- Dec 27, 2022
- 445
- 13
- 1,685
"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
What does that mean? If, in their preliminary calculations, Michelson and Morley had used c'=c±v, not c'=c (speed of light independent of speed of the emitter, as the aether concept requires), they would have predicted the null result and the experiment would have confirmed their prediction. But they used c'=c, predicted a different outcome, and the experiment refuted it. So c'=c was proved wrong in 1887, no?
The experiment became compatible with c'=c a few years later, after miraculous fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") were introduced:
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
What does that mean? If, in their preliminary calculations, Michelson and Morley had used c'=c±v, not c'=c (speed of light independent of speed of the emitter, as the aether concept requires), they would have predicted the null result and the experiment would have confirmed their prediction. But they used c'=c, predicted a different outcome, and the experiment refuted it. So c'=c was proved wrong in 1887, no?
The experiment became compatible with c'=c a few years later, after miraculous fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") were introduced:
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram