Albert Einstein [1] said this, “But ALL experiments have shown that electromagnetic and optical phenomena, relatively to the Earth as the body of reference, ARE NOT INFLUENCED by the translational velocity of the earth. The most important of these experiments are those of Michelson and Morley, which I shall assume are known. The validity of the principle of special relativity can therefore hardly be doubted”, thus staking the validity of his theory on the accuracy of this statement.
James Bradley, by observation in 1727, before the above statement was made, found that optical phenomena, such as star light ARE INFLUENCED by the Earth’s velocity about the Sun. In other words, by studying light, an observer CAN know from his observation, whether he is stationary or moving, and can even further determine the value of his velocity relatively to the velocity of light [2].
The use of “relativistic addition formulas”, such as is employed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Relativistic_explanation, did not obviate the fact that: an optical phenomenon relatively to the Earth as the body of reference IS influenced by the translational velocity of the earth. This compels that one or the other between Einstein or Bradley requires corroboration.
References
[1] Albert Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, (1922), page 27/28, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36276
[2] Carl E. Mungan, A Pictorial Explanation of Stellar Aberration, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, https://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/_files/documents/Publications/TPT44.pdf
@Preston Guynn, et.al.,
You said, “Einstein was correct that optical phenomena are not influenced by the translational velocity of the earth, because in the frame of reference of the earth the earth is not moving”
Of course, as you rightly say, a thing cannot move relatively to itself. But that is not the issue in contention.
The question is, can an observer stationary to Earth surface decipher if Earth was stationary or moving in space, merely by the use of optical phenomena? Yes or No?
MMX observation supports a No answer, hence Einstein is right.
Bradley’s observation supports a Yes answer, hence Einstein is wrong.
Why is one a No, and the other a Yes?
Akinbo Ojo
Very good question. And I'm so disappointed that so many researchers don't realize how it works in reality! Here's my answer:
a) James Bradley is right
b) Albert Einstein is wrong
c) Preston Guynn is wrong
How do I justify my answer?
a) There is no doubt about aberration
b) MME shows NULL results, it is no proof of anything, in comparison with aberration which is proven
c) 'because in the frame of reference of the earth the earth is not moving' --> this is no proof, it is self-evident, it is so by definition
Akinbo and all
MMX observation supports a No answer, hence Einstein is right.
No, MMX is not a zero result. Instead, the effect of ether wind on two-way light is equal to the contraction of matter. Einstein wrong.
Bradley’s observation supports a Yes answer, hence Einstein is wrong.
Yes, he is wrong.
John-Erik
John-Erik Persson,
Re: “No, MMX is not a zero result”
The question is not really about whether or not MMX is a zero/null result. It may be a zero result, and it may not be (as you say).
The question is more about whether there are any optical experiments that are influenced by the translational velocity of the Earth, and if there are, taking cognizance of the ALL in Einstein’s statement, what effect will the existence of these experiments have on the validity of the principle of special relativity?
Akinbo Ojo John-Erik Persson
2) "The question is not really about whether or not MMX is a zero/null result. It may be a zero result, and it may not be (as you say)."
MME has given NULL results. This is extremely important. So you have to think carefully about why it got NULL results. My answer is in my analysis of this experiment: the device was not fit for purpose!
3) "The question is more about whether there are any optical experiments that are influenced by the translational velocity of the Earth, and if there are, taking cognizance of the ALL in Einstein’s statement, what effect will the existence of these experiments have on the validity of the principle of special relativity?"
All optical experiments are affected by the Earth's translational velocity! What is important is to design these experiments in such a way that you capture the effect. Assume that the Earth's velocity around the Sun is about v = 30 km/s and the speed of light is c = 300000 km/s, the arm of the MME interferometer is about l = 10 m. During the time that the light travels 10 m, the arm moves 1 mm (depending on orientation).
Book Special Relativity is Nonsense
Book Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe
Akinbo Ojo
The question is more about whether there are any optical experiments that are influenced by the translational velocity of the Earth, and if there are, taking cognizance of the ALL in Einstein’s statement, what effect will the existence of these experiments have on the validity of the principle of special relativity?
Akinbo
John-Erik
Thank you John-Erik Persson. The Einstein quote under reference did not specify whether the optical phenomena applies only to those involving Earth motion transverse to light or otherwise. It said “ALL”. Einstein was bold enough to put his bet on this. If then, it is not all experiments that are uninfluenced by the translational velocity of the earth, what logically follows is that he has permitted us to doubt the validity of the principle of special relativity. That is the point I am trying to make. He was quite honest with this caveat.
