| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
|
光速不变不是假设，是实验验证过的 ======================= 看来你们是来自于至少半个世纪以前“一心专读圣贤书”之人呀，你所指网站和其他所有的“实验验证过的”我都用不着与你们争什么，也根本就没时间与你们争，只是无论中国的“闹剧”还是世界的“闹剧”问题，这就要看谁能笑到最后了！ ※※※※※※ 相对论误导科学走斜路，道是非曲折待历史见证；引力场以太旧貌焕新颜，作定海神柱将扭转乾坤。持一份平和心态闯科海，能生命当歌也荣辱以乐；唯真理艰难求索胸怀广，可气吞山河再平展时空。 |
|
刘先生，给你一个关于以太拖拽的文章。想必可以解释你的疑惑。相对论毕竟是外国人的玩艺，中文版本看起来总不如原文顺。再加上我们的翻译的对象也不一定是第一手的。可能是从老毛子那里翻过来的。文章的一些公式贴不上，抱歉。我还有些话，见下贴 The aether drag hypothesis was an early attempt to explain the way experiments such as Arago's experiment showed that the speed of light> is constant. The aether drag hypothesis is now considered to be incorrect by mainstream science.According to the aether drag hypothesis light propagates in a special medium, the aether>, that remains attached to things as they move. If this is the case then, no matter how fast the earth moves around the sun or rotates on its axis, light on the surface of the earth would travel at a constant velocity.The primary reason the aether drag hypothesis is considered invalid is because of the occurrence of stellar aberration>. In stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of swing is the amount expected when considering the speed of earth's travel in its orbit. In 1871 Airy> demonstrated that stellar aberration occurs even when a telescope is filled with water. It seems that if the aether drag hypothesis were true then stellar aberration would not occur because the light would be travelling in the aether which would be moving along with the telescope.If you visualize a bucket on a train about to enter a tunnel and a drop of water drips from the tunnel entrance into the bucket at the very center, the drop will not hit the center at the bottom of the bucket. The bucket is the tube of a telescope, the drop is a photon and the train is the earth. If aether is dragged then the droplet would be traveling with the train when it is dropped and would hit the center of bucket at the bottom.However, some modified versions of the hypothesis are still held by some dissidents that argue that aether drag may happen on a global (or larger) scale and the aberration is merely transferred into the entrained "bubble" around the earth which then faithfully carries the modified angle of incidence directly to the observer. This larger entrainment effect was believed by some scientists such as Dayton Miller> who continued the search for aether many years after the widespread acceptance of relativity.The amount of stellar aberration, α, is given by:So:The speed at which the earth goes round the sun, v = 30 km/s, and the speed of light is c = 299,792,458 m/s which gives α = 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of aberration is observed and this contradicts the aether drag hypothesis.In 1818 Fresnel> introduced a modification to the aether drag hypothesis that only applies to the interface between media. This was accepted during much of the nineteenth century but has now been replaced by special theory of relativity> (see below). The aether drag hypothesis is historically important because it was one of the reasons why Newton's corpuscular theory of light was replaced by the wave theory and it is used in early explanations of light propagation without relativity theory. It originated as a result of early attempts to measure the speed of light.In 1810 François Arago> realised that variations in the refractive index of a substance predicted by the corpuscular theory would provide a useful method for measuring the velocity of light. These predictions arose because the refractive index> of a substance such as glass depends on the ratio of the velocities of light in air and in the glass. Arago attempted to measure the extent to which corpuscles of light would be refracted by a glass prism at the front of a telescope. He expected that there would be a range of different angles of refraction due to the variety of different velocities of the stars and the motion of the earth at different times of the day and year. Contrary to this expectation he found that that there was no difference in refraction between stars, between times of day or between seasons. All Arago observed was ordinary stellar aberration.In 1818 Augustin Jean Fresnel> examined Arago's results using a wave theory of light. He realised that even if light were transmitted as waves the refractive index of the glass-air interface should have varied as the glass moved through the aether to strike the incoming waves at different velocities when the earth rotated and the seasons changed.Fresnel proposed that the glass prism would carry some of the aether along with it so that "..the aether is in excess inside the prism". He realised that the velocity of propagation of waves depends on the density of the medium so proposed that the velocity of light in the prism would need to be adjusted by an amount of 'drag'.The velocity of light vn in the glass without any adjustment is given by:The drag adjustment vd is given