Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: worlov on 20/01/2018 12:19:44
-
Hello!
Lorentz's interpretation of the experiment by Michelson and Morley is logical in the sense of geometric optics. But the light consists of the electromagnetic waves. Therefore, it should occur in the vertical light beam a inclination of the field strengths (see the figure below). Then with a radio wave transmitter and a dipole antenna the ether wind could be measured already in the first order. Meanwhile, the Lorentz’s transforms eliminate only the second-order effect.
Best regards
Walter Orlov
-
An animation: walter-orlov.wg.am/dipol-ether.gif
For v << c the angle of inclination of the dipole antenna is a = - v/c. How can the Lorentz transformations completely eliminate this inclination? Obviously they can not do that. Therefore if the ether wind really existed, it would become recognizable despite Lorentz transformations.
-
We may interpret the MM experiment by an alternative sight: the packets of photons (that arrived to interferometer screen at the moment T3) began to travel at the moments T1 and T2. So, generally it is supposed T1 = T2; whereas this cannot be guaranted, because the light is used by uninterrupted form.
The interpretations (that are considered T1 = T2) are invalid.
-
"natural scattering" of light and the innuendo of an etheric wind appears to be the topic.
Einstein took hold of relativity by first considering Brownian motion.
"lasers" no matter how well directed have scattering. In fact, the LHC uses massive amounts of toroidal magnetic energy to prevent scattering pre-collision.
The question is, "from one reference of space to another, no matter how well directed the photon, why is there scattering"?
Couple in quantum entanglement and the uncertainty principle, scattering would appear to be the norm. Yet can the equations for Brownian motion satisfy the equations for the wave-function of light? It was at the time one hypothesis to the next without any great conclusion to how it all works.
-
"natural scattering" of light and the innuendo of an etheric wind appears to be the topic.
No, it is that by the inclined electromagnetic beam the electric field strength is also inclined (figure below). If we assume the existence of the ether wind, then this inclination would be directly proportional to the velocity of the ether wind ( ~ v/c). But in principle the Lorentz transformations can not make this effect invisible to radio commutation on Earth.
-
So the Lorenz transformation makes this effect visible? I'm more thinking what is visible is visible, and its our job to know how and why.
Most people today when they read the news about the latest planet discovered, and are given a computer generated image, I'm thinking they actually believe the computer generated image right? Like its an actual photo, right?
I'm thinking if something is visible, and we want to know why, that's science. Making computer animated stories of exo-planets light years away and say that's a "discovery" is as good as cryptocurrency. Sorry, but science should stick to not breaking rules of observation.
Do you have a science reference for the ether wind?
-
Do you have a science reference for the ether wind?
That's the sticking point: there is no ether wind, becouse the Lorentz transformations can not in reality hide this phenomen!
-
Do you have a science reference for the ether wind?
That's the sticking point: there is no ether wind, becouse the Lorentz transformations can not in reality hide this phenomen!
So the Lorentz transformations don't hide this phenomena, thus they make it apparent, and thus also there is no ether wind, as a sticking point?
Sounds ok so far. I'm just hesitant with algorithms that make things apparent....very fake news.
-
1 - Etheric wind is not mentioned.
2- T1 ≠ T2 (Absolutely) There is the same concept at the measurement of light's velocity. The number of identified photons (for beginning and finishing of the measuring experiment) are different. Therefore we can always measure the universal velocity according to outer space not local relative speed. So the measurement is not realized by a single/unique photon.
3- If we set the light's path by a filter's hole, we cannot use and interpret inclined path. In this case the path of the light will be like risers of a stair (perpendicular faces). So, total/(integral) length of light's way will be the same.
-
In your diagram at the top, you've failed to adjust the wavelength of the light to make it reach the top with the same number of cycles. The movement of the emitter will slow its functionality and produce light of lower frequency. The shape of the wave will also be affected by the different amount of time it takes for the cycling to produce the left-to-right and right-to-left components of its movement, so it will no longer be the simple sine wave that you're drawn for it.
