Fresnel drag and Demjanov's formula
in [Physics]
|
From: Surfer on 26 Feb 2010 02:37 If an optical medium at rest in a local preferred frame has a refractive index of n, the speed of light through the medium is reduced to c/n. If the medium is moving at speed v relative to the frame, then the speed of light through the moving medium is often calculated using the SR velocity addition formula. This gives, c/n + v ------------------- 1 - (c/n) v/c^2 However, this calculation ignores the following possibility. If the preferred frame is the rest frame of aether or the like, then the forward speed of the medium will cause it to experience in its own frame an opposing flow of aether of speed -v. This will cause a Fresnel drag effect that will reduce the speed of light in the medium from c/n to c/n - v(1-1/n^2) So it is this speed rather than c/n that should be plugged into the velocity addition formula. The resultant speed is a little complicated to write here, but if such speeds are used as the speeds for the parallel arm of an MMX and a speed of c/n is used for the transverse arm, then the difference between the travel times for the two arms turns out to be, L (n^2 - 2) (n^2 - 1) v^2 ------------------------------- + O[v]^4 n c^3 This is equivalent to Demjanov's formula which appears in, "Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson interferometer in optical media" V.V. Demjanov Physics Letters A Volume 374, Issue 9, 15 February 2010, Pages 1110-1112 The above may explain how Demjanov's formula is able to account for experimental results. Surfer
From: nicolov on 26 Feb 2010 07:29 Surfer wrote: > If an optical medium at rest in a local preferred frame has a > refractive index of n, the speed of light through the medium is > reduced to c/n. > > If the medium is moving at speed v relative to the frame, then the > speed of light through the moving medium is often calculated using the > SR velocity addition formula. This gives, > > c/n + v > ------------------- > 1 - (c/n) v/c^2 > > However, this calculation ignores the following possibility. > > If the preferred frame is the rest frame of aether or the like, then > the forward speed of the medium will cause it to experience in its own > frame an opposing flow of aether of speed -v. > > This will cause a Fresnel drag effect that will reduce the speed of > light in the medium from c/n to > > c/n - v(1-1/n^2) > > So it is this speed rather than c/n that should be plugged into the > velocity addition formula. > > The resultant speed is a little complicated to write here, but if such > speeds are used as the speeds for the parallel arm of an MMX and a > speed of c/n is used for the transverse arm, then the difference > between the travel times for the two arms turns out to be, > > L (n^2 - 2) (n^2 - 1) v^2 > ------------------------------- + O[v]^4 > n c^3 > > This is equivalent to Demjanov's formula which appears in, > "Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson > interferometer in optical media" > V.V. Demjanov > Physics Letters A > Volume 374, Issue 9, 15 February 2010, Pages 1110-1112 > > The above may explain how Demjanov's formula is able to account for > experimental results. > > > Surfer > > > > I always thought Fresnel was a drag. He did own a lot of women's clothing for a single man!
From: Dono. on 26 Feb 2010 10:22 On Feb 25, 11:37 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > If an optical medium at rest in a local preferred frame has a > refractive index of n, the speed of light through the medium is > reduced to c/n. > > If the medium is moving at speed v relative to the frame, then the > speed of light through the moving medium is often calculated using the > SR velocity addition formula. This gives, > > c/n + v > ------------------- > 1 - (c/n) v/c^2 > > However, this calculation ignores the following possibility. > > If the preferred frame is the rest frame of aether or the like, then > the forward speed of the medium will cause it to experience in its own > frame an opposing flow of aether of speed -v. > > This will cause a Fresnel drag effect that will reduce the speed of > light in the medium from c/n to > > c/n - v(1-1/n^2) > > So it is this speed rather than c/n that should be plugged into the > velocity addition formula. > > The resultant speed is a little complicated to write here, but if such > speeds are used as the speeds for the parallel arm of an MMX and a > speed of c/n is used for the transverse arm, then the difference > between the travel times for the two arms turns out to be, > > L (n^2 - 2) (n^2 - 1) v^2 > ------------------------------- + O[v]^4 > n c^3 > > This is equivalent to Demjanov's formula which appears in, > "Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson > interferometer in optical media" > V.V. Demjanov > Physics Letters A > Volume 374, Issue 9, 15 February 2010, Pages 1110-1112 > > The above may explain how Demjanov's formula is able to account for > experimental results. > > Surfer The Demjanov paper is an embarassment. But again, Phys.Lett. A. is known to publish garbage periodically (they published the Consoli and Constanzo paper). The Demjanov formula has already been falsified by experiment. Twice: # Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), pg 258. A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex (n = 1.49), and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe. They report a null result with an upper limit on væther of 6.64 km/s. # Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974). A triangle interferometer with one leg in glass. They set an upper limit on the anisotropy of 0.025 m/s. This is about one-millionth of the Earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its rotational velocity.
