Does the fact that we can only measure the two-way speed of light undermine the axiom of invariance?Do the...
Are there any nuances between "dismiss" and "ignore"?
Vehemently against code formatting
Connecting circles clockwise in TikZ
How did Jean Parisot de Valette, 49th Grand Master of the Order of Malta, die?
How to tease a romance without a cat and mouse chase?
Warped chessboard
Do most Taxis give Receipts in London?
Good examples of "two is easy, three is hard" in computational sciences
Why use nominative in Coniugatio periphrastica passiva?
Does the fact that we can only measure the two-way speed of light undermine the axiom of invariance?
Are there historical examples of audiences drawn to a work that was "so bad it's good"?
How to counter "I don't like your tone" in a work conversation?
Does the Aboleth have expertise in History and Perception?
Is presenting a play showing Military characters in a bad light a crime in the US?
Is there a way to generate a mapping graph like this?
Does a windmilling propeller create more drag than a stopped propeller in an engine out scenario?
Salesforce bug enabled "Modify All"
How to add a low pass filter to this non-inverting amplifier circuit?
How to prove the emptiness of intersection of two context free languages is undecidable?
How could the B-29 bomber back up under its own power?
What city and town structures are important in a low fantasy medieval world?
tikz: 5 squares on a row, roman numbered 1 -> 5
What does it mean to "take the Cross"
Was murdering a slave illegal in American slavery, and if so, what punishments were given for it?
Does the fact that we can only measure the two-way speed of light undermine the axiom of invariance?
Do the particles that were found to break the speed of light really break Einstein's theory of relativity?Why does the speed of light in vacuum have no uncertainty?Speed of light that is traveling away from the observerMichelson-Morley experiment revisited under the light of special relativityHow can we show that the speed of light is really constant in all reference frames?Speed of light invariance (once again)Can the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum be derived from a deeper theory?The implications of Einstein's first lawWhy is light speed the only constant speed?Is speed of light is the only way to measure time
$begingroup$
When we measure the speed of light we get the same answer in all directions. This is taken to undermine the aether or absolute motion hypothesis and give support to the proposal that the speed of light is invariant, from which derives the theory of special relativity.
But doesn't the fact that we only measure speed of light 'there and back' undermine this conclusion? Wouldn't we expect this result through an aether?
special-relativity speed-of-light
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
109k122051273
asked 4 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
183
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When we measure the speed of light we get the same answer in all directions. This is taken to undermine the aether or absolute motion hypothesis and give support to the proposal that the speed of light is invariant, from which derives the theory of special relativity.
But doesn't the fact that we only measure speed of light 'there and back' undermine this conclusion? Wouldn't we expect this result through an aether?
special-relativity speed-of-light
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
109k122051273
asked 4 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
183
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When we measure the speed of light we get the same answer in all directions. This is taken to undermine the aether or absolute motion hypothesis and give support to the proposal that the speed of light is invariant, from which derives the theory of special relativity.
But doesn't the fact that we only measure speed of light 'there and back' undermine this conclusion? Wouldn't we expect this result through an aether?
special-relativity speed-of-light
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
109k122051273
asked 4 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
183
$endgroup$
When we measure the speed of light we get the same answer in all directions. This is taken to undermine the aether or absolute motion hypothesis and give support to the proposal that the speed of light is invariant, from which derives the theory of special relativity.
But doesn't the fact that we only measure speed of light 'there and back' undermine this conclusion? Wouldn't we expect this result through an aether?
special-relativity speed-of-light
special-relativity speed-of-light
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
109k122051273
asked 4 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
183
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
109k122051273
asked 4 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
183
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
109k122051273
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
109k122051273
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
109k122051273
109k122051273
asked 4 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
183
asked 4 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
183
asked 4 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
183
183
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There-and-back measurements still show the effect of an aether, because you can compare the results in different directions. For example, there-and-back along the direction of motion would show a different speed from there-and-back across it. This was the approach taken in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
answered 4 hours ago
Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen
6,0911020
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Not if the delay introduced there-and-back along the direction of motion, is equal to the delay introduced there-and-back across the direction of motion (which, in the case of anything moving, a round trip "across" must also involve some movement along-with, in order to return to the source). The Michelson-Morley experiment did not invalidate the aether - it was simply amongst the experiments that showed, as Einstein later teasingly pointed out to Lorenz, that any such aether had no qualities different from those described by relativity.
$endgroup$
– Steve
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Those two delays are different in the original aether theory, so there’s no point in postulating an “if”. And the MM experiment was done to test that theory, conclusively disproving it.
