Mmx Is A False Positive For Special Relativity

[jakuta]

MMX is a False Positive for Special Relativity

 

MMX experiments are the cornerstone for proving the validity of special relativity Tom Roberts http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html specifies "The speed of light is said to be isotropic if it has the same value when measured in any/every direction." He then lists a large collection of MMX or round trip speed of light comparisons to prove the speed of light is isotropic or measured c in all directions. This is an alternative way of stating the light postulate of special relativity.

 

However, the earth's rotational sagnac does not show up in MMX experiments. GPS, on the other hand, validates this rotational sagnac, in particular, Robert A. Nelson and Todd A. Ely, in RELATIVISTIC TRANSFORMATIONS FOR TIME SYNCHRONIZATION AND DISSEMINATION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM noted:

In the case of a receiver at rest on the Earth, an observer in the ECEF frame regards the receiver as stationary and applies the Sagnac correction. However, an observer in the ECI frame sees that the receiver has moved due to the Earth’s rotation during the signal time of flight and instead applies a propagation time correction due to the additional path length. The term “Sagnac effect” is part of the vocabulary of only the observer in the rotating reference frame. The corresponding correction applied by the inertial observer might be called a “velocity correction.” While the interpretation of the correction is different in the two frames, the numerical value is the same in either frame.

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2006/paper28.pdf

 

This sagnac correction is also noted by Neil Ashby in

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/

 

Since MMX proves light is measured c in all directions on the earth/ECEF frame and a GPS receiver applies an earth rotational sagnac at that same location which is a velocity correction to the speed of light, then the two results are inconsistent with each other. In short, the MMX concludes c = d/t and a GPS receiver does not even though both compute distances and time in the ECEF frame. Curiously, even though both results are inconsistent with each other, both are used to claim SR is experimentally validated .

 

Therefore, we should expect to find this velocity sagnac correction in MMX since the experiment is performed in the ECEF frame. The question is why not. Well, simple math explains this.

 

The timing of roundtrip light travel using the sagnac correction is at most t = d /(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/( c² - v²) if you happen to be lucky and measuring in or against the direction of rotation. Otherwise it is less. So for one arm of MMX, the round trip timing for light travel is 2dc/( c² - v²) for the arm in the direction of rotation and at the 90 degree arm the round trip light travel is timed at 2d/c.

 

For MMX to detect the difference between the two, the calculation is 

2dc/( c² - v²) - 2d/c = 2d[ c/( c² - v²) - 1/c ].

 

So, in the lab we might have

d = 10 meters = 0.01km

c ≈ 300,000km/sec

v ≈ 1669.8 km/hr ≈ 0.46383 km/sec for the speed of the earth's rotation.

 

Then the timing differential is calculated.

∆t = 2d[ c/( c² - v²) - 1/c ]  ∆t = 0.02 * [ 300000/(300000² - 0.46383²) - 1 / 300000 ] = 1.5936*10-19 seconds.

 

Some modern experiments are able to perform MMX at 1km and more by reflecting the light signal many times. Thus, the sagnac correction for that is ∆t = 1.5936*10-17 seconds.Instead of round trip, the following will calculate the sagnac correction for the above assuming one way light travel in the direction of rotation and orthogonal to the direction. In that case,

∆t = d/( c - v) - d/c = dv/(c(c-v)) = 0.01 * 0.46383/(300000 ( 300000 - 0.46383 )) = 5.1537*10-14 seconds.

 

Hence, all things being equal, the one way GPS sagnac detection is easier to detect, than the two way light travel as in MMX. In addition, GPS operates with greater distances. Consequently, it is clear why the GPS sagnac correction is much easier to detect when compared to MMX. 

 

You can find the below at Tom Roberts website http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html.

A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, “Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549–552 (1979).This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser. Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.

 

But, from above, ∆t = 1.5936*10-17 seconds. When this is translated to a light speed differential, ∆c = 1.434 *10-9 .m/s which is beyond the capability of this most accurate experiment.

 

No wonder MMX can't find the earth's rotational sagnac correction. The sensitivity requirements are well beyond anything available.

 

Therefore, even though MMX has been used for years to experimentally validate SR, the sagnac correction picked up and proven everyday by GPS is missing in MMX. But as shown by the math above, the sagnac two way light travel differential in MMX is simply invisible to modern experimental devices.

