Wang / Sagnac Devices
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
Next: BUY CHEAP TEXTBOOKS | College Textbooks | Used Textbooks |
From: Androcles on 23 Oct 2009 03:46 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091022231952.31e6d32b.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > bz <bz+mspep(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote in >> news:bqs0e5lqmuqtjqft1lvurh8ui21i974qp0@ 4ax.com: >> >> > Almost correct. For example, in the situation where a mirror is >> > moving normally toward a source at velocity v, the mirror will >> > experience the light as arriving at c + v. Upon reflection, the >> > light will be traveling at c + 2v with respect to the source; and, >> > as you state, at c + v with respect to the mirror. >> >> Easily tested by experiment: >> a) Two parallel mirrors, moving toward and away from each other (one >> attached to the voice coil of a loud speaker, or plated onto a surface >> of a quartz crystal). >> b) laser beam bouncing back and forth between the mirrors many times. >> If the bounce is n times, then the final velocity of the light exiting >> from the pair of mirrors should >> be c+n*v and c-n*v >> >> Should be an easy 'high school physics lab' test. >> >> If you demonstrate light is ballistic, you will earn a nobel prize. >> >> From a previous post of mine, several years ago [paraphrased] >> At 10000 cm/s peak rate of motion for the mirror (447 mph), and aiming >> for c+/- 1%, we need 1.5e4 reflections. Keep the mirrors close >> together, lets say 0.1 cm (about 40/1000 th of an inch, the path >> length would be about 15 meters. Over that distance, the beam >> divergence for a good laser should be small enough to allow such an >> experiment, making sure we have the right reflection at the output >> end, if our laser beam is about 0.01 mm in diameter, we need mirrors >> that are about 15 cm long. >> >> I don't see any reason that experiment can not be done. >> [unparaphrased] >> >> So, you just need to send pulses through the pair of mirrors, and >> measure >> the speed of the output pulse by seeing how long it takes to go by two >> >> detectors spaced a known distance apart. A +/- 1% variation in the >> speed of light should be rather noticable. > > Neat! > > Would you have to do it in vacuum? A mirror traveling at 2000 times the > speed of sound might generate quite a pressure wave across 1 millimeter > or so. Maybe enough to bend the mirror. =============================================== Not a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crookes_radiometer_moving.gif Two of those in one bulb and no need to vibrate, just shape the vanes to be parallel when the light hits. The shape of the vanes is important. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/lightaccel.gif =============================================== > > Say it oscillates between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm, that's a frequency around > 100000 cycles per second, kind of ultrasonic. It ought to be doable, but > again better in vacuum. You could make it smaller distances with a > higher frequency. Or with a better laser you could use a longer mirror > and a slower speed.
From: Androcles on 23 Oct 2009 04:09 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:7j82e51pcplfhggi6tqd5g5shurh1pqqla(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:40:34 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> > wrote: > >> >>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:20091022033929.15ed6cc7.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >>> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > Light's speed. If the speed that light reaches you depends on the >>>> > velocity of its source, then you might be receiving light that has >>>> > different speeds relative to you. > >>> What you can measure easily is frequency relative to you. And given a >>> constant speed and a constant frequency, you can easily measure >>> wavelength. >> >>You are NOT given a constant speed. >>ALL speeds are relative. Besides, no speed is needed to measure >>wavelength. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/diffraction.gif >>The red and the yellow waves have identical frequencies at emission, >> different speeds and different frequencies at the grating. >>The diffraction angle measures the wavelength only, so >>speed = wavelength * EMITTED frequency. >>You can easily screw up as dorks often do and measure the frequency >>at the grating, but that's about all that is easy. Idiots like Draper make >>that very error. > > If gratings were sensitive to wavelength only, There is no if, they are. Your crank theory about headless crocodiles flying kites in thunderstorms only shows how crazy you really are.