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
Indeed Bob, but Lorentz then made further modifications to the theory - essentially abandoning all classical properties - which Einstein acknowledged was equivalent to his theory and that it was then simply a matter of taste whether one wished to employ the remaining concept of the aether or jettison it altogether. The key point which the experiments established wasn't the non-existence of anything that might be described as an aether, but that any such aether did not behave according to any classical principles.
$endgroup$
– Steve
19 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $x$ direction is not any different physically than the $-x$ direction. So light travelling towards $x-> infty$ should travel in the same way it travels towards $x-> -infty$ wether theres an aether or not.
What should make a difference is if we measure the speed of light in the direction the body that emitted the light is moving through the aether and any other direction, for example, the direction perpendicular to this movement to see the difference a bit easier. However no difference in arrival times was measured.
answered 1 hour ago
Juan Pablo ArcilaJuan Pablo Arcila
748
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That the one-way speed of light is not observable plays a large role in keeping various relativistically-correct aether theories alive. Like general relativity, these new aether theories locally reduce to special relativity in the absence of nearby massive objects. Unlike general relativity, these new aether theories have a preferred universal frame of reference, typically a frame co-moving with the cosmic microwave background radiation.
answered 46 mins ago
David HammenDavid Hammen
34k759110
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If such theories cannot be ruled out, then why shouldn't they be amongst the respectable opinions that thinkers and researchers may choose to adopt and work with?
$endgroup$
– Steve
11 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f480938%2fdoes-the-fact-that-we-can-only-measure-the-two-way-speed-of-light-undermine-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There-and-back measurements still show the effect of an aether, because you can compare the results in different directions. For example, there-and-back along the direction of motion would show a different speed from there-and-back across it. This was the approach taken in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
answered 4 hours ago
Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen
6,0911020
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Not if the delay introduced there-and-back along the direction of motion, is equal to the delay introduced there-and-back across the direction of motion (which, in the case of anything moving, a round trip "across" must also involve some movement along-with, in order to return to the source). The Michelson-Morley experiment did not invalidate the aether - it was simply amongst the experiments that showed, as Einstein later teasingly pointed out to Lorenz, that any such aether had no qualities different from those described by relativity.
$endgroup$
– Steve
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Those two delays are different in the original aether theory, so there’s no point in postulating an “if”. And the MM experiment was done to test that theory, conclusively disproving it.
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
Indeed Bob, but Lorentz then made further modifications to the theory - essentially abandoning all classical properties - which Einstein acknowledged was equivalent to his theory and that it was then simply a matter of taste whether one wished to employ the remaining concept of the aether or jettison it altogether. The key point which the experiments established wasn't the non-existence of anything that might be described as an aether, but that any such aether did not behave according to any classical principles.
$endgroup$
– Steve
19 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There-and-back measurements still show the effect of an aether, because you can compare the results in different directions. For example, there-and-back along the direction of motion would show a different speed from there-and-back across it. This was the approach taken in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
answered 4 hours ago
Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen
6,0911020
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Not if the delay introduced there-and-back along the direction of motion, is equal to the delay introduced there-and-back across the direction of motion (which, in the case of anything moving, a round trip "across" must also involve some movement along-with, in order to return to the source). The Michelson-Morley experiment did not invalidate the aether - it was simply amongst the experiments that showed, as Einstein later teasingly pointed out to Lorenz, that any such aether had no qualities different from those described by relativity.
$endgroup$
– Steve
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Those two delays are different in the original aether theory, so there’s no point in postulating an “if”. And the MM experiment was done to test that theory, conclusively disproving it.
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
Indeed Bob, but Lorentz then made further modifications to the theory - essentially abandoning all classical properties - which Einstein acknowledged was equivalent to his theory and that it was then simply a matter of taste whether one wished to employ the remaining concept of the aether or jettison it altogether. The key point which the experiments established wasn't the non-existence of anything that might be described as an aether, but that any such aether did not behave according to any classical principles.
$endgroup$
– Steve
19 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There-and-back measurements still show the effect of an aether, because you can compare the results in different directions. For example, there-and-back along the direction of motion would show a different speed from there-and-back across it. This was the approach taken in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
answered 4 hours ago
Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen
6,0911020
$endgroup$
There-and-back measurements still show the effect of an aether, because you can compare the results in different directions. For example, there-and-back along the direction of motion would show a different speed from there-and-back across it. This was the approach taken in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
answered 4 hours ago
Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen
6,0911020
answered 4 hours ago
Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen
6,0911020
answered 4 hours ago
Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen
6,0911020
answered 4 hours ago
Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen
6,0911020
6,0911020
$begingroup$
Not if the delay introduced there-and-back along the direction of motion, is equal to the delay introduced there-and-back across the direction of motion (which, in the case of anything moving, a round trip "across" must also involve some movement along-with, in order to return to the source). The Michelson-Morley experiment did not invalidate the aether - it was simply amongst the experiments that showed, as Einstein later teasingly pointed out to Lorenz, that any such aether had no qualities different from those described by relativity.
