- Dec 27, 2022
- 467
- 14
- 1,685
View: https://x.com/pentcho_valev/status/1928029895461839275
ME
"the [Michelson-Morley] experiment cannot decide between an emission theory of light or one based on the light postulate" https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.pdf
Originally, prior to the introduction of length contraction, the M-M experiment DID decide in favor of the emission theory. @grok?
"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
"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
GROK
The Michelson-Morley experiment's null result in 1887 was initially ambiguous, not definitively favoring the emission theory despite some early support, like from Ritz. Before length contraction was proposed, the emission theory was one interpretation, but it wasn't conclusive. Later experiments, like binary star observations and moving source tests, contradicted emission theory predictions, showing light speed is independent of source motion. Special relativity, incorporating length contraction and time dilation, better explains the null result and broader phenomena. The claim that the experiment originally supported emission theory oversimplifies the historical debate; evidence strongly supports Einstein's framework.
ME
In 1887, the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and, in the absence of the length-contraction fudge factor, incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light, c'=c. Yes or no, @grok?
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
GROK
Yes
ME
"the [Michelson-Morley] experiment cannot decide between an emission theory of light or one based on the light postulate" https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.pdf
Originally, prior to the introduction of length contraction, the M-M experiment DID decide in favor of the emission theory. @grok?
"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
"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
GROK
The Michelson-Morley experiment's null result in 1887 was initially ambiguous, not definitively favoring the emission theory despite some early support, like from Ritz. Before length contraction was proposed, the emission theory was one interpretation, but it wasn't conclusive. Later experiments, like binary star observations and moving source tests, contradicted emission theory predictions, showing light speed is independent of source motion. Special relativity, incorporating length contraction and time dilation, better explains the null result and broader phenomena. The claim that the experiment originally supported emission theory oversimplifies the historical debate; evidence strongly supports Einstein's framework.
ME
In 1887, the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and, in the absence of the length-contraction fudge factor, incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light, c'=c. Yes or no, @grok?
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
GROK
Yes
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram