exists.

Excellent and thanks.

Yes, my terminology/phraseology was imprecise and I will revise it accordingly. As you said, the spacecraft is not the medium for light travel. Something else is. A question at the core of my hypothesis is whether that medium moves with the spaceship or the spaceship moves within the medium. As you stated later, the air within an airplane is the medium for sound. In fact, one of my supporting analogies with lots of empirical evidence that I used to conceptualize with was sound speed within an aircraft traveling faster than the speed of sound.

Since a gravitational field, as you stated, may possibly be a medium for light travel, and since the earth's gravitational field appears to rotate with the earth, then there is more reason to believe that the experiment I mentioned showing light speed to be independent of direction within that rotating gravitational field supports the hypothesis. One of the relevance quandaries my spacecraft scenario faces is whether there is a medium within the spacecraft that moves with the spacecraft and is therefore inertially separate from the medium surrounding the spacecraft. Of course the spacecraft is matter and should have a gravitational field of its own that is inertially separate, though relatively weak.

If it is a point you were making, I also understand that the speed of light travel may be controlled by things other than the medium or controlled by things that are only part of or one of many attributes of the medium.

One of the many aspects to this topic I find intriguing is what the impact would be on space travel, when spacecraft speeds get to be of the magnitude where differences in light speed would be perceptually significant to occupants. Even at one quarter the speed of light, occupants could have tremendous difficulties coping if the hypothesis is false. Consequently, this issue has probably already been given lots of expert thought. I don't know what the earth's rotational speed is, but it was apparently not too slow for directional differences in the speed of light to be tested in the experiment I mentioned. Perhaps such an experiment in a space probe already is awaiting the right cost/benefit ratio.

I have to get ready to go on a business trip for several days. When I return I will digest the rest of your message and the references you provided, then possibly respond again.

Thanks again,

kc3mx

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 01 Apr 2005 : 13:40:22

As I understand you, you are saying that you found an experiment that claims that the earth's rotation can not be detected. There are experiments which have detected the rotation of the earth. The Michelson-Gale being the most famous. This means the velocity of light is different going east from going west. The Haefle-Keating experiment found that the time dilation of clocks was different going east versus going west. So the earth's rotation can be detected and this implies that light velocity is not the same for every direction on the earth.

Allen W. McCready

USA
12 Posts

Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 02:55:06

I found a useful series of hyperlinked lectures on the Internet at http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/lecturelist.html. These lectures are by Michael Fowler at the University of Virginia. These lectures cover the topic of light, relativity, etc. from Galileo's time to the present in fairly straightforward fashion. Consequently, I am slowly digesting this material, using my possibly very naive hypothesis as a personal catalyst.

However, at this point, I must still be missing something simple, because I just came up with the following paradox concerning an example from the above lectures that is supposed to illustrate why time slows for one "inertial frame" that is moving at a constant velocity relative to another encapsulating "inertial frame". Hopefully, I will find the answers as I read more of Fowler's lectures.

THE PARADOX?

Using what appears to be a typical example, the theory of relativity, as it relates to a slowing of time, seems to hinge on a light pulse moving between two mirrors in a “light clock”. This light pulse moves at the same speed, “c” (186K miles/second), as perceived by both an observer on a moving railroad FLATCAR (representing an inertial frame) carrying the light clock and a separate observer standing on the railroad TRACKS (representing another inertial frame), who is watching the departing FLATCAR. The light clock’s two mirrors are aligned across the width of the FLATCAR, perpendicular to the length of the FLATCAR. To the observer on the TRACKS, the receiving mirror (not the light pulse) moved distance, “d2”, in time “t”, while the light pulse traveled from the other mirror. To the observer on the FLATCAR, the receiving mirror did not move relative to the other, so the distance the light pulse traveled was “d1”, which was the direct distance between the mirrors. “d2” is greater than “d1”. As I understand the relativity theory, the only way the speed of light can simultaneously appear to be “c” to both observers is if time for the light clock and its observer on the FLATCAR slows proportionately relative to time for the observer on the TRACKS.

However, if a second, but identical, light clock added to the FLATCAR were aligned pointing toward one corner of the rear of the FLATCAR, then “d1” would be greater than “d2” for that second clock. That is, the receiving mirror would have moved closer to the first mirror while the light pulse was traveling. Using the same logic used for the first light clock, that would mean that time for the rearward pointing light clock and its observer on the FLATCAR would have to speed up proportionately, relative to the observer on the TRACKS.

Consequently, to the observer on the FLATCAR, time would have to slow to account for the first light clock, yet simultaneously speed up for the second light clock…a paradox.

Another paradox is that since this first paradox appears to be so obvious, I can’t understand how I could be the first to see it, so I must be missing something. Perhaps a later lecture by Fowler explains this pair of paradoxes.

My hypothesis appears to provide a solution to this paradox. That is, the inertial frame (comprised by the FLATCAR, the two light clocks, and the observer) somehow contains a medium within which light travels and which necessarily moves in synchronization with the inertial frame. Within this moving medium, light travels in any direction at the constant speed, “c”. Consequently, time does not need to slow down or speed up in the FLATCAR observer’s inertial frame, relative to the TRACKS observer’s inertial frame to for that to happen.

Still, a real puzzler to me in applying my hypothesis to this paradox is how a medium moving with its inertial frame can exist around the light clock mirrors on the FLATCAR. That is, the space between the mirrors is open. The spaceship in the example I used to explore my hypothesis is closed.

MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENTS:

My understanding of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments is that they split a light beam into two beams, one at a right angle to the other. After traveling a significant distance, both beams arrived back at the starting point at the same time. Consequently, the speeds of the light beams were unaffected by an "aether", the direction of the earth’s rotation, the earth’s orbit around the sun, the sun’s movement within the galaxy and the galaxy’s movement away from the hypothesized big bang center. If light traveled a different speed depending on its direction relative to the earth’s rotation, etc., the two halves of the light beam in the Michelson-Morley experiments should have returned at different times. This result appears to support my hypothesis. The medium to which I refer is quite different from an "aether".

Allen W. McCready

Allen W. McCready

USA
12 Posts

Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 03:00:35

quote:
Originally posted by kc3mx

As I understand you, you are saying that you found an experiment that claims that the earth's rotation can not be detected. There are experiments which have detected the rotation of the earth. The Michelson-Gale being the most famous. This means the velocity of light is different going east from going west. The Haefle-Keating experiment found that the time dilation of clocks was different going east versus going west. So the earth's rotation can be detected and this implies that light velocity is not the same for every direction on the earth.

I will see what I can find on the Michelson-Gale and Haefle-Keating experiments. They weren't mentioned in the material I have covered to date.

DAVID

132 Posts

Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 10:58:50

quote:
Originally posted by Allen W. McCready

However, if a second, but identical, light clock added to the FLATCAR were aligned pointing toward one corner of the rear of the FLATCAR, then “d1” would be greater than “d2” for that second clock. That is, the receiving mirror would have moved closer to the first mirror while the light pulse was traveling. Using the same logic used for the first light clock, that would mean that time for the rearward pointing light clock and its observer on the FLATCAR would have to speed up proportionately, relative to the observer on the TRACKS.

Consequently, to the observer on the FLATCAR, time would have to slow to account for the first light clock, yet simultaneously speed up for the second light clock…a paradox.

Another paradox is that since this first paradox appears to be so obvious, I can’t understand how I could be the first to see it, so I must be missing something. Perhaps a later lecture by Fowler explains this pair of paradoxes.

My hypothesis appears to provide a solution to this paradox. That is, the inertial frame (comprised by the FLATCAR, the two light clocks, and the observer) somehow contains a medium within which light travels and which necessarily moves in synchronization with the inertial frame. Within this moving medium, light travels in any direction at the constant speed, “c”. Consequently, time does not need to slow down or speed up in the FLATCAR observer’s inertial frame, relative to the TRACKS observer’s inertial frame to for that to happen.

Still, a real puzzler to me in applying my hypothesis to this paradox is how a medium moving with its inertial frame can exist around the light clock mirrors on the FLATCAR. That is, the space between the mirrors is open. The spaceship in the example I used to explore my hypothesis is closed.

Allen W. McCready

That’s like the difference between a moving airplane (with the sound medium sealed inside) and an open flatcar on a train (with the sound emitter moving through the air). In the airplane there is no “medium wind” but on the flatcar there is.

Consider the “flatcar” to be a whole planet, with the light-speed-regulating medium traveling through space with it. I think a real “flatcar” on earth would travel through the earth’s light medium. Note that in some illustrations of this thought experiment, a laser is aimed straight up when the flatcar is stationary on earth, but it is aimed toward the right when the flatcar is moving toward the right. It must be aimed toward the right because if it was not, the laser beam going straight up would miss the top mirror on the moving flatcar. With the laser beam aimed toward the right, of course it will take longer for the light beam to hit the moving mirror, but that doesn’t slow down time on the flatcar.

DAVID

132 Posts

Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 11:05:33

quote:
Originally posted by Allen W. McCready

MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENTS:

My understanding of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments is that they split a light beam into two beams, one at a right angle to the other. After traveling a significant distance, both beams arrived back at the starting point at the same time. Consequently, the speeds of the light beams were unaffected by an "aether", the direction of the earth’s rotation, the earth’s orbit around the sun, the sun’s movement within the galaxy and the galaxy’s movement away from the hypothesized big bang center. If light traveled a different speed depending on its direction relative to the earth’s rotation, etc., the two halves of the light beam in the Michelson-Morley experiments should have returned at different times. This result appears to support my hypothesis. The medium to which I refer is quite different from an "aether".

Allen W. McCready

In their 1887 paper, here:

http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Michelson/Michelson.html#michelson1

Michelson and Morley said that they might need to conduct their experiment up on a high mountain to get up above and away from the earth’s local ether, which Stokes proposed the earth might carry with it as it moves through space.

Allen W. McCready

USA
12 Posts

Posted - 16 Apr 2005 : 11:04:49

quote:
Originally posted by DAVID
That’s like the difference between a moving airplane (with the sound medium sealed inside) and an open flatcar on a train (with the sound emitter moving through the air). In the airplane there is no “medium wind” but on the flatcar there is.

Yes. And thanks for your response.

If superman punched a hole through the airplane from front to rear, the outside sound medium (air), traveling at a different velocity, mixes with the inside sound medium (air), distorting the transmission of sound within the aircraft, accordingly. So, it would help to know for sure exactly what light's range of medium(s) and method(s) is (are) and how they worked. However, that is pulling the horse with the cart.

I understand from Michael Fowler's lectures that light is generally regarded as something that can travel as waves through electromagnetic fields. Therefore those fields constitute at least one light-speed-regulating medium for light. Furthermore, I do understand that electric and magnetic fields are related. For example, I presume an electric generator uses magnetic fields to convert physical movement into electricity and an electric motor does the opposite.

I do not know whether gravitational fields are somehow similarly related to electromagnetic fields, or whether light can travel as waves (or photons) through gravitational fields or through other light-speed-regulating mediums.

I have not learned yet whether light can travel as other than waves, so perhaps photons are somehow part of or cause the light waves that travel through electromagnetic fields. Perhaps light can also travel as just photons through empty space/time. However, that would seem to make the seemingly empty fabric of space/time a light-speed-regulating medium. Light can obviously move through objects, e.g., air, glass, water, etc. However, in addition to light-speed-regulating mediums that allow light to move or make it move at the constant speed c, there may also be mediums that simply impede light. For example, perhaps gasoline may be considered a medium that enables a car’s driver to get a speeding ticket, but, sugar or water may then be considered mediums that simply interfere with the driver’s pursuit of a speeding ticket. As you can see, I can only wildly speculate.

quote:
Originally posted by DAVID
Consider the “flatcar” to be a whole planet, with the light-speed-regulating medium traveling through space with it. I think a real “flatcar” on earth would travel through the earth’s light medium.

It is certainly true that compared to a thought experiment involving a spaceship, the planet earth would be a spaceship with its occupants and structures on its hull. A railroad flatcar would be similar in that respect to spaceship earth, and, spaceship earth is moving through the contents of space/time by rotating, orbiting the sun, etc.

That analogy makes me entertain the possibility that light-speed-regulating mediums, should they really exist, have some RULES OF PRECEDENCE, as well as some RULES OF ENCAPSULATION, and perhaps some RULES OF APPLICABILITY.