-
This illustration shows what is happening from the point of view of the observer at rest. Therefore no corrections are necessary. For moving observers, of course, both the time dilation and the length contraction occur. Yes, this will modify the wave ... but the vertical component of the electric field strength will not disappear in this way. That is, the moving observer should be able to notice that the field strengths of his vertical beam are skewed.
-
This illustration shows what is happening from the point of view of the observer at rest. Therefore no corrections are necessary.
If the emitter isn't co-moving with the receiver in the second example, but is in the first, you're not comparing the same system.
For moving observers, of course, both the time dilation and the length contraction occur. Yes, this will modify the wave ... but the vertical component of the electric field strength will not disappear in this way. That is, the moving observer should be able to notice that the field strengths of his vertical beam are skewed.
If you're sending a single photon, its full strength will be received. If you're sending a laser beam of photons, their full strength will be received. If you're sending out a diverging ray of photons (or any kind of force), the headlights effect will concentrate them together more in a forwards direction to cancel out any effect that you imagine you could measure.
-
It is actually irrelevant whether the emitter is moving or not. The measurement of the speed of light should provide the same value in each frame. And I consider the case when the emitter rests in absolute ether. Furthermore, the emitter is a horizontal dipole antenna. It produces the electromagnetic waves in a wide angle. But we consider only two narrow beams: one spreads strictly vertically upward from the point of view of the stationary observer P and the second does the same, but for moving observer P'. Because the second beam is tilted, its electric field gets vertical component. Please see figure below.
-
It is actually irrelevant whether the emitter is moving or not.
It is not irrelevant - it is essential. If the emitter is co-moving with the receiver in one case (where neither is moving through the aether at all), then in the other case the emitter must also be co-moving with the receiver when the receiver is moving through the aether. In the latter case, the movement of the emitter reduces the rate of its functionality and produces waves of lower frequency which are perceived by co-moving observers as unchanged even though they are lower.
The measurement of the speed of light should provide the same value in each frame.
And that measurement works because the moving clocks used to time the light from emitter and receiver are both running slow and out of sync.
Furthermore, the emitter is a horizontal dipole antenna. It produces the electromagnetic waves in a wide angle. But we consider only two narrow beams: one spreads strictly vertically upward from the point of view of the stationary observer P and the second does the same, but for moving observer P'. Because the second beam is tilted, its electric field gets vertical component. Please see figure below.
Just as the moving emitter regards itself as stationary and perceives the signal as travelling straight "upwards" even though it's actually being sent out at an angle, the receiver perceives the signal as arriving from directly below, even though it's coming in at an angle. There is nothing detectable to show the reality and distinguish it from the apparent stationariness of the system. The angled wave front that you have arriving at the receiver isn't perceived as angled due to synchronisation issues in the timing of when it's perceived as arriving at any given point. If you want to test any part of that, simply put a laser beam in to follow the same path as any point on your wave front and ask yourself when a pulse of laser light on that path will be perceived as arriving at the receiver. You can't trick relativity - it always cancels out all efforts to detect movement of a system through the aether.
-
The angled wave front that you have arriving at the receiver isn't perceived as angled due to synchronisation issues in the timing of when it's perceived as arriving at any given point.
You can not prove that. The time dilation corrects proportionally ~ v² / c², but the inclination is proportional ~ v / c.
If you want to test any part of that, simply put a laser beam in to follow the same path as any point on your wave front and ask yourself when a pulse of laser light on that path will be perceived as arriving at the receiver.
The field strengths have extra no spatial extent - they are in every point in it. Therefore, the consideration like the consideration of the refraction of light can not be applied here.
-
The angled wave front that you have arriving at the receiver isn't perceived as angled due to synchronisation issues in the timing of when it's perceived as arriving at any given point.
You can not prove that. The time dilation corrects proportionally ~ v² / c², but the inclination is proportional ~ v / c.
Take two points on your wave front in the stationary system and get the receiver to time when they arrive - given that they're arriving at different locations, you'll nee more than one receiver to separate out the two timings. Now repeat with the moving system. The timings from the first case will match those from the second case, and this will happen because a leading clock in a moving system is slow, running behind the time of the following clock. This makes any inclination undetectable.