by:Where ρe is the aether density in the environment, ρg is the aether density in the glass and v is the velocity of the prism with respect to the aether.The factor can be written as because the refractive index, n, would be dependent on the density of the aether. This is known as the Fresnel drag coefficient.The velocity of light in the glass is then given by:This correction was successful in explaining the null result of Arago's experiment. It introduces the concept of a largely stationary aether that is dragged by substances such as glass but not by air. Its success favoured the wave theory of light over the previous corpuscular theory.The Fresnel drag coefficient was confirmed by an interferometer> experiment performed by Fizeau>. Water was passed at high speed along two glass tubes that formed the optical paths of the interferometer and it was found that the fringe shifts were as predicted by the drag coefficient.The special theory of relativity> predicts the result of the Fizeau experiment from the velocity addition theorem without any need for an aether.If V is the velocity of light relative to the Fizeau apparatus and U is the velocity of light relative to the water and v is the velocity of the water:which, if v/c is small can be expanded using the binomial expansion to become:This is identical to Fresnel's equation.It may appear as if Fresnel's analysis can be substituted for the relativistic approach, however, more recent work has shown that Fresnel's assumptions should lead to different amount of aether drag for different frequencies of light and violate Snell's law> (see Ferraro and Sforza (2005)).The aether drag hypothesis was one of the arguments used in an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment> before the widespread acceptance of the special theory of relativity> The aether drag hypothesis is historically important because it was one of the reasons why Newton's corpuscular theory of light was replaced by the wave theory and it is used in early explanations of light propagation without relativity theory. It originated as a result of early attempts to measure the speed of light.In 1810 François Arago> realised that variations in the refractive index of a substance predicted by the corpuscular theory would provide a useful method for measuring the velocity of light. These predictions arose because the refractive index> of a substance such as glass depends on the ratio of the velocities of light in air and in the glass. Arago attempted to measure the extent to which corpuscles of light would be refracted by a glass prism at the front of a telescope. He expected that there would be a range of different angles of refraction due to the variety of different velocities of the stars and the motion of the earth at different times of the day and year. Contrary to this expectation he found that that there was no difference in refraction between stars, between times of day or between seasons. All Arago observed was ordinary stellar aberration.In 1818 Augustin Jean Fresnel> examined Arago's results using a wave theory of light. He realised that even if light were transmitted as waves the refractive index of the glass-air interface should have varied as the glass moved through the aether to strike the incoming waves at different velocities when the earth rotated and the seasons changed.Fresnel proposed that the glass prism would carry some of the aether along with it so that "..the aether is in excess inside the prism". He realised that the velocity of propagation of waves depends on the density of the medium so proposed that the velocity of light in the prism would need to be adjusted by an amount of 'drag'.The velocity of light vn in the glass without any adjustment is given by:The drag adjustment vd is given by:Where ρe is the aether density in the environment, ρg is the aether density in the glass and v is the velocity of the prism with respect to the aether.The factor can be written as because the refractive index, n, would be dependent on the density of the aether. This is known as the Fresnel drag coefficient.The velocity of light in the glass is then given by:This correction was successful in explaining the null result of Arago's experiment. It introduces the concept of a largely stationary aether that is dragged by substances such as glass but not by air. Its success favoured the wave theory of light over the previous corpuscular theory.The Fresnel drag coefficient was confirmed by an interferometer> experiment performed by Fizeau>. Water was passed at high speed along two glass tubes that formed the optical paths of the interferometer and it was found that the fringe shifts were as predicted by the drag coefficient.The special theory of relativity> predicts the result of the Fizeau experiment from the velocity addition theorem without any need for an aether.If V is the velocity of light relative to the Fizeau apparatus and U is the velocity of light relative to the water and v is the velocity of the water:which, if v/c is small can be expanded using the binomial expansion to become:This is identical to Fresnel's equation.It may appear as if Fresnel's analysis can be substituted for the relativistic approach, however, more recent work has shown that Fresnel's assumptions should lead to different amount of aether drag for different frequencies of light and violate Snell's law> (see Ferraro and Sforza (2005)).The aether drag hypothesis was one of the arguments used in an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment> before the widespread acceptance of the special theory of relativity> |