By RULES OF APPLICABILITY, I mean that some mediums may enable light to travel, some may regulate light speed, and some may simply interfere with or impede light travel. (See my sick speeding ticket analogy, above.) There may be other categories, as well. I believe Michal Fowler’s lectures say that the Michelson-Morley experiments around 1930 at the Irvine ranch in California were intended to prove that an “aether” existed, which would slow light down, depending on light’s direction relative to any directional movement of that aether. That is, light would have to “plow” through that aether, so that aether would not be an enabler or regulator, but rather an impeder. However, the experimental results show that since the speed of light was constant in two directions that were 90 degrees apart, there must not be an "aether", or if there is, then it did not affect the speed of light.

By RULES OF PRECEDENCE, I mean the "strength" or "density" of one medium versus another. Does light simply travel through the strongest medium, the one with the greatest velocity, some combination, or none of the above?

By RULES OF ENCAPSULATION, I mean whether or not a particular light-speed-regulating medium for a particular moving inertial frame can be separated from the medium in a surrounding inertial frame. The hull of an aircraft is an effective encapsulator for sound's medium (air). The hull of a spacecraft blocks light (unless it is transparent), but does it block light's speed-regulating-medium? Even if we knew with certainty that the speed of light (generated and received anywhere within and only within a spacecraft traveling at light significant speeds) was the constant "c", that doesn't necessarily mean that the hull directly encapsulated the medium and separated it from the surrounding inertial frame, so that within the capsule, the medium assumed the inertia of the spacecraft’s inertial frame. Instead, the inertia of the hull, rather than the hull, may somehow more directly delimit or impart matching inertia to the electromagnetic, gravitational, or whatever field(s) that comprise the light-speed-regulating-enabling medium within the hull. This reminds me of debates as to whether cold moves into a house, or heat leaves it, or whether the vacuum created above an airplane’s wings lifts the wing or the air striking the front and bottom of the wing pushes the wing upward.

Considering my pompous rules, and your great spaceship earth analogy it seems logical and likely to me too that the medium between light clock mirrors in the FLATCAR thought experiment would be external, that is, the earth's surrounding medium, as opposed to an internal "inertial medium" moving with the FLATCAR. Light's behavior with respect to pions (as I understand it) supports that scenario, because as soon as the pion emits light, that light travels only at speed "c", not "c" plus the velocity of the emitting pion. However, if I understand it correctly, the theory of relativity would say that time slows enough on the FLATCAR, because of its relative inertia/velocity to make the speed of light generated on the FLATCAR equal to "c", regardless of the light's direction. If the speed were indeed empirically proven to be "c", then in terms of "inertial" mediums, the medium would somehow necessarily have inertia matching the FLATCAR's, not that of the earth's, regardless of whether relativity or medium theory or both were correct.

However, spaceship earth as a thought experiment has some things going for it that the FLATCAR doesn't, e.g., its relative mass, size, etc.

quote:
Originally posted by DAVID
Note that in some illustrations of this thought experiment, a laser is aimed straight up, when the flatcar is stationary on earth, but it is aimed toward the right when the flatcar is moving toward the right. It must be aimed toward the right because if it was not, the laser beam going straight up would miss the top mirror on the moving flatcar. With the laser beam aimed toward the right, of course it will take longer for the light beam to hit the moving mirror, but that doesn’t slow down time on the flatcar.

I am not sure what you mean by the laser beam being aimed to the right if the flatcar is moving to the right. Do you mean perpendicular to the length of the FLATCAR and horizontal?

In an interior room in the bowels of a very fast cruise ship (instead of a FLATCAR), the trajectory of a ping pong ball (instead of a light pulse) in any direction should be unaffected by the ship’s velocity. That is because the ball shares the same forward momentum as the mirror and the ball is unobstructed by interfering winds, seagulls, or UFOs from the outside. Similarly, it would seem that a light pulse emitted toward an overhead mirror would still reach the mirror, even though the mirror was obviously moving forward while the light was traveling. If a light-speed-regulating medium existed in the room and had inertia equivalent to the inertial frame established by the room, the emitted light should assume the medium’s inertia (which matches the mirror’s inertia) and arrive safely at the moving overhead mirror. I believe the theory of relativity also dictates that the light reaches the overhead mirror, since the local observer’s perspective, e.g., the alignment between the light emitter and the mirror, necessarily remains intact, as though the room were not moving.