Jan Slowak, You said this, “All optical experiments are affected by the Earth's translational velocity!”
This is not true.
Place a slab of glass or water in the laboratory, and have light travel across this medium from A to B, and from B to A. As long as the glass or water remains stationary in the laboratory, the time taken by light to travel from A to B or from B to A will be unaffected by the Earth’s translational velocity, even if in one case the light is travelling in the direction of Earth motion and in the other case, travelling against it.
In such experiments, relatively to the Earth as the body of reference, optical phenomena are not influenced by the translational velocity of the Earth.
CC: Gurcharn Singh Sandhu , John-Erik Persson
Akinbo Ojo Gurcharn Singh Sandhu John-Erik Persson
4) "This is not true."
You must prove your claim!
5) "Place a slab of glass or water in the laboratory, and have light travel across this medium from A to B, and from B to A. As long as the glass or water remains stationary in the laboratory, the time taken by light to travel from A to B or from B to A will be unaffected by the Earth’s translational velocity, even if in one case the light is travelling in the direction of Earth motion and in the other case, travelling against it."
You must prove your claim!
6) "In such experiments, relatively to the Earth as the body of reference, optical phenomena are not influenced by the translational velocity of the Earth."
WRONG! See and think about my comment 3).
If you would like, you can consult my work, for example:
Book Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe
Jan Slowak, et.al.,
Re: “You must prove your claim!”
Likewise, you must prove yours. Mine has been experimentally proven by Fizeau since 1851. And by others thereafter. It is also mentioned by Einstein as having probably the most influence in his formulation of Special relativity theory.
I had in recent correspondence directed your mind to this, and your response was that you would not be looking in that direction anytime soon. How else do you want me to help you out of your self-imposed constraint?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
“Using this apparatus, Michelson and Morley were able to completely confirm Fizeau's results not just in water, but also in air”[1]
[1] Michelson, A. A., Morley, E.W., Influence of Motion of the Medium on the Velocity of Light, Am. J. Sci. 31 (185): 377–386 (1886).
I agree with Akinbo Ojo .
Normally it is taken for granted that light speed c is isotropic in vacuum or free space or ether or the so called light-speed medium. But the light speed is also isotropic in a material medium with refractive index n>1 like glass where the light propagation mechanism is materially affected by the physical properties of the medium. Thus the time of flight in an optical glass fiber may not be affected by the motion of earth. On the other hand time of flight of a light pulse through air, between two points on surface of earth, will be affected by the motion of earth due to negligible refractive index of air.
Akinbo Ojo
7) "Likewise, you must prove yours. Mine has been experimentally proven by Fizeau since 1851. And by others thereafter."
As I mentioned before, I have not studied/analyzed the Fizeau experiment. But I suspect that there is just a little more work on it than, for example, the MME or Sagnac experiment. I'll get back to you. I will use the above link from Wikipedia.
8) "It is also mentioned by Einstein as having probably the most influence in his formulation of Special relativity theory."
Einstein saying he has been influenced is no proof that the Fizeau experiment or STR is correct.
9) "I had in recent correspondence directed your mind to this, and your response was that you would not be looking in that direction anytime soon. How else do you want me to help you out of your self-imposed constraint?"
I mentioned that I am commenting on STR and the Big Bang theory and related concepts. I see no connection between STR and the Fizeau experiment.
Gurcharn Singh Sandhu
10) "Normally it is taken for granted that light speed c is isotropic in vacuum or free space or ether or the so called light-speed medium. But the light speed is also isotropic in a material medium with refractive index n>1 like glass where the light propagation mechanism is materially affected by the physical properties of the medium."
The expression "light speed c is isotropic" means that the speed of light is the same in all directions, regardless of the motion of the reference frame.
Yes, I agree with this. I usually say that the speed of light is constant in one and the same medium.
11) "Thus the time of flight in an optical glass fiber may not be affected by the motion of earth. On the other hand time of flight of a light pulse through air, between two points on surface of earth, will be affected by the motion of earth due to negligible refractive index of air."
Why should the speed of light be affected by the speed of the Earth in a certain medium and not in another medium? It's illogical!
Gurcharn Singh Sandhu & Akinbo Ojo
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
12) "According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be dragged along by the medium, so that the measured speed of the light would be a simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium."
...