 

Hence, the null results of MMX are not actually null but too small to detect. As such, MMX has been a false positive for SR. In addition since a null MMX (which does not actually exist) proves SR, then a non-null MMX disproves SR. There is only way way for SR to survive this analysis and that is to argue the earth is not actually an inertial frame and thus a non-null MMX does not refute SR. However, this path of logic strips away any experiment basis of SR done from the earth. In other words, if the non-null MMX does not invalidate SR because the earth is not an inertial frame, then no experiment can verify/refute SR when performed in the earth frame since it is not actually an inertial frame.

 

As such, at this point, from a logical point of view, SR is left experimentally unverified or just plain refuted.

[Qfwfq]

As such, at this point, from a logical point of view, SR is left experimentally unverified or just plain refuted.

You conclude this as if the Michelson Morley experiment were the only support of SR when there is the whole of particle physics that nails it down.

 

Further, it is known that the Sagnac effect doesn't disprove relativity or even call into question the resunlts of the MM experiment.

[jakuta]

You conclude this as if the Michelson Morley experiment were the only support of SR when there is the whole of particle physics that nails it down.

 

Further, it is known that the Sagnac effect doesn't disprove relativity or even call into question the resunlts of the MM experiment.

 

1) I was not trying to imply MMX is the only claimed support for SR. However, this is from Tom Roberts website.

 

3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy

The speed of light is said to be isotropic if it has the same value when measured in any/every direction.

 

The Michelson-Morley Experiment (the MMX)

The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther” which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz, Ritz, and Abraham).

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#round-trip_tests

 

OK, so a null MMX is a support structure for SR. But, it is provably not null. Since a fundamental peg of SR is called into question, naturally, others are called into question. Further, if a null MMX implies SR, then ~SR implies a non-null result.

 

The fundamentla requirment of the conjunction of the light postulate and relativity postulate is that a light pulse is measured c in all directions. a non-null MMX invalidates this necessary requirement.

 

2) The is from mathpages.

This rules out any conceptually coherent ballistic theory of light propagation, according to which the speed of light is the vector sum of the velocity of the emitting particle plus a vector of magnitude c. Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naïve ether theory, whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naïve ether theory but inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein, since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed independent of the state of motion of the source.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

 

So, both results seem to imply SR.

 

But, as shown by the math above, MMX is not really null. It was simply unable to detect the earth's rotational sagnac.

 

Therefore, a non-null MMX is consistent with sagnac as long as it is in fact measuring the sagnac only.

 

This means from mathpages MMX and Sagnac implies SR.

 

Also, since MMX should be seeing the earth's rotational sagnac, and both should produce exactly the same results then

 

not MMX and Sagnac implies SR.

 

This is a contradiction.

[Little Bang]

If we look at how a photon is created ( http://scienceforums.com/topic/20998-photon-creation/page__p__289720__fromsearch__1#entry289720 ) It is obvious that no matter what the velocity or acceleration of an object or particle the radiation produced will always propagate away at C. There in lies the reason for the MMX failure.

[jakuta]

If we look at how a photon is created ( http://scienceforums...__1#entry289720 ) It is obvious that no matter what the velocity or acceleration of an object or particle the radiation produced will always propagate away at C. There in lies the reason for the MMX failure.

 

I am agreeing with you. Light always moves off c in any direction regardless of any motion of the light source.

 

But, the point of my post is that a null MMX has been used for many years to prove SR. The math above proves there is no such thing as a null MMX.

 

Therefore, MMX has always been a false positive fo SR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Little Bang]

I can't argue with your logic but then again few people pay much attention to Thompson's photon because it implies a problem with the standard model.

[jakuta]

I can't argue with your logic but then again few people pay much attention to Thompson's photon because it implies a problem with the standard model.

 

Well, since MMX is false is this consistent with the standard model.

 

Could you explain your thoughts in more detail?

 

 

 

 

 

[Little Bang]

I don't see it as being consistent. If your asking why I think Thompson's electron is inconsistent with the standard model it's because the photon is created simply by the change in position of the charged particle and does not need the invention of virtual particles to propagate.