However, if the light-speed-regulating medium was instead that of the surrounding inertial frame (the ocean), then depending on the room’s velocity, the overhead mirror could move enough to miss the light pulse. Furthermore, due to the earth’s mass, size, etc., a precedence rule may apply. That is, instead of the inertia of the light-speed-regulating medium being that of the room’s inertial frame, the earth’s inertial frame may somehow dominate. I think this is what you are saying.

In contrast, on a FLATBED RAILROAD CAR, the ping pong ball’s trajectory would be substantially affected by the intrusion of outside air. However, a light beam should not be materially affected by that air intrusion. Since the distance from the light emitter to the mirror is not enclosed, then any light-speed-regulating inertial medium would appear to be that of the surrounding inertial frame, not that of the FLATCAR. As a result, an emitted light pulse may not reach an overhead moving mirror. Again, if I understood you correctly, I think this is what you are saying. However, my understanding is that the theory of relativity dictates that the emitted light reaches the moving mirror, even though the intervening distance is open.

Allen W. McCready

Allen W. McCready

USA
12 Posts

Posted - 16 Apr 2005 : 11:21:37

quote:
Originally posted by DAVID

quote:
Originally posted by Allen W. McCready

MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENTS:

My understanding of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments is that they split a light beam into two beams, one at a right angle to the other. After traveling a significant distance, both beams arrived back at the starting point at the same time. Consequently, the speeds of the light beams were unaffected by an "aether", the direction of the earth’s rotation, the earth’s orbit around the sun, the sun’s movement within the galaxy and the galaxy’s movement away from the hypothesized big bang center. If light traveled a different speed depending on its direction relative to the earth’s rotation, etc., the two halves of the light beam in the Michelson-Morley experiments should have returned at different times. This result appears to support my hypothesis. The medium to which I refer is quite different from an "aether".

Allen W. McCready

In their 1887 paper, here:

http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Michelson/Michelson.html#michelson1

Michelson and Morley said that they might need to conduct their experiment up on a high mountain to get up above and away from the earth’s local ether, which Stokes proposed the earth might carry with it as it moves through space.

Thanks for your response. I will check that paper out.

My currrent understanding from Michael Fowler's lectures is that the earlier experiments around that timeframe (1887) were to empirically determine the speed of light. Since the experimenters thought an aether would interfere with those measurements, they moved their experiment to some mountain tops. Although the Irvine ranch experiments around 1930 also produced a speed of light, that was a byproduct. Allegedly, the later experiments were intended to prove that an aether existed by hopefully showing that the two halves of a light beam split into two halves traveling at right angles to one another would arrive back at their origin, after being reflected by distant mirrors, at different times. Instead the two halves arrived back at the same time, allegedly proving that no light speed impeding aether existed or it didn't impede light speed. According to Fowler, some experts feel that the earlier mountain top experiments more accurately calculated the speed of light.

Allen W. McCready

DAVID

132 Posts

Posted - 16 Apr 2005 : 14:25:47

quote:
Originally posted by Allen W. McCready

I have not learned yet whether light can travel as other than waves, so perhaps photons are somehow part of or cause the light waves that travel through electromagnetic fields. Perhaps light can also travel as just photons through empty space/time

Regarding a photon as a “particle”, my opinion is this:

As best as I can figure out, light is not “particles” at all, but only electric and magnetic “waves”. A single photon is some kind of “wave packet” consisting of one or more wave set or group, perhaps as few as just one complete wave cycle.

The wave “packet” of visible light seems to be a long little thing, longer than it is wide, maybe something like a wiggling electric and magnetic field (very small, tiny, short, and not very wide) pair, traveling through space very fast.

Neither Planck nor Einstein called it a “particle” in their original “quantum” articles. The referred to it as something like oscillating fields emitted from wiggling atoms they called “resonators”.

The idea that a photon was a “particle” came later when the quantum mechanics guys started trying to say that everything is made up of individual “particles”.

