The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 02:04 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:10873dca-2b0d-4a4d-8544-a1d636f1a26f(a)a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 21, 12:20 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > "Jonah Thomas" <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > > doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> > >> Jonah Thomas wrote: >> >> > >> > I was disappointed that so many people claim the Sagnac >> > >experiment> > refuted most emission theories when it did not at all. >> > >Perhaps the> > competent scientists were thinking about something >> > >else while these> > other people made these distressing false claims. >> >> > >> Or you do not understand any of the physics done in the last >> > >> century. However, you are free to believe what you want and >> > >> are not bound to believe in reality. >> >> > > Why not respond on substantive grounds and explain why my argument >> > > is wrong? >> >> > I've explained it to you over and over. Emissions theories get it >> > wrong because when you analyze them they give a zero phase shift at >> > the detector in sagnac. >> >> > The only way not to get that is to have strange reflection properties >> > for light that alter its speed in exactly the right way to get the >> > correct results. >> >> Let's make sure I understand what you're saying. Emission theories have >> the light that's emitted in different directions from a moving source >> get different speeds. So in the Sagnac experiment, the light that's >> emitted in different directions gets different speeds, precisely enough >> that the light arrives at the detector at the same time. All other >> theories say that the light which has the longer path arrives later, and >> so there are interference effects. But emission theories have it arrive >> at the same time and in phase and so there is no interference. >> >> Do I understand? >> >> What I say is wrong about this is that in the original experiment (and >> often even today) you do not start with light emitted in two different >> directions. You have a single beam of light that is made to travel in >> two different directions. >> >> And most emission theories (with the notable exception of the Ritz >> version) say that when you have light emitted in one direction from a >> moving source, that light has one speed. >> >> So the above explanation does not fit this case. Emission theories do >> not predict two different speeds for the light in the Sagnac experiment. >> They predict one speed, just like all the other theories. Since there is >> only one speed for the light, the light that takes the longer path will >> arrive later, and Bob's your uncle. >> >> There may be recent examples which do not do it that way. You could have >> carefully tuned lasers that are actually aimed in the appropriate >> directions, that interfere. But for a very long time that was not >> available, and the claims that the original Sagnac experiment disproved >> emission theories were based on a ridiculously mistaken idea what >> emission theories predict. >> >> Am I wrong? > > Yes. > > Let us examine the Tolman version of emission theory. > > Tolman accepts the QED explanation of metallic reflection as due > to the coherent re-radiation of light by conduction electrons. > Light is emitted at c with respect to the mirror or beam splitter. > > Likewise, light passing -through- a beam splitter emerges at c > with respect to the beam splitter, since the passage of light > through a transparent material represents coherent absorption and > re-radiation of light without loss, but with phase lag resulting > in a lowered speed of light through the transparent material. > > The beam splitter, moving at v, therefore acts as a source of > c+v and c-v light. As the light is reflected off each mirror in > turn, its speed in our frame equals c plus the velocity component > of the reflecting mirror that is in the direction of the emergent > beam. > > The net result is zero fringe shift. > > A proper analysis of the Thomson & Stewart version of emission > theory yields a non-zero fringe shift of the wrong magnitude, > when performed on a mirrored Sagnac apparatus. > > Both Tolman and Thomson & Stewart give zero fringe shift in > a mirror-less Sagnac apparatus. > > Whether Ritz gives a zero fringe shift in a mirror-less Sagnac > apparatus depends on whether the c+v/c-v rules governing the > reflection of light represents a phenomenological property of > mirrors or, alternatively, a fundamental property of light. > > The notion that light should retain a memory of its original > state of motion is so crazy, that the interpretation of the > Ritz reflection rules as a mere phenomenological property of > mirrors would seem to be preferred. > > Jerry So a very simplified analogy of what could happen at a mirror 1) a mirror is like throwing a ball and it bouncing off a wall. The faster you throw it, the faster it bounces back 2) a mirror is like throwing a ball to a friend. No matter how much extra speed you give it (eg by running toward him), when the friend catches the ball he always throws it back at the same speed 3) a mirror is like throwing a ball to a madman. When you throw it at him fast, he throws it back slow, when you throw it to him slow, he throws it back fast.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 06:42 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> >> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Jonah Thomas wrote: > > > >> >> > Why not respond on substantive grounds and explain why my > >> >argument> > is wrong? > >> >> > >> >> I've explained it to you over and over. Emissions theories get > >it> >> wrong because when you analyze them they give a zero phase > >shift at> >> the detector in sagnac. > >> >> > >> >> The only way not to get that is to have strange reflection > >> >properties> for light that alter its speed in exactly the right > >way> >to get the> correct results. > >> > > >> > Let's make sure I understand what you're saying. Emission > >theories> > have the light that's emitted in different directions > >from a moving> > source get different speeds. > >> > >> No .. the speed is c. Always c. > > Sorry .. I misread > > Its always c relative to the source. > > > ?? Are you saying that emission theories do not predict that the > > speed of light varies with the speed of the light's source? > > c+v where the source has speed c > > > What I say is wrong about this is that in the original experiment > > (and often even today) you do not start with light emitted in two > > different directions. You have a single beam of light that is made > > to travel in two different directions. > > Yes .. it is split into two different directions and both travel at c > relative to the splitter .. which means in the non-rotating frame it > goes as c+v and c-v .. just as per emission theory analysis Wait, this is new. If it travels at c relative to the splitter, then it's going to travel at c relative to every mirror, isn't it? OK, that's one emission theory. > > And most emission theories (with the notable exception of the Ritz > > version) say that when you have light emitted in one direction from > > a moving source, that light has one speed. > > One velocity per inertial frame, yes. One thing only has one speed in > a given frame. > > And if you split it into two directions, then you get two speeds which > will generally be different in different frames > > > So the above explanation does not fit this case. Emission theories > > do not predict two different speeds for the light in the Sagnac > > experiment. > > Wrong .. they do > > > They predict one speed, > > Wrong > > > just like all the other theories. Since there is > > only one speed for the light, the light that takes the longer path > > will arrive later, and Bob's your uncle. > > Wrong. Totally wrong > > >> > So the above explanation does not fit this case. Emission > >theories> > do not predict two different speeds for the light in the > >Sagnac> > experiment. They predict one speed, > >> > >> In the inertial frame, two speeds, different lengths of path .. so > >> arrive same time .. so no phase shift > > > > No, one speed, different path lengths, arrive at the same time that > > other theories predict. > > Not in emission theory How about that, I didn't understand emission theory at all. I completely misunderstood. > > Because emission theories predict that light which is emitted by > > sources moving at different speeds will have different speeds. But > > the original Sagnac experiment used light emitted by a single > > source, not by sources moving at different speeds. > > It is emitted in different directions and so has different speeds No, it was a single source. But you say every time it is reflected from a mirror or passes through a half-silvered mirror it changes to the speed of the mirror. > This is basic basic physics It's more complicated than it looks. I thought it depended on the source. People said it depended on the source. I remember there was one version that said it depended on the mirror, though. > >> > just like all the other theories. Since there is > >> > only one speed for the light, the light that takes the longer > >path> > will arrive later, and Bob's your uncle. > >> > >> Wrong > > > > OK, tell me why it's wrong. > > I just did
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 21 Sep 2009 06:42 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:33:29 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >> >> Jonah Thomas wrote: >> >> Wrong > >OK, tell me why it's wrong. Jonah, you will have noticed that relativists like to hunt in packs like wolves. They can't put up a good argument on their own so they have an unwritten agreement to support each other in bringing down anyone who dares to point out that Einstein was a fake. There are a great many reputations at stake. The main aim of the wolf pack is to waste our time. You will have already observed that they rarely if ever make any constrfuctive scientific statements. They are clearly defending a belief system just as any other religious fanatic would. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 06:56 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "Jonah Thomas" <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > > Why not respond on substantive grounds and explain why my > > > > argument is wrong? > > > > > I've explained it to you over and over. Emissions theories get it > > > wrong because when you analyze them they give a zero phase shift > > > at the detector in sagnac. > > > > > The only way not to get that is to have strange reflection > > > properties for light that alter its speed in exactly the right way > > > to get the correct results. > > > > Let's make sure I understand what you're saying. Emission theories > > have the light that's emitted in different directions from a moving > > source get different speeds. So in the Sagnac experiment, the light > > that's emitted in different directions gets different speeds, > > precisely enough that the light arrives at the detector at the same > > time. All other theories say that the light which has the longer > > path arrives later, and so there are interference effects. But > > emission theories have it arrive at the same time and in phase and > > so there is no interference. > > > > Do I understand? > > > > What I say is wrong about this is that in the original experiment > > (and often even today) you do not start with light emitted in two > > different directions. You have a single beam of light that is made > > to travel in two different directions. > > > > And most emission theories (with the notable exception of the Ritz > > version) say that when you have light emitted in one direction from > > a moving source, that light has one speed. > > > > So the above explanation does not fit this case. Emission theories > > do not predict two different speeds for the light in the Sagnac > > experiment. They predict one speed, just like all the other > > theories. Since there is only one speed for the light, the light > > that takes the longer path will arrive later, and Bob's your uncle. > > > > There may be recent examples which do not do it that way. You could > > have carefully tuned lasers that are actually aimed in the > > appropriate directions, that interfere. But for a very long time > > that was not available, and the claims that the original Sagnac > > experiment disproved emission theories were based on a ridiculously > > mistaken idea what emission theories predict. > > > > Am I wrong? > > Yes. > > Let us examine the Tolman version of emission theory. > > Tolman accepts the QED explanation of metallic reflection as due > to the coherent re-radiation of light by conduction electrons. > Light is emitted at c with respect to the mirror or beam splitter. > > Likewise, light passing -through- a beam splitter emerges at c > with respect to the beam splitter, since the passage of light > through a transparent material represents coherent absorption and > re-radiation of light without loss, but with phase lag resulting > in a lowered speed of light through the transparent material. I wondered about that. One direction the light reflects off the beam-splitter twice, while the other way it passes through twice. They could reduce problems from that by having the half-silvered mirror have glass on both sides with the half-silver in the middle. > The beam splitter, moving at v, therefore acts as a source of > c+v and c-v light. As the light is reflected off each mirror in > turn, its speed in our frame equals c plus the velocity component > of the reflecting mirror that is in the direction of the emergent > beam. > > The net result is zero fringe shift. I see. So he says the light will move at the speed of the mirrors. Isn't there a version where the light moves at the speed of the light? > A proper analysis of the Thomson & Stewart version of emission > theory yields a non-zero fringe shift of the wrong magnitude, > when performed on a mirrored Sagnac apparatus. > > Both Tolman and Thomson & Stewart give zero fringe shift in > a mirror-less Sagnac apparatus. I see that too. Traveling inside glass, they will have to move at the speed of the glass, just like the classical case. > Whether Ritz gives a zero fringe shift in a mirror-less Sagnac > apparatus depends on whether the c+v/c-v rules governing the > reflection of light represents a phenomenological property of > mirrors or, alternatively, a fundamental property of light. > > The notion that light should retain a memory of its original > state of motion is so crazy, that the interpretation of the > Ritz reflection rules as a mere phenomenological property of > mirrors would seem to be preferred. It isn't at all crazy, less than SR, but it doesn't get you as much either and it probably conflicts with experiment.
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 07:26
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:vpleb59mibhp7e0u27coucnqtbfdg8a0r7(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:33:29 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> >> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >>> >> >> Jonah Thomas wrote: > >>> >>> Wrong >> >>OK, tell me why it's wrong. > > Jonah, you will have noticed that relativists like to hunt in packs like > wolves. They can't put up a good argument on their own so they have an > unwritten agreement to support each other in bringing down anyone who > dares to > point out that Einstein was a fake. Its called telling the truth .. something you wouldn't know about > There are a great many reputations at stake. The main aim of the wolf pack > is > to waste our time. You will have already observed that they rarely if ever > make > any constrfuctive scientific statements. They are clearly defending a > belief > system just as any other religious fanatic would. Wilson is yet another crackpot with conspiracy theories and an over-inflated ego. |