The field strengths have extra no spatial extent - they are in every point in it. Therefore, the consideration like the consideration of the refraction of light can not be applied here.
Field strengths are distributed in the same way as light, being focused more strongly in a forwards direction and weakened behind, always matching for the moving system the strengths that would apply in a stationary system at any point where they're measured. If that wasn't the case, we could measure our speed through the aether simply by measuring how these strengths change.
-
Take two points ...
As I said, both electric field strength and magnetic field strength are present in one point. We do not need two points. Simultaneity does not help you. The Loretz transformations work in principle only with the factors of the second order ~ (1 - v2/c2)1/2. But with the help of the simple geometry we come to the inclination of the light beam
cos(b) = v/c
b = arccos(v/c)
and further
Field strengths are distributed in the same way as light...
Both electric field strength and magnetic field strength are perpendicular to the direction of travel of the electromagnetic wave, hence
a = b - 90°= arccos(v/c) - 90° = - arcsin(v/c)
for v << c applies arcsin(v/c) => v/c
i.e. a = - v/c
That's the first order. You just can not "marry" second and first order.
... we could measure our speed through the aether simply by measuring how these strengths change.
Correct! ;)
-
OK
-
As I said, both electric field strength and magnetic field strength are present in one point. We do not need two points. Simultaneity does not help you.
Clearly there's something you don't understand about what's going on, and I'm just trying to help you home in on what that thing is - you think there should be a way to cheat relativity (of the LET variety), but there isn't. You've provided two diagrams with blue lines with arrowheads at each end which are either horizontal or tilted. In the cases where they are tilted, they were produced by something that would swear blind that it was generated in such a way as to make it horizontal, so when it is received, it will likewise be perceived as horizontal even though it is tilted. What happens at the emitter also happens at the receiver - it doesn't only go wrong at one end of the process. The tilt is there, but it is impossible to detect the fact that it's tilted - all measurable effects assert that it is horizontal (regardless of its actual angle).
-
In the cases where they are tilted, they were produced by something that would swear blind that it was generated in such a way as to make it horizontal, so when it is received, it will likewise be perceived as horizontal even though it is tilted.
You want immediately to use the principle of relativity. But historically there was still no theory of relativity. So, we have an absolute ether. How do you want to proceed then? Think about it that the vector of velocity and the vector of field strength are physically different. You can not somehow unite them, e.g. by an addition.
-
You want immediately to use the principle of relativity. But historically there was still no theory of relativity. So, we have an absolute ether. How do you want to proceed then?
Lorentz developed one theory of relativity, while Einstein developed another. Both use the same maths, but with different explanations, and both were developed after MMX. Length contraction resolved part of the puzzle and gave us a clue as to how to solve the rest. Imagine a ring with lasers on it pointing outwards. Move the ring at high speed and it length-contracts into an ellipse, changing the alignment of most of the lasers. Trace out the paths of the laser light by calculating how photons will move within the moving lasers at c relative to the aether, and what you end up with is a distribution of light that conforms to the headlights effect. This illustrates why a moving room (a cube) has all six walls equally brightly lit by a lamp in the middle of the room regardless of how fast the room is moving through the aether. That light exerts a force upon the walls, and that force is unchanging, so this is an illustration of the mechanism by which one kind of force automatically adjusts to maintain the illusion that the system is stationary. Note that all the lasers are still hitting the same targets in the moving system as they were when the system was stationary. The frequency of the laser light (and lamp) is also reduced due to the slowed functionality of the system producing it, that slowed functionality being due to movement through the aether and increased cycle times due to anything cycling having a greater distance to travel through the aether to complete each cycle, and this tunes the wavelength to the distance the light has to go to reach the same target such that there are the same number of crests and troughs in each between source and target as before. No matter how you emit light from a device, it will be flung out in ways that follow the same rules, concentrating it forwards more strongly (and thereby avoiding breaking the rules of momentum). Other forces are clearly adjusted in the same way, hiding the movement of the system through the aether - they too are concentrated forwards, so the measurements of force are unchanging.