13) "Fizeau indeed detected a dragging effect, but the magnitude of the effect that he observed was far lower than expected."
I interpret this to mean that it is the same thing as NULL results, in the same way as you got in MME.
Jan Slowak
Earth is entrained by the ether and therefore local experiments are not dependent on the motion of Earth. However, experiments evolving distant objects are sensitive to the motion of Earth.
John-Erik
John-Erik Persson
14) "Earth is entrained by the ether and therefore local experiments are not dependent on the motion of Earth. However, experiments evolving distant objects are sensitive to the motion of Earth."
I would very much like to understand the difference between the two different experiments you mention. Do you mean experiments where we are dealing with the movement of light? Please briefly describe an experiment that is local and one that involves distant objects. Thank you.
Justo Pastor Lambare
15) "The Fizeau experiment and its dragging effect has a simple explanation by the relativistic addition of velocities and is different from the MM experiment."
See comment 13): if the result of the experiment did NOT match the expected values, it means that the result cannot be used as evidence.
(Of course the two experiments are different!)
@ To all
In the book
Book Special Relativity is Nonsense
Book Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe
I have published the analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, MME, from 1887. My model and my figures give a result that is consistent with the result from 1887. It should be considered that my model is correct, that the path of the light signal through the device (interferometer) is correct.
In my article here at RG
Preprint The analysis of the path of the light beams through the Sagn...
I have analyzed the Sagnac effect.
I said that I am open to doing a similar analysis of the Fizeau experiment.
But to what use? My article about the Sagnac effect has been here on RG since July 2024. NOT A SINGLE comment, only my two.
Justo Pastor Lambare
, You say, “Regarding your question and the principles of relativity (SRT), I can tell you this”.I am ready to hear what you have to say, but I am more interested in what Einstein HAS told us, being the author of Special relativity. Please read the referenced quote again, and inform what in your opinion, Einstein meant by “ALL”. In my opinion, ALL means ALL, and covers all optical sources without differentiating what you call external from others.
If you are going outside what Einstein said to imply that ALL is not ALL, then kindly say so, and inform which of the types of ALL is to be used to validate the principle of special relativity.
Secondly, by “The motion of the earth w.r.t. to an external light source like a star can be detected through the phenomenon of aberration”, do you by this admit that optical phenomena can be influenced by Earth motion? In other words, using optical phenomena, an observer can distinguish his state of rest from motion.
John-Erik Persson,
Re: “Earth is entrained by the ether and therefore local experiments are not dependent on the motion of Earth”
One powerful message from Einstein, is that if the Fresnel formula, clab = c/n + v(1 – 1/n2) is taking to be experimentally proven, then vacuum or the medium of light, which must then have a refractive index n = 1, CANNOT participate in Earth motion. No to partial or full dragging of vacuum, the medium of light waves! That is what the equation says.
Justo Pastor Lambare
, You said this, “The Fizeau experiment and its dragging effect has a simple explanation by the relativistic addition of velocities”Check the Wikipedia reference on what you said here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Modern_interpretation
First understand what the Fizeau experiment is about. Then next fully understand what v in the equation is.
After you have done this, contemplate what the equation implies, relativistic or no relativistic, for the scenario where v = 0. Thanks.
CC: Gurcharn Singh Sandhu , John-Erik Persson , Jan Slowak
Akinbo Ojo
I did not say entrained ether. Instead I said entrained Earth by the ether.
I think that gravity is caused by matter that emits and absorbs ether particles that moves in spiral orbits in and out in relation to kernels. This means that gravity can emerge inside matter due to the ether.
See attachment
John-Erik
Justo Pastor Lambare
16) "I am sorry but I do not understand your point.
Fizeau's result is compatible with a partial ether drag by the motion of objects. SRT explains the result without a partial ether drag, just by a relativistic addition of velocities."
One more time: See comment 13): if the result of the experiment did NOT match the expected values, it means that the result cannot be used as evidence.
I'll explain my position once again. If you plan an experiment, you make certain assumptions, you do calculations, you draw figures, you create a mathematical model, you expect a certain result.
Then you build the apparatus, you perform the experiment, and you get a result.
But if you get a result that DOES NOT MATCH WHAT WAS EXPECTED, then you cannot use this result as evidence.
a) Either you have the wrong model
b) Or the device was built incorrectly.
c) Or is there something wrong somewhere that wasn't detected
Please see my article
Preprint The analysis of the path of the light beams through the Sagn...
on how detailed you should be when analyzing the path of a light signal through a device.