From: Androcles on 23 Oct 2009 04:32 <tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hbi2e51p85ia4o310h1gi8oph2l5rbbb25(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:08:07 +0100, tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> > [snip] > > Tom Roberts has prompted a refinement to my description of the Sagnac > experiment which I have incorporated below: > > Now let's refer to the actual Sagnac diagram which is located at: > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac-Interferometer.png > > Now we'll follow the clockwise beam from start to finish and numerate > each step for later identification: > > 1. Light is emitted from source O at c with respect to that source. > 2. The light arrives at and is reflected off mirror m at speed c since > there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion between m and O. > 3. The light arrives at and is refracted though the collimator lens at > C, arriving at speed c and departing at speed c since there is no > "line-of-sight" relative motion between C and m. > 4. The light arrives at the half-silvered prism mirror at j at speed c > since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion between C and j. > 5. The light is split at j and departs the prism after refraction at > speed c. (The other half is reflected off j at speed c and begins its > counter-clockwise journey after a second refraction.) > 6. The diagram identifies the clockwise beam with label T and the > counter-clockwise beam with label R. > 7. Beam T arrives at mirror M1 at c since there is no relative motion > between M1 and J. The angle of incidence is 1/2 angle a1. > 8. Beam T reflects off mirror M1 at speed c and at an angle of > reflection of 1/2 angle a1. > 9. Beam T arrives at mirror M2 at speed c since there is no > "line-of-sight" relative motion between M1 and M2 and at an angle of > incidence of 1/2 angle a2. > 10. Beam T reflects off M2 at speed c and an angle of reflection of > 1/2 angle a2. > 11. Beam T proceeds to mirror M3 arriving at speed c since there is no > "line-of-sight" relative motion between M2 and M3, arriving at an > angle of incidence of 1/2 angle a3. > 12. Beam T reflects off M3 at speed c and angle of reflection of 1/2 > angle a3. > 13. Beam T proceeds to mirror M4 arriving at speed c since there is no > "line-of-sight" relative motion between M3 and M4, arriving at an > angle of incidence of 1/2 angle a4. > 14. Beam T reflects off M4 at speed c and angle of reflection of 1/2 > angle a4. > 15. Beam T arrives at the half-silvered prism mirror at j at speed c > since there is no"line-of-sight" relative motion between M4 and j. > 16. After refraction, Beam T passes through mirror j and after a > second refraction proceeds toward telescope L at speed c. > 17. It is at mirror j that Beam T and Beam R are mixed to produce > interference fringes. > 18. Beam T arrives at telescope L at c since there is no > "line-of-sight" relative motion between mirror j and telescope L. > 19. Beam T proceeds down the telescope and arrives at the photographic > plate PP' at speed c since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion > between telescope L and the film at PP'. > 20. The diagram properly shows that counter-clockwise beam R arrives > before the clockwise beam T since it has traversed a shorter optical > path length; made shorter due to rotation. > 21. The reader can reconstruct the path steps in a similar manner for > the counter-clockwise beam. > > Summarizing: > > A. The Ballistic Theory of Light has 2 Postulates: (1) Light is > emitted at c with respect to its source and (2) light is reflected a c > with respect to the mirror image of the source. No, ballistics has only ONE postulate. Einstein's relativity has three. The single postulate in common with Einstein's first is: 1: Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium", suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate. Of course, this is just Galilean relativity. Einstein's next two are 2: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and 3: "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A". These are obviously not born out by experiment. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm > B. With the Ballistic Theory of Light, the beams of light traverse > the optical circuit at speed c in each direction since there is no > "line-of-sight" relative motion element-to-element. > C. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection at all > points of reflection. > D. The counter-clockwise beam arrives sooner than the opposing beam > because it has a shorter optical path length to traverse. > E. The Ballistic Theory of Light is compatible with the Sagnac > experiment.
From: tominlaguna on 23 Oct 2009 05:10 On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:32:51 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > ><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:hbi2e51p85ia4o310h1gi8oph2l5rbbb25(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:08:07 +0100, tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> >> [snip] >> >> Tom Roberts has prompted a refinement to my description of the Sagnac >> experiment which I have incorporated below: >> >> Now let's refer to the actual Sagnac diagram which is located at: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac-Interferometer.png >> >> Now we'll follow the clockwise beam from start to finish and numerate >> each step for later identification: >> >> 1. Light is emitted from source O at c with respect to that source. >> 2. The light arrives at and is reflected off mirror m at speed c since >> there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion between m and O. >> 3. The light arrives at and is refracted though the collimator lens at >> C, arriving at speed c and departing at speed c since there is no >> "line-of-sight" relative motion between C and m. >> 4. The light arrives at the half-silvered prism mirror at j at speed c >> since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion between C and j. >> 5. The light is split at j and departs the prism after refraction at >> speed c. (The other half is reflected off j at speed c and begins its >> counter-clockwise journey after a second refraction.) >> 6. The diagram identifies the clockwise beam with label T and the >> counter-clockwise beam with label R. >> 7. Beam T arrives at mirror M1 at c since