Think about it that the vector of velocity and the vector of field strength are physically different. You can not somehow unite them, e.g. by an addition.
The vector of velocity and field strength are perpendicular in both cases, and when the system is moving, they are measured as being at the same angles as when the system is stationary, even if those angles are not the true ones. There is no observation that changes for a co-moving observer making measurements - he always sees the light going north, and measures the field strength force as aligned perpendicular to that. You spoke about all of this applying to a single point, but you can't measure the alignment of anything from a single point - you need to use another point, and as soon as you do so, you have synchronisation issues polluting your measurements.
-
Just show mathematically how it works. How can two second-order factors, length contraction and time dilation (~ [1 - v2/c2]1/2, for v << c => ~ 1 - [v/c]2/2), completely compensate one first-order factor, the inclination of the field strength (for v << c, ~ v/c) ?
-
Just show mathematically how it works. How can two second-order factors, length contraction and time dilation (~ [1 - v2/c2]1/2, for v << c => ~ 1 - [v/c]2/2), completely compensate one first-order factor, the inclination of the field strength (for v << c, ~ v/c) ?
They don't compensate it - they merely mask it and prevent you from measuring the actual angles. Show me how you intend to measure those angles while co-moving with the system and I'll show you why that won't measure the true angles.
-
... the actual angles
And you know that the information about the current position of the emitter can not be transmitted instantly over long distances? The maximum transmission speed is known to be the speed of light.
-
And you know that the information about the current position of the emitter can not be transmitted instantly over long distances? The maximum transmission speed is known to be the speed of light.
And you know that the slowed functionality of moving clocks ensures that the transmission speed appears to be the same to the moving system as it does to the stationary system.
-
If the wave reaches the receiver,
My opinion: From the point of view of the recipient, this is inclined and point to its place of origin.
Your (and Lorentz&Einstein) opinion: From the point of view of the recipient, this is directly and point to actual position of the emitter.
Meanwhile I thought about what the experiment might look like (see figure below). The receiver consists of two dipole antennas, these are perpendicular to each other and at an angle of 45 ° to the emitter. If the wave front passes the receiver flat, the signals in the antennas balance out. Then SR or LET is valid. And on the contrary, both are invalid.
-
If the wave reaches the receiver,
My opinion: From the point of view of the recipient, this is inclined and point to its place of origin.
Your (and Lorentz&Einstein) opinion: From the point of view of the recipient, this is directly and point to actual position of the emitter.
See my diagram. The red box is an emitter, the green box is a receiver, the ones on the left are the same ones as on the right, showing them in two different locations as they move from left to right. The co-moving black things are a shutter which blocks the radiation such that it can only reach the receiver if it passes through the hole in the middle. The Path the emitter thinks it's sending the radio signal along is shown in light blue (cyan) because it wrongly assumes it is stationary. The path the radio signal actually goes along is shown in dark blue. The path the receiver thinks the radio signal came along is shown in purple (magenta). The radio signal clearly came through the hole in the shutter, so the receiver has proof that it followed the purple path. But its proof is faulty.
Meanwhile I thought about what the experiment might look like (see figure below). The receiver consists of two dipole antennas, these are perpendicular to each other and at an angle of 45 ° to the emitter. If the wave front passes the receiver flat, the signals in the antennas balance out. Then SR or LET is valid. And on the contrary, both are invalid.
As for your diagram, when do you imagine the induced signals reach the middle of the antennas? The one in the blue antenna moves through it more slowly than the one in the red, but when you take into account the synchronisation issue with leading clocks running behind trailing ones, both take the same length of recorded time (by a co-moving observer to the system) to pass along each antenna. All differences are masked.
-
Oh, and I meant to say something about the direction the signal moves through the antenna that slopes from top left to bottom right. As the signal comes from further and further left (with the apparatus moving to the right), you might think there would come a point where the signal starts to run through it from the top left end instead of the bottom right end, thereby running though it in the wrong direction, but that doesn't happen because of length contraction - the X is squashed more and more as the speed goes up, ensuring that the signal always hits the same end of the antenna first.