17) "Conclusion: the experiment is compatible with SRT (does not contradict it)."
Fizeau experiment got a result that did NOT match expected results.
Then this result cannot be used as evidence or anything else.
18) "On the other hand, we also have the MME. The MME can be explained by an ether theory if the ether is completely drag by the Earth motion."
One should not confuse MME with Fizeau experiments.
19) "Another possibility is to assume that there is an ether wind and to introduce the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction as an ad hoc hypothesis."
Either you believe that STR is right and then there is no ether or you believe that there is ether and then STR is wrong. Choose but don't mix.
20) "Both situations can be "naturally" explained within SRT. Of course, there are lots and lots of experiments that were found and are naturally explained with SRT."
I have proven that the derivation of Lorentz Transformations, LT, leads to a contradiction. LT is the basis for STR. From this I conclude that STR is wrong. So, if an experiment confirms a wrong theory then the experiment must be set up wrong!
John-Erik Persson, The theoretical and experimental evidence is that the speed of light reduces as it descends towards gravity, i.e. light speed is slowed and consequently bent near gravitational body, e.g. the Sun. This does not support the model you are proposing.
Justo Pastor Lambare
, Thank you for checking the reference.Re: “So, I advise you to do the same thing you advised me”
The v in both the ancient and “modern” interpretation IS the velocity of matter relative to Earth surface. For his experiment, Fizeau used water as his matter medium.
Do you agree with this definition of what v is?
If you agree to this, then given a system AB, with water or other matter medium between them, from Fresnel’s equation confirmed by Fizeau’s experiment, if v = 0, the time taken for light to travel from A to B, and that to travel from B to A will be the same, irrespective of whether or not the Earth itself may be travelling in the direction AB.
Probably a better place to discuss this may be under
Article Practical Measurement of Absolute Velocity of Earth
, since Gurcharn Singh Sandhu has a discussion paper focused on this. See also my comments there.The theoretical and experimental fact is that as long as there is matter between A and B, with this matter causing a refractive index n > 1 and this matter having a velocity v = 0 to Earth surface, light speed measurements between A and B will always be isotropic and such experiments will not detect absolute velocity of Earth.
Re: “You cannot detect relative inertial motion by doing experiments inside your reference frame. That means, without looking outside your system, for instance, external light sources.”
This is correct. Could this be the reason why no relative motion was detected in MMX? This is food for thought. There were no external light sources in that experiment.
Justo Pastor Lambare
,JPL: In the Fizeau experiment v is the velocity of the water and c/n is the velocity of light w.r.t. the water. The velocity of light w.r.t. the earth is obtained by "relativistically" adding those velocities which is the value that Fizeau found.
While the Fizeau experiment was conducted on Earth surface, there is no provision in the formulae for “velocity of light w.r.t. the earth” either relativistically or non-relativistically. In the Wikipedia reference, the only measure to be obtained from experiment is Vlab, which if v = 0 is equivalent to c/n, both from relativistic and non-relativistic considerations.
In the same Wikipedia reference can be found
Michelson, A. A.; Morley, E.W. (1886). "Influence of Motion of the Medium on the Velocity of Light". Am. J. Sci. 31 (185): 377–386.
I was able to access it free to read. Gurcharn Singh Sandhu may be interested in it given his recent comment concerning air as the medium.
JPL: I think that could be a correct way of understanding it. The relativistic interpretation is that the observer always measures c in a vacuum. However, the experiment tried to find an "ether wind" that would be manifested by different light speeds according to the direction of motion.
I was gradually building a case that would lead to that. If we pursue the Fizeau experimental confirmation of the Fresnel formula to where it logically leads, we could be able to infer why “different light speeds according to the direction of motion” did not manifest, the famous NULL result.
Akinbo Ojo
Yes, it supports my model, however in a different way. You should read what i said again. Light is bent first away from the body and later back the original direction. So, you observe a small difference in position only.
John-Erik
Justo Pastor Lambare
,JPL: Note that Vlab is the velocity w.r.t. Earth's surface since the laboratory is fixed on the Earth's surface. Otherwise, how do you interpret Vlab?
Okay, I get your meaning of “velocity of light w.r.t. the earth”, and agree with it. With this, would you accept that the velocity of light w.r.t the Earth that is observed in the laboratory, Vlab will from both relativistic and non-relativistic considerations, always equal c/n, if v = 0?
(where the v in both the ancient and modern/relativistic interpretation IS the velocity of matter relative to Earth surface).
