User talk:Skeletor 0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User warning templates

Hey, Skeletor. Thanks for helping us warn users about vandalism, like you did with User talk:66.165.205.100. Next time you might want to use one of the User warning templates. They each explain in more detail what the user did wrong, and they come in increasing severity of warnings. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks. May I ask for your suggestion about my following idae?

The Michelson-Morley experiment (M-M E hereafter)

How do we explain the null result of M-M E? My explanation is that our technologies are not good enough to perform M-M E yet. What the scientists had been testing was not the comparison of one ray being split into two rays and then met together to show the interference fringes to observers.

The two rays they had been observing were emitted from different location of the source. Let me use the figure 2 on their paper published in the American Journal of Science Vol. XXXIV, No. 203 – Nov. 1887 to point out the locations of that two rays. The ray refracted through the mirror from a point S to a point R then went on to horizontal path was emitted from the front point of the source. Let me name the horizontal line go through the center of the source of light as centerline. The front point is the intersection of the front sphere of the source and the centerline. Now, let us investigate the reflected ray. We assume that the halftone coating was applied at the far side of the mirror, then the reflected ray would refract into the mirror at the point S to reach the halftone coating at the point R then reflect to the vertical arm from a point Q. When the reflected ray returned from the mirror at the end of vertical arm it would reach the point Q but it would not follow the original refraction path because the direction of the ray returned to Q is different from the ray left Q. The returned ray would refracted to a point P above R so that the last section of the reflected ray would reach a point F’ on the focus of the telescope and PF’ was parallel to RF. The distance between them was larger when the length of the arm was longer. That meant the reflected ray saw by scientists was emitted from another point of the source.

The second ray met the forwarded ray in front of the observer was actually emitted from a point below and so that behind the front point. Because the second ray had to reach the halftone mirror at a point below S so that the new path would reach the point R then reach the point F. That was the only possible path allowing the second ray to meet the forwarded ray in front of observers. If the speed of the lab was faster, the second ray would be emitted from a lower, so that more behind, position of the source to meet the first ray at the focus of the telescope.

When physicists rotated the experiment-table clockwise or counter-clockwise, the two emitting points on the source for the two rays would change accordingly. The total length of the horizontal path would increase because its emitting point would move away from the front point however the effect from the ether about spending more time on same distance would decrease because the horizontal path would point away from the moving direction of the experiment-table, or the lab. That pair of increasing and decreasing would reduce the change of the total time for the forwarded ray to complete its journey.

The total length of the path of the second ray would decrease because its emitting point would move toward the front point but the ether effect would increase. When the rotation reached 90degree both rays reached the biggest change and if the rotation continued the situation would be reversed back except the second ray was emitted from above and behind the front point. I believe that is the main reason most physicists could not find the full amount of expected change when they rotated the experiment-table.

Thanks again. John C. Huang (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

Thanks for your reply. The speed of light is the same, but as they ignored the distance between the parallel section RF and PF', they did not know when the table turned 45 degree clockwise, RF and PF' would meet, then RF and PF' would separate again. They were actually comparing two rays from the source most time except at 135, 225, and 315 degrees.

Let me update my explanation, I found out a better way:

The second ray met the forwarded ray in front of the observer was actually emitted from a point below (and so that behind) the front point. Because the second ray had to reach the halftone mirror at a point below S so that the new path would reach the point R then reach the point F. That was the only possible path allowing the second ray to meet the forwarded ray at last section RF. If the speed of the lab was faster, the second ray would be emitted from a lower position of the source to meet the first ray at the focus of the telescope.

When physists rotated the experiment-table clockwise the two emitting points on the source for the two rays would change accordingly. The total length of the horizontal path would increase because its emitting point would move away from the front point however the expected effect from the ether about spending more time on same distance would decrease because the horizontal path would point away from the moving direction of the experiment-table. That pair of increasing and decreasing would reduce the change of the total time for the forwarded ray to complete its journey.

The total length of the path of the second ray would decrease because its emitting point would move toward the front point but the ether effect would increase. When the rotation reached 45 degree then the last section of rays would be vertical. After that, the forwarded ray will go longer path but using shorter time for the same distance. When the rotation reached 90degree both rays reached the biggest change and if the rotation continued the situation would be reversed back that two rays would meet at 135degree again then the forwarded ray would move back to front point at 180 degree where the reflected ray was above it. I believe that is the main reason most scientists could not find the full amount of expected change when they rotated the experiment-table .

Here is the chart of the changes, F(for forwarded ray), R(for reflected ray), and the numbers are degrees:

                                                         /
               |----------------> 90F                   /
                |---------------> 135F&R               /
                 |--------------> 90R                 / 
                  |-------------> 180R,45F&R         /
                   |------------> 180F              /
Source of light    |------------> 0F               /
                  |-------------> 0R,225F&R       /
                 |--------------> 270R           /
                |---------------> 315F&R        /
               |----------------> 270F         /
                                              /

John C. Huang (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The null result

To make sure the emitted ray is coming from a single point, the source of light should have a tiny volume so that people could not really make the front of the source a plane plate like the line of > in the figure of last section. Most likely, the front end of a tiny source of light will be made as a sphere by the technology today. When the diameter of the sphere is 200nm, the paths difference between 0 degree and 90 degree can be 30nm while the expected fringes difference is about 550nmx0.04=22nm. I will look into more detail. Thanks. John C. Huang (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In reply to your post on my user talk page

I replied to you there. —teb728 t c 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)