$endgroup$
– Steve
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Those two delays are different in the original aether theory, so there’s no point in postulating an “if”. And the MM experiment was done to test that theory, conclusively disproving it.
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
Indeed Bob, but Lorentz then made further modifications to the theory - essentially abandoning all classical properties - which Einstein acknowledged was equivalent to his theory and that it was then simply a matter of taste whether one wished to employ the remaining concept of the aether or jettison it altogether. The key point which the experiments established wasn't the non-existence of anything that might be described as an aether, but that any such aether did not behave according to any classical principles.
$endgroup$
– Steve
19 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not if the delay introduced there-and-back along the direction of motion, is equal to the delay introduced there-and-back across the direction of motion (which, in the case of anything moving, a round trip "across" must also involve some movement along-with, in order to return to the source). The Michelson-Morley experiment did not invalidate the aether - it was simply amongst the experiments that showed, as Einstein later teasingly pointed out to Lorenz, that any such aether had no qualities different from those described by relativity.
$endgroup$
– Steve
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Those two delays are different in the original aether theory, so there’s no point in postulating an “if”. And the MM experiment was done to test that theory, conclusively disproving it.
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
Indeed Bob, but Lorentz then made further modifications to the theory - essentially abandoning all classical properties - which Einstein acknowledged was equivalent to his theory and that it was then simply a matter of taste whether one wished to employ the remaining concept of the aether or jettison it altogether. The key point which the experiments established wasn't the non-existence of anything that might be described as an aether, but that any such aether did not behave according to any classical principles.
$endgroup$
– Steve
19 mins ago
$begingroup$
Not if the delay introduced there-and-back along the direction of motion, is equal to the delay introduced there-and-back across the direction of motion (which, in the case of anything moving, a round trip "across" must also involve some movement along-with, in order to return to the source). The Michelson-Morley experiment did not invalidate the aether - it was simply amongst the experiments that showed, as Einstein later teasingly pointed out to Lorenz, that any such aether had no qualities different from those described by relativity.
$endgroup$
– Steve
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Not if the delay introduced there-and-back along the direction of motion, is equal to the delay introduced there-and-back across the direction of motion (which, in the case of anything moving, a round trip "across" must also involve some movement along-with, in order to return to the source). The Michelson-Morley experiment did not invalidate the aether - it was simply amongst the experiments that showed, as Einstein later teasingly pointed out to Lorenz, that any such aether had no qualities different from those described by relativity.
$endgroup$
– Steve
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Those two delays are different in the original aether theory, so there’s no point in postulating an “if”. And the MM experiment was done to test that theory, conclusively disproving it.
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
Those two delays are different in the original aether theory, so there’s no point in postulating an “if”. And the MM experiment was done to test that theory, conclusively disproving it.
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
Indeed Bob, but Lorentz then made further modifications to the theory - essentially abandoning all classical properties - which Einstein acknowledged was equivalent to his theory and that it was then simply a matter of taste whether one wished to employ the remaining concept of the aether or jettison it altogether. The key point which the experiments established wasn't the non-existence of anything that might be described as an aether, but that any such aether did not behave according to any classical principles.
$endgroup$
– Steve
19 mins ago
$begingroup$
Indeed Bob, but Lorentz then made further modifications to the theory - essentially abandoning all classical properties - which Einstein acknowledged was equivalent to his theory and that it was then simply a matter of taste whether one wished to employ the remaining concept of the aether or jettison it altogether. The key point which the experiments established wasn't the non-existence of anything that might be described as an aether, but that any such aether did not behave according to any classical principles.
$endgroup$
– Steve
19 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $x$ direction is not any different physically than the $-x$ direction. So light travelling towards $x-> infty$ should travel in the same way it travels towards $x-> -infty$ wether theres an aether or not.
What should make a difference is if we measure the speed of light in the direction the body that emitted the light is moving through the aether and any other direction, for example, the direction perpendicular to this movement to see the difference a bit easier. However no difference in arrival times was measured.
answered 1 hour ago
Juan Pablo ArcilaJuan Pablo Arcila
748
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $x$ direction is not any different physically than the $-x$ direction. So light travelling towards $x-> infty$ should travel in the same way it travels towards $x-> -infty$ wether theres an aether or not.
What should make a difference is if we measure the speed of light in the direction the body that emitted the light is moving through the aether and any other direction, for example, the direction perpendicular to this movement to see the difference a bit easier. However no difference in arrival times was measured.
answered 1 hour ago
Juan Pablo ArcilaJuan Pablo Arcila
748
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $x$ direction is not any different physically than the $-x$ direction. So light travelling towards $x-> infty$ should travel in the same way it travels towards $x-> -infty$ wether theres an aether or not.
What should make a difference is if we measure the speed of light in the direction the body that emitted the light is moving through the aether and any other direction, for example, the direction perpendicular to this movement to see the difference a bit easier. However no difference in arrival times was measured.
answered 1 hour ago
Juan Pablo ArcilaJuan Pablo Arcila
748
$endgroup$
The $x$ direction is not any different physically than the $-x$ direction. So light travelling towards $x-> infty$ should travel in the same way it travels towards $x-> -infty$ wether theres an aether or not.
What should make a difference is if we measure the speed of light in the direction the body that emitted the light is moving through the aether and any other direction, for example, the direction perpendicular to this movement to see the difference a bit easier. However no difference in arrival times was measured.
answered 1 hour ago
Juan Pablo ArcilaJuan Pablo Arcila
748
answered 1 hour ago
Juan Pablo ArcilaJuan Pablo Arcila
748
answered 1 hour ago
Juan Pablo ArcilaJuan Pablo Arcila
748
answered 1 hour ago
Juan Pablo ArcilaJuan Pablo Arcila
748
748
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That the one-way speed of light is not observable plays a large role in keeping various relativistically-correct aether theories alive. Like general relativity, these new aether theories locally reduce to special relativity in the absence of nearby massive objects. Unlike general relativity, these new aether theories have a preferred universal frame of reference, typically a frame co-moving with the cosmic microwave background radiation.
answered 46 mins ago
David HammenDavid Hammen
34k759110
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If such theories cannot be ruled out, then why shouldn't they be amongst the respectable opinions that thinkers and researchers may choose to adopt and work with?
$endgroup$
– Steve
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That the one-way speed of light is not observable plays a large role in keeping various relativistically-correct aether theories alive. Like general relativity, these new aether theories locally reduce to special relativity in the absence of nearby massive objects. Unlike general relativity, these new aether theories have a preferred universal frame of reference, typically a frame co-moving with the cosmic microwave background radiation.
answered 46 mins ago
David HammenDavid Hammen
34k759110
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If such theories cannot be ruled out, then why shouldn't they be amongst the respectable opinions that thinkers and researchers may choose to adopt and work with?
$endgroup$
– Steve
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That the one-way speed of light is not observable plays a large role in keeping various relativistically-correct aether theories alive. Like general relativity, these new aether theories locally reduce to special relativity in the absence of nearby massive objects. Unlike general relativity, these new aether theories have a preferred universal frame of reference, typically a frame co-moving with the cosmic microwave background radiation.
answered 46 mins ago
David HammenDavid Hammen
34k759110
$endgroup$
That the one-way speed of light is not observable plays a large role in keeping various relativistically-correct aether theories alive. Like general relativity, these new aether theories locally reduce to special relativity in the absence of nearby massive objects. Unlike general relativity, these new aether theories have a preferred universal frame of reference, typically a frame co-moving with the cosmic microwave background radiation.
answered 46 mins ago
David HammenDavid Hammen
34k759110
answered 46 mins ago
David HammenDavid Hammen
34k759110
answered 46 mins ago
David HammenDavid Hammen
34k759110
answered 46 mins ago
David HammenDavid Hammen
34k759110
34k759110
$begingroup$
If such theories cannot be ruled out, then why shouldn't they be amongst the respectable opinions that thinkers and researchers may choose to adopt and work with?
$endgroup$
– Steve
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If such theories cannot be ruled out, then why shouldn't they be amongst the respectable opinions that thinkers and researchers may choose to adopt and work with?
$endgroup$
– Steve
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
If such theories cannot be ruled out, then why shouldn't they be amongst the respectable opinions that thinkers and researchers may choose to adopt and work with?
$endgroup$
– Steve
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
If such theories cannot be ruled out, then why shouldn't they be amongst the respectable opinions that thinkers and researchers may choose to adopt and work with?
$endgroup$
– Steve
11 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f480938%2fdoes-the-fact-that-we-can-only-measure-the-two-way-speed-of-light-undermine-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