If you agree to this, then given a system AB on Earth surface, with water or other matter medium between them, from Fresnel’s equation confirmed by Fizeau’s experiment, if v = 0, the time taken for light to travel from A to B, and that to travel from B to A will be the same, irrespective of whether or not the Earth itself may be travelling in the direction AB?
John-Erik Persson,
Re: “Light is bent first away from the body and later back the original direction”
Evidence is that light is first bent towards the body, not away.
In any case, for inflowing ether model, the speed of light travelling vertically downwards should be increasing. However, the theoretical (Einstein’s 1911 paper, equation 3) and the experimental evidence is that the speed of light reduces as it descends towards gravity. A careful reading of Pound-Rebka experiment and others would reveal this.
Justo Pastor Lambare
, et.al.,JPL: That's correct.
Was in answer to “would you accept that the velocity of light w.r.t the Earth that is observed in the laboratory, Vlab will from both relativistic and non-relativistic considerations, always equal c/n, if v = 0?”
JPL: Surely according to relativity. No according to the ether theory. That is what MM did but without water and found no ether wind.
Was in answer to “If you agree to this, then given a system AB on Earth surface, with water or other matter medium between them, from Fresnel’s equation confirmed by Fizeau’s experiment, if v = 0, the time taken for light to travel from A to B, and that to travel from B to A will be the same, irrespective of whether or not the Earth itself may be travelling in the direction AB?”
A logical consequence of these your very beautiful and correct answers implies the following:
*If MMX done in 1887, was under the assumption of prevailing, matter-free vacuum with n = 1, but unknown to the experimenters they were actually labouring with the participation of a non-baryonic matter medium with v = 0, no ether wind would be found and a null result will be obtained. That is what the Fresnel formula, experimentally confirmed by Fizeau dictates.
The question then concerns the possibility of matter participating in MMX, instead of the pure vacuum assumed. What is the evidence for this?
Among others...
- There is now overwhelming evidence starting to accumulate from about the 1930’s (after MMX in 1887), that there is an abundance of non-baryonic matter over familiar matter in a ratio possibly 9:1 in our galaxy.
- There is evidence that refractive index changes from n = 1 to n > 1 near the surface of gravitational bodies, a phenomenon described by GR as gravitational lensing. This cannot be avoided in an atmosphere of abundant non-baryonic matter.
- From the pattern of the rotation curve of our Milky Way galaxy, our Sun and its tiny blue planet Earth are located in the foggiest part of the dark matter halo. See references in below paper of published scientific papers, including some that have calculated how much non-baryonic matter the Earth must have gravitationally captured during the over 4.5 billion years it has been wandering in galactic space.
Is it logical for such a tiny blue dot to escape interacting with and capturing a fraction of non-baryonic matter particles from its claimed abundance? I don’t think so.
This is why we must listen to Einstein when he says the Fizeau experiment was the most important to focus on and not MMX.
From Shankland, R. S., Conversations with Albert Einstein, American Journal of Physics, 31, 47–57 (1963): “He continued to say the experimental results which had influenced him most were the observations of stellar aberration and Fizeau's measurements on the speed of light in moving water. "They were enough," he said”.
As I see it, the only alibi to deny the participation of matter in MMX will be to deny the evidence for the existence of non-baryonic matter and its claimed abundance. Do you deny this?
Thesis An inquiry into the compressibility of the universal fundame...
Akinbo
Evidence is that light is first bent towards the body, not away.
No, since apparent direction (as a small difference) is towards the body the first bent is away from the body and the second is towards.
John-Erik
Justo Pastor Lambare
,JPL: Yes, with n=1 for air and n>1 for water.
Actually, n = 1 for vacuum completely free of all types of matter, and n = 1.0003 for air.
JPL: Yes.
In answer to, “If you agree to this, then given a system AB on Earth surface, with water or other matter medium between them, from Fresnel’s equation confirmed by Fizeau’s experiment, if v = 0, the time taken for light to travel from A to B, and that to travel from B to A will be the same, irrespective of whether or not the Earth itself may be travelling in the direction AB?”
The narrow areas of contention would only be whether following from Newtonian theory, in particular v2 = GM/r, there is an abundance of non-baryonic matter over baryonic matter in our galactic/solar system, which can make the refractive index n > 1 in the medium used for our terrestrial "vacuum" experiments.
We don’t disagree on much. Thank you!
- Badges
- Science topic