there is no relative motion >> between M1 and J. The angle of incidence is 1/2 angle a1. >> 8. Beam T reflects off mirror M1 at speed c and at an angle of >> reflection of 1/2 angle a1. >> 9. Beam T arrives at mirror M2 at speed c since there is no >> "line-of-sight" relative motion between M1 and M2 and at an angle of >> incidence of 1/2 angle a2. >> 10. Beam T reflects off M2 at speed c and an angle of reflection of >> 1/2 angle a2. >> 11. Beam T proceeds to mirror M3 arriving at speed c since there is no >> "line-of-sight" relative motion between M2 and M3, arriving at an >> angle of incidence of 1/2 angle a3. >> 12. Beam T reflects off M3 at speed c and angle of reflection of 1/2 >> angle a3. >> 13. Beam T proceeds to mirror M4 arriving at speed c since there is no >> "line-of-sight" relative motion between M3 and M4, arriving at an >> angle of incidence of 1/2 angle a4. >> 14. Beam T reflects off M4 at speed c and angle of reflection of 1/2 >> angle a4. >> 15. Beam T arrives at the half-silvered prism mirror at j at speed c >> since there is no"line-of-sight" relative motion between M4 and j. >> 16. After refraction, Beam T passes through mirror j and after a >> second refraction proceeds toward telescope L at speed c. >> 17. It is at mirror j that Beam T and Beam R are mixed to produce >> interference fringes. >> 18. Beam T arrives at telescope L at c since there is no >> "line-of-sight" relative motion between mirror j and telescope L. >> 19. Beam T proceeds down the telescope and arrives at the photographic >> plate PP' at speed c since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion >> between telescope L and the film at PP'. >> 20. The diagram properly shows that counter-clockwise beam R arrives >> before the clockwise beam T since it has traversed a shorter optical >> path length; made shorter due to rotation. >> 21. The reader can reconstruct the path steps in a similar manner for >> the counter-clockwise beam. >> >> Summarizing: >> >> A. The Ballistic Theory of Light has 2 Postulates: (1) Light is >> emitted at c with respect to its source and (2) light is reflected a c >> with respect to the mirror image of the source. > > >No, ballistics has only ONE postulate. > >Einstein's relativity has three. > >The single postulate in common with Einstein's first is: > >1: Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a >conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative >motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a >sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other >of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the >conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an >electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the >places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is >stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the >neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an >electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, >but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases >discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those >produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, >together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth >relatively to the "light medium", suggest that the phenomena of >electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding >to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been >shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of >electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for >which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture >(the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of >Relativity") to the status of a postulate. > >Of course, this is just Galilean relativity. > > >Einstein's next two are > >2: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c >which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" > >and > 3: "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the >``time'' it requires to travel from B to A". > >These are obviously not born out by experiment. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm > Agreed. The Principle of Relativity is the only postulate. So perhaps I should have called them claims: Ballistic theory claims that light is emitted from its source at c and reflected at c relative to the mirror image of the source. > >> B. With the Ballistic Theory of Light, the beams of light traverse >> the optical circuit at speed c in each direction since there is no >> "line-of-sight" relative motion element-to-element. >> C. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection at all >> points of reflection. >> D. The counter-clockwise beam arrives sooner than the opposing beam >> because it has a shorter optical path length to traverse. >> E. The Ballistic Theory of Light is compatible with the Sagnac >> experiment. >
From: Androcles on 23 Oct 2009 05:49
<tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mcs2e5hp8qp1d4loqvoib5qfdldhopchpa(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:32:51 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > >> >><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:hbi2e51p85ia4o310h1gi8oph2l5rbbb25(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:08:07 +0100, tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> Tom Roberts has prompted a refinement to my description of the Sagnac >>> experiment which I have incorporated below: >>> >>> Now let's refer to the actual Sagnac diagram which is located at: >>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac-Interferometer.png >>> >>> Now we'll follow the clockwise beam from start to finish and numerate >>> each step for later identification: >>> >>> 1. Light is emitted from source O at c with respect to that source. >>> 2. The light arrives at and is reflected off mirror m at speed c since >>> there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion between m and O. >>> 3. The light arrives at and is refracted though the collimator lens at >>> C, arriving at speed c and departing at speed c since there is no >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion between C and m. >>> 4. The light arrives at the half-silvered prism mirror at j at speed c >>> since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion between C and j. >>> 5. The light is split at j and departs the prism after refraction at >>> speed