From: Surfer on 26 Feb 2010 11:50 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:22:34 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Feb 25, 11:37 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> If an optical medium at rest in a local preferred frame has a >> refractive index of n, the speed of light through the medium is >> reduced to c/n. >> >> If the medium is moving at speed v relative to the frame, then the >> speed of light through the moving medium is often calculated using the >> SR velocity addition formula. This gives, >> >> c/n + v >> ------------------- >> 1 - (c/n) v/c^2 >> >> However, this calculation ignores the following possibility. >> >> If the preferred frame is the rest frame of aether or the like, then >> the forward speed of the medium will cause it to experience in its own >> frame an opposing flow of aether of speed -v. >> >> This will cause a Fresnel drag effect that will reduce the speed of >> light in the medium from c/n to >> >> c/n - v(1-1/n^2) >> >> So it is this speed rather than c/n that should be plugged into the >> velocity addition formula. >> >> The resultant speed is a little complicated to write here, but if such >> speeds are used as the speeds for the parallel arm of an MMX and a >> speed of c/n is used for the transverse arm, then the difference >> between the travel times for the two arms turns out to be, >> >> L (n^2 - 2) (n^2 - 1) v^2 >> ------------------------------- + O[v]^4 >> n c^3 >> >> This is equivalent to Demjanov's formula which appears in, >> "Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson >> interferometer in optical media" >> V.V. Demjanov >> Physics Letters A >> Volume 374, Issue 9, 15 February 2010, Pages 1110-1112 >> >> The above may explain how Demjanov's formula is able to account for >> experimental results. >> >> Surfer > > >The Demjanov paper is an embarassment. But again, Phys.Lett. A. is >known to publish garbage periodically (they published the Consoli and >Constanzo paper). The Demjanov formula has already been falsified by >experiment. Twice: > ># Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), pg 258. > >A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex (n = 1.49), >and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe. They report a >null result with an upper limit on v�ther of 6.64 km/s. > Demjanov's formula for time difference contains a factor equal to (n^2 - 2). A true null result for perspex would imply this factor should be (n^2 - 2.22). The Shamir and Fox result would then be consistent with Demjanov's formula. > ># Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 >(1974). > >A triangle interferometer with one leg in glass. They set an upper >limit on the anisotropy of 0.025 m/s. This is about one-millionth of >the Earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its rotational >velocity. > This is a different kind of experiment so can't validly be claimed to falsify Demjanov's formula. Surfer
From: Dono. on 26 Feb 2010 11:58
On Feb 26, 8:50 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:22:34 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >On Feb 25, 11:37 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> If an optical medium at rest in a local preferred frame has a > >> refractive index of n, the speed of light through the medium is > >> reduced to c/n. > > >> If the medium is moving at speed v relative to the frame, then the > >> speed of light through the moving medium is often calculated using the > >> SR velocity addition formula. This gives, > > >> c/n + v > >> ------------------- > >> 1 - (c/n) v/c^2 > > >> However, this calculation ignores the following possibility. > > >> If the preferred frame is the rest frame of aether or the like, then > >> the forward speed of the medium will cause it to experience in its own > >> frame an opposing flow of aether of speed -v. > > >> This will cause a Fresnel drag effect that will reduce the speed of > >> light in the medium from c/n to > > >> c/n - v(1-1/n^2) > > >> So it is this speed rather than c/n that should be plugged into the > >> velocity addition formula. > > >> The resultant speed is a little complicated to write here, but if such > >> speeds are used as the speeds for the parallel arm of an MMX and a > >> speed of c/n is used for the transverse arm, then the difference > >> between the travel times for the two arms turns out to be, > > >> L (n^2 - 2) (n^2 - 1) v^2 > >> ------------------------------- + O[v]^4 > >> n c^3 > > >> This is equivalent to Demjanov's formula which appears in, > >> "Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson > >> interferometer in optical media" > >> V.V. Demjanov > >> Physics Letters A > >> Volume 374, Issue 9, 15 February 2010, Pages 1110-1112 > > >> The above may explain how Demjanov's formula is able to account for > >> experimental results. > > >> Surfer > > >The Demjanov paper is an embarassment. But again, Phys.Lett. A. is > >known to publish garbage periodically (they published the Consoli and > >Constanzo paper). The Demjanov formula has already been falsified by > >experiment. Twice: > > ># Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), pg 258. > > >A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex (n = 1.49), > >and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe. They report a > >null result with an upper limit on væther of 6.64 km/s. > > Demjanov's formula for time difference contains a factor equal to (n^2 > - 2). A true null result for perspex would imply this factor should > be (n^2 - 2.22). > > The Shamir and Fox result would then be consistent with Demjanov's > formula. > Nope, SR predicts a ZERO result and Shamir CONFIRMS it. > > > ># Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 > >(1974). > > >A triangle interferometer with one leg in glass. They set an upper > >limit on the anisotropy of 0.025 m/s. This is about one-millionth of > >the Earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its rotational > >velocity. > > This is a different kind of experiment so can't validly be claimed to > falsify Demjanov's formula. > Of course it does, dishonest imbecile. It shows that light speed propagates at exactly c/n, disproving the Demjanov crackpot . On an interesting note; DEmjanov did NOT run any experiment. |