Michelson Morley Doppler (split)

[madmac]

M&M experiments (or very similar) using i think glass or plexiglass include.....

Shamir & Fox in 1969. Report near-null result.

Trimmer et al in 1973. Report near-null result.

Demjanov in 1969 etc. Reports non-null results.

[zztop]

M&M experiments (or very similar) using i think glass or plexiglass include.....

Shamir & Fox in 1969. Report near-null result.

Trimmer et al in 1973. Report near-null result.

Demjanov in 1969 etc. Reports non-null results.

Demjanov has been refuted and his paper has been withdrawn.

[madmac]

zztop. I recently printed off most of Demjanov's papers but haven't digested them yet. I was impressed with his spinning transverse Doppler experiment. But it suffered from vibration (no surprise, 3000rpm, & 1m radius). And his quasi-English is very difficult to follow. However, his results were 10,000 times or some-such more than predicted by relativity. But he had to do a lot of fudging to try to see past the noise from vibration. I suspect that that is what the withdrawn bizness is all about, but i think i got all of his papers from his present website only say about 2 weeks ago. I suspect that my print might be his latest effort at removing that-there noise.

zztop. I think that a rotating mirror does give an M&M Doppler effect. However, i seem to recall that Michelson stopped the rotation to take his readings. And i suspect that so did M&M, not sure about M&G & others.

Miller & Miller&Co took their readings on the run, they didn't stop the rotation.

An aether-wind might of course give Doppler.

Hicks (1905?) analysed the M&M re calibration, ie re the creation of fringes, & he might have mentioned Doppler (i cannot remember, it was so long ago).

 

But i claim that Hicks made a mistake (& so must have Righi). It is sort of related to Doppler. A receding angled (45dg) mirror reflects lightwaves, & i claim that these waves travel at less than c (or less than the usual lightspeed in air etc). It might seem a silly idea, but my reason is that the reflected photons travel at the usual speed (& the usual direction), but the waves manifest at a different angle to the photons (the standard wave-angle is known to Hicks & Huygens & everyone else), & hencely the waves cannot travel at the same speed as the photon. This must affect the calibration (for Miller, but not for M&M), but i haven't worked it throo (that Hicks article is torture). It also means that such waves might travel faster than the photons producing them (i feel a Nobel coming). Anyhow i guess that Huygens got it slightly wrong all those years ago (were there lightwaves & photons in his day???).

[zztop]

. I suspect that that is what the withdrawn bizness is all about, but i think i got all of his papers from his present website only say about 2 weeks ago. I suspect that my print might be his latest effort at removing that-there noise.

The withdrawal was due to Demjanov being a crackpot who has deep misconceptions about relativity.

zztop. I think that a rotating mirror does give an M&M Doppler effect.

No, it doesn't.

[zztop]

i claim that these waves travel at less than c (or less than the usual lightspeed in air etc).

This is false. Everything you claim is incorrect.

[madmac]

zztop.

I had another read of Hicks' 1905 analysis of M&M. Hicks says that M&M took readings while the interferometer was rotating (Michelson in 1881 took stationary readings). Hicks doesn't (in 43 pages) mention Doppler as such, but he does say....

"The theory is not so simple as it may appear at first sight owing to the changes produced by actual reflexion at a moving surface. The correction due to alteration in the angle of reflexion was first introduced by Lorentz, and was taken account of in the joint paper by Michelson & Morley in 1887. But reflexion produces also a change in the wave-length of the reflected light".

 

Hicks was fully aware of the effects of observer moving (or not moving) with the apparatus (& likewise the source of light moving or not), altho he probably wasn't aware of any pure Einsteinian SR effects.

 

Unfortunately in the above quoted wordage Hicks isn't i think 100% clear whether his observer is moving with his apparatus.

Also, throughout his article Hicks is almost never clear whether his moving mirrors are translating or rotating or both.

Interestingly Hicks later says, of the reflected light.........

"If an observer is fixed in the aether he sees that in this picture the waves have different wave-lengths, but that they advance with the same velocity V, and the apparatus moves with U.

If the observer is fixed to the apparatus he sees that in this picture the apparatus is fixed but that each system of waves advances with a different velocity, yet in all cases such, that as they reach him their frequencies are the same---the longer waves have the greater apparent velocity of propagation".

 

This wordage is Einsteinesque. Without analysing the quote more closely i think that Hicks is employing Lorentz Relativity (is there such a thing), which as we know has many similarities with SR (hencely his wording).

 

One trap for fellows like me is that Hicks' article deals mainly with wave-fronts not pure waves. It is M&M wave-fronts that make M&M fringes. Whereas pure waves belong to the photons (our eyes can see photons, & their color) -- but our eyes cant see M&M wave-fronts, but might see fringes if wave-fronts from two sources cross (i hope that this is correct).

 

I should add that pure waves are themselves wave-fronts too, & can make visible fringes. The distinction in my mind is that pure waves (& pure wave-fronts) travel at the same speed as their photons, but M&M wave-fronts are slower (but can be superluminal in certain cases)(i hope that this is correct).

Edited January 31, 2017 by madmac

[zztop]

zztop.

I had another read of Hicks' 1905 analysis of M&M. Hicks says that M&M took readings while the interferometer was rotating (Michelson in 1881 took stationary readings). Hicks doesn't (in 43 pages) mention Doppler as such, but he does say....

"The theory is not so simple as it may appear at first sight owing to the changes produced by actual reflexion at a moving surface. The correction due to alteration in the angle of reflexion was first introduced by Lorentz, and was taken account of in the joint paper by Michelson & Morley in 1887. But reflexion produces also a change in the wave-length of the reflected light".

 

Hicks was fully aware of the effects of observer moving (or not moving) with the apparatus (& likewise the source of light moving or not), altho he probably wasn't aware of any pure Einsteinian SR effects.

 

Unfortunately in the above quoted wordage Hicks isn't i think 100% clear whether his observer is moving with his apparatus.

Also, throughout his article Hicks is almost never clear whether his moving mirrors are translating or rotating or both.

Interestingly Hicks later says, of the reflected light.........

"If an observer is fixed in the aether he sees that in this picture the waves have different wave-lengths, but that they advance with the same velocity V, and the apparatus moves with U.

If the observer is fixed to the apparatus he sees that in this picture the apparatus is fixed but that each system of waves advances with a different velocity, yet in all cases such, that as they reach him their frequencies are the same---the longer waves have the greater apparent velocity of propagation".

 

This wordage is Einsteinesque. Without analysing the quote more closely i think that Hicks is employing Lorentz Relativity (is there such a thing), which as we know has many similarities with SR (hencely his wording).

 

One trap for fellows like me is that Hicks' article deals mainly with wave-fronts not pure waves. It is M&M wave-fronts that make M&M fringes. Whereas pure waves belong to the photons (our eyes can see photons, & their color) -- but our eyes cant see M&M wave-fronts, but might see fringes if wave-fronts from two sources cross (i hope that this is correct).

 

I should add that pure waves are themselves wave-fronts too, & can make visible fringes. The distinction in my mind is that pure waves (& pure wave-fronts) travel at the same speed as their photons, but M&M wave-fronts are slower (but can be superluminal in certain cases)(i hope that this is correct).

There is no change in wavelength. Light reflected of moving mirrors has the same wavelength (frequency) as the incident light. Hicks is NOT using special relativity. Please stop the fringe posts, this is a mainstream science forum.