c. (The other half is reflected off j at speed c and begins its >>> counter-clockwise journey after a second refraction.) >>> 6. The diagram identifies the clockwise beam with label T and the >>> counter-clockwise beam with label R. >>> 7. Beam T arrives at mirror M1 at c since there is no relative motion >>> between M1 and J. The angle of incidence is 1/2 angle a1. >>> 8. Beam T reflects off mirror M1 at speed c and at an angle of >>> reflection of 1/2 angle a1. >>> 9. Beam T arrives at mirror M2 at speed c since there is no >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion between M1 and M2 and at an angle of >>> incidence of 1/2 angle a2. >>> 10. Beam T reflects off M2 at speed c and an angle of reflection of >>> 1/2 angle a2. >>> 11. Beam T proceeds to mirror M3 arriving at speed c since there is no >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion between M2 and M3, arriving at an >>> angle of incidence of 1/2 angle a3. >>> 12. Beam T reflects off M3 at speed c and angle of reflection of 1/2 >>> angle a3. >>> 13. Beam T proceeds to mirror M4 arriving at speed c since there is no >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion between M3 and M4, arriving at an >>> angle of incidence of 1/2 angle a4. >>> 14. Beam T reflects off M4 at speed c and angle of reflection of 1/2 >>> angle a4. >>> 15. Beam T arrives at the half-silvered prism mirror at j at speed c >>> since there is no"line-of-sight" relative motion between M4 and j. >>> 16. After refraction, Beam T passes through mirror j and after a >>> second refraction proceeds toward telescope L at speed c. >>> 17. It is at mirror j that Beam T and Beam R are mixed to produce >>> interference fringes. >>> 18. Beam T arrives at telescope L at c since there is no >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion between mirror j and telescope L. >>> 19. Beam T proceeds down the telescope and arrives at the photographic >>> plate PP' at speed c since there is no "line-of-sight" relative motion >>> between telescope L and the film at PP'. >>> 20. The diagram properly shows that counter-clockwise beam R arrives >>> before the clockwise beam T since it has traversed a shorter optical >>> path length; made shorter due to rotation. >>> 21. The reader can reconstruct the path steps in a similar manner for >>> the counter-clockwise beam. >>> >>> Summarizing: >>> >>> A. The Ballistic Theory of Light has 2 Postulates: (1) Light is >>> emitted at c with respect to its source and (2) light is reflected a c >>> with respect to the mirror image of the source. >> >> >>No, ballistics has only ONE postulate. >> >>Einstein's relativity has three. >> >>The single postulate in common with Einstein's first is: >> >>1: Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and >>a >>conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative >>motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a >>sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the >>other >>of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the >>conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an >>electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the >>places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is >>stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the >>neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an >>electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, >>but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two >>cases >>discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those >>produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, >>together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the >>earth >>relatively to the "light medium", suggest that the phenomena of >>electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties >>corresponding >>to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already >>been >>shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of >>electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for >>which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture >>(the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of >>Relativity") to the status of a postulate. >> >>Of course, this is just Galilean relativity. >> >> >>Einstein's next two are >> >>2: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c >>which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" >> >>and >> 3: "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the >>``time'' it requires to travel from B to A". >> >>These are obviously not born out by experiment. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm >> > > Agreed. The Principle of Relativity is the only postulate. So > perhaps I should have called them claims: Ballistic theory claims that > light is emitted from its source at c and reflected at c relative to > the mirror image of the source. Yes, certainly, but also unnecessary and possibly untrue. One could also say light travels in straight lines, light is coloured, x-rays are a form of light, and so on. The reason I say it is possibly untrue is that x-rays may have a different "c" to the "c" of optical light. One would not say all balls bounce at "v" as if "v" were in some way important, yet the insistence on c = 300,000 km/sec being the only possible speed of light is horrendously misleading. It would be better not to reinforce Einstein's claptrap and stress that Galilean Relativity is simply stated as u = v+w and not as "examples of this sort... yada yada yada... suggest.... yada yada yada" simply because the clown wanted to seem important and question it. "Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this principle." Ref: http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html That is absolute babble from the prominent theoretical fuckwit. That idiots see him as some kind of genius only shows just how pathetic their own intelligence is. >> >>> B. With the Ballistic Theory of Light, the beams of light traverse >>> the optical circuit at speed c in each direction since there is no >>> "line-of-sight" relative motion element-to-element. >>> C. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection at all >>> points of reflection. >>> D. The counter-clockwise beam arrives sooner than the opposing beam >>> because it has a shorter optical path length to traverse. >>> E. The Ballistic Theory of Light is compatible with the Sagnac >>> experiment. >> |