So, even though photons are (in my opinion) waves only, when the two fields hit something they have an impact on the fields of the objects that they hit, so this is how light “acts like a particle”.

=========

Regarding the light clock, here is a link to a crude drawing of a laser beam light clock.

http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LtClk.html

Note that when the top mirror is moving, they show the light coming out of the laser at an angle, and going up toward the right. This is an incorrect illustration. On earth, a laser aimed straight up will not send light out to the right just to conform to a thought experiment. A real laser would have to be aimed toward the right to hit the moving mirror. The light travels farther to hit the moving mirror, but time has not slowed down for either the laser or the mirror.

Now, if we mount the mirror rigidly over the laser and consider that both the laser and the mirror are moving through space, but not relative to the earth’s surface, then we must realize that the earth is carrying some kind of “medium” along with it so the light can go straight up and not be “blown” off to the side by some kind of “ether wind”. So, where ever the earth moves in space, the light beam moves sideways with it so that it will always hit a mirror that is mounted rigidly over the laser. This indicates an “ether” or “medium” that is fixed with the earth and moving through space with it.

DAVID

132 Posts

Posted - 16 Apr 2005 : 14:31:56

Here is a link to a report about a meeting on the Michelson-Morley experiment held in 1927:

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1928ApJ....68..341M

Allen W. McCready

USA
12 Posts

Posted - 17 Apr 2005 : 10:52:13

quote:
Originally posted by DAVID

Here is a link to a report about a meeting on the Michelson-Morley experiment held in 1927:

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1928ApJ....68..341M

Thanks. I will check it out and compare it with Michael Fowler's lectures that I just recently read and from which I got most of my understanding.

Allen W. McCready

Allen W. McCready

USA
12 Posts

Posted - 17 Apr 2005 : 10:59:16

quote:
Originally posted by DAVID

...As best as I can figure out, light is not “particles” at all, but only electric and magnetic “waves”. A single photon is some kind of “wave packet” consisting of one or more wave set or group, perhaps as few as just one complete wave cycle...

Thanks for that great explanation of the relationship between light waves and photons. I believe I have a better picture now.

quote:

...Regarding the light clock, here is a link to a crude drawing of a laser beam light clock.

http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LtClk.html

Thanks for the reference. I will check it out. However, it may be a while since I have a lot to check.

Allen W. McCready

DAVID

132 Posts

Posted - 17 Apr 2005 : 15:56:13

I’ve studied English translations of the original Planck and Einstein photoelectric papers, and they don’t mention “particles” at all. What they seem to be doing is taking the old 19th Century way of thinking of continuous light beams and breaking them down into their basic individual components, which today we call individual “photons”.

Throughout the 19th Century scientists spoke of light rays and beams as being continuous, because sunlight and starlight is continuous. But by the late 19th Century other scientists working on the new atomic theories began to discuss how light is emitted by atoms, and they came up with the individual “wave” hypothesis. One atom emitting one wave or wave group or packet at a time, and this we now call a photon.

So, basically, Planck and Einstein were trying to identify one wave packet emitted by one atom at one time. A continuous beam or ray is made up of a stream of these wave packets which are pretty much described by Einstein as oscillating electric and magnetic waves.

Interestingly, in the 19th Century scientists identified single sound waves, which are made up of a compression wave followed by a vacuum wave.

Everyone actually hears single sound waves every day, but they don’t realize it. We hear these as “clicks”. I discovered this about 45 years ago while working with optical sound tracks on film. I used to see single sound waves recorded on optical sound tracks on film. These are caused by clicks such as when someone bumps a microphone with a metal object, or if you quickly hit the edge of your table with a knife or fork. That produces a click sound. The peculiar thing is that each single click sound wave has its own "frequency” or “wavelength”. A very short click has a short wavelength, and a longer click has a long wavelength. Usually, bumping the edge of a table with a metal object will produce a short single wave, while bumping a guitar sounding board with a metal object will produce a long single wave. If you bump a guitar sound box hard enough it will continue to vibrate and produce several long waves that can be seen on an optical sound track sort of as a short “wave train”.

Topic

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

This page was generated in 1.56 seconds.