[Erasmus00]

I don't see it as being consistent. If your asking why I think Thompson's electron is inconsistent with the standard model it's because the photon is created simply by the change in position of the charged particle and does not need the invention of virtual particles to propagate.

 

In the case you are discussing (http://scienceforums.com/topic/20998-photon-creation/), the electron creates classic electromagnetic radiation. This is a very different thing then a photon.

 

The model you discuss predicts that the energy stored in the wave is proportional to the intensity (the amplitude of the wave), and independent of the frequency. This is not true for photons.

 

Consider surrounding the electron in discussion with a ring of detectors very far away. In the classical model of electromagnetic radiation, each will pick up a signal as the wave travels outward. If, instead, the electron were accelerated so as to emit a single photon, only ONE detector will pick up anything at all. It was for this reason that physics had to move beyond classical electricity and magnetism.

[Little Bang]

Tell us how you accelerate an electron in such a way that it emits a single photon. That electron will emit a wave in ALL directions with the highest amplitude perpendicular to the direction of acceleration. EM Purcell, JJ Thompson

[jakuta]

In the case you are discussing (http://scienceforums...hoton-creation/), the electron creates classic electromagnetic radiation. This is a very different thing then a photon.

 

The model you discuss predicts that the energy stored in the wave is proportional to the intensity (the amplitude of the wave), and independent of the frequency. This is not true for photons.

 

Consider surrounding the electron in discussion with a ring of detectors very far away. In the classical model of electromagnetic radiation, each will pick up a signal as the wave travels outward. If, instead, the electron were accelerated so as to emit a single photon, only ONE detector will pick up anything at all. It was for this reason that physics had to move beyond classical electricity and magnetism.

 

 

Yes, is this photon directional?

 

Further, since MMX is provably false by the GPS sagnac, then depending on the direction, a ring of detectors will conclude a different time for a light pulse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Little Bang]

Jukuta, the only way you can conclude he is correct is to assume that Lamor radiation is false and this is false, http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/LarmorRad.html

[Erasmus00]

Jukuta, the only way you can conclude he is correct is to assume that Lamor radiation is false and this is false, http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/LarmorRad.html

 

Larmor radiation, and the derivation you are linking to, is for CLASSICAL electromagnetic radiation. The formula simply doesn't hold for photons.

 

If Larmor radiation always held, atoms would not be stable. It would predict that all accelerating electrons radiate, which would lead to the electron orbiting the proton to spiral inwards.

[Little Bang]

Larmor radiation, and the derivation you are linking to, is for CLASSICAL electromagnetic radiation. The formula simply doesn't hold for photons.

 

If Larmor radiation always held, atoms would not be stable. It would predict that all accelerating electrons radiate, which would lead to the electron orbiting the proton to spiral inwards.

Your logic is true only if the standard model is an accurate description of matter. Does the electron have a field, yes one that the sm cannot explain. It has mass which it cannot explain. It has a gravitational field it cannot explain. It has inertia which it cannot explain. All of these things I say are true. To make the model stand up they have invented imaginary particles they can't prove exist. I do not understand how you can observe a particle anti-particle annihilation that produces nothing but radiation and still claim that the constituents of matter are hypothetical particles. Isn't it even slightly possible that the collision particles produced in accelerators are temporary distortions of the electron proton fields that exist in every cubic millimeter of space.?

[Little Bang]

One more thought. Suppose you were a highway patrolman who receives a call that an accident has occurred at a country intersection. When you arrive the person who found the accident tells you he did not witness the accident. all the occupants of the collision vehicles are dead. There are stop signs at all four corners of the intersection. There are numerous explanations that would explain the accident but you can never know the exact sequence of events that led to the accident. Why isn't it POSSIBLY this could be true of the standard model?

[Little Bang]

Here is another explanation of matter that has merit. http://www.orbits.00space.com/electronorbit.html

[jakuta]

Larmor radiation, and the derivation you are linking to, is for CLASSICAL electromagnetic radiation. The formula simply doesn't hold for photons.

 

If Larmor radiation always held, atoms would not be stable. It would predict that all accelerating electrons radiate, which would lead to the electron orbiting the proton to spiral inwards.

 

OK, does the accelerating electron eject a photon in a specific direction or is it spherical?.

 

Next, does the standard model require Lorentz invariance?