|
刘先生， 有一篇关于以太文章节选，供你参考 Today, the majority of physicists hold that there is no need to imagine that a medium for light propagation exists. They believe that neither Einstein's general theory of relativity nor quantum mechanics have need for it and that there is no evidence for it. As such, a classical aether is an unnecessary addition to physics that violates the principle of Occam's razor. Moreover, it is hard to develop an aether theory that is consistent with all experiments of modern physics. Any new theory of aether must be consistent with all of the experiments testing phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, relativistic quantum mechanics, and so on. As outlined earlier, these conditions are often contradictory, making such a task inherently difficult. Nevertheless the intuitive appeal of a causal background for "relativistic" effects cannot be denied. Some physicists hold that there remain a number of problems in modern physics that are simplified by an aether concept, so that Occam's razor doesn't apply. A very small number of physicists (like Dayton Miller[13] and Edward Morley) continued research on the aether into the first decades of the 20th century. A number of new aether concepts have been proposed in recent years. However, most of these aethers differ considerably from the classical luminiferous aether. Maurizio Consoli of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Catania, Sicily, argues in Physics Letters A (vol 333, p 355) that any Michelson-Morley type of experiment carried out in a vacuum will show no difference in the speed of light even if there is an aether. According to him, electroweak theory and quantum field theory suggest that light could appear to move at different speeds in different directions in a medium such as a dense gas in contradiction with special relativity; the speed of light would be sensitive to motion relative to an aether and the refractive index of the medium. Consoli and Evelina Costanzo propose an experiment with laser light passing through cavities filled with a relatively dense gas. With the Earth passing through an aether wind, light would travel faster in one direction than in the perpendicular direction.[14] Consoli and Constanzo have not run the proposed experiment. The mathematical treatment of their paper does not use the relativistic dragging coefficient to account for the speed of light in a moving medium, and most physicists regard this as an elementary error that leads to their incorrect conclusions. Their paper is very similar to another similarly flawed paper by Reg Cahill ("R.T. Cahill A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected, in Progress in Physics, vol 4 , 2006" ), another proponent of an experiment that would detect the elusive "preferential frame". Cahill claims to have detected absolute motion with respect to a preferential frame but his paper suffers from the same mathematical shortcomings as the Consoli-Constanzo paper as well as from lack of experimental error bars in his experimental data processing. Consequently, their research had no impact on the physics community. |
|
对【10楼】说： 呵呵，解决 the principle of Occam's razor 的问题还不容易，学学相对论：凡是用常理解释不通的都叫“原理”，凡是可以玩魔术的地方都用“变换”来解决，这样你就可以凭空提出一个不需要任何假设而又“自恰”的理论，例如根据迈-莫实验就可把“光速不变”上升为“原理”，同样也可以用减缓生物代谢方法延长寿命的实验提出人不吃不喝而长生不老的“长寿原理”，还有我那人变魔鬼的洛伦兹变换方法，要提出一个新的理论还需要假设吗？
说句老实话，关于以太方面的文章和资料我在网上也看到不少，也的确都有各方面的严重缺陷，我现在提出的“引力场以太”虽然名字相同的不少，其中就有爱因斯坦本人的以太观，但是概念却完全不同。既然这以太要承截光波，那么电磁力与引力的统一就是必然推论，可是最近我一直没有解决统一系数问题，我相信这里面一定有什么必然的内在联系。
对于已知现象的解释问题，我现在只缺乏两方面的资料，一是原子钟电磁振荡频率与光波产生共振的工作原理在地面上是否与方向有关，二是洛伦兹如何根据以太论提出他的电子理论的，我现在怀疑自己在重复洛伦兹当年的工作，因为他推导出的好几个公式都被我的方法重现了。如果有谁能向我提供相关资料，我将感激不尽。 ※※※※※※ 相对论误导科学走斜路，道是非曲折待历史见证；引力场以太旧貌焕新颜，作定海神柱将扭转乾坤。持一份平和心态闯科海，能生命当歌也荣辱以乐；唯真理艰难求索胸怀广，可气吞山河再平展时空。 |
|
to:fuj0
你不是爱因斯坦!!! 你只对那些你熟悉的问题问答,触到痛楚,你就1）装作没看见!! |
|
fuj0 ,我们本来有谈不下去之态，你要我们给出意见，说明你还是有些尊重别人，那么你就不要计较我好直言不讳！
你的问题即使作为假设，也无实际意义，我们的回答也是猜测；我还是认为爱因斯坦是追求真理的人，相对论的错误不是故意，是那个时代认识错误的起点。 爱因斯坦发现他的朋友在支持相对论的文章里有一些错误，如果那些按相对论观念看是“错误”的文章，则可出现两种可能：一种是完全胡里胡涂的文章，那么和相对论是否有错误毫不相干，对爱因斯坦无任何帮助！则爱因斯坦善于反驳！第二种是指出相对论的错误的文章，一个人的既有观念难轻易改变，爱因斯坦开始会认为那文章错误而极力争辩，他不是那种装作没看见的品质！争辩中他对别人指出的错误／自相矛盾无法解决时，他一定会重新思考！！如果指出相对论的错误的文章也有部分错误，则爱因斯坦会争辩，只要提出者不是恶意（很没必要也就很不可能是恶意）也会改正。 爱因斯坦觉醒后他会彻底改变观念，保留他的有用思想，丢弃缓缩时空观！ 你fuj0 的最好问答应该是：看到指出相对论的错误的文章，如果你看出那个文章全部错误，你就应不说大话！逐条批驳！我不信只要你说得有理（合逻辑推理），别人不可能不听从！！！如果你有不低的以物理学专业为主的综合知识水平，却批驳不了，则你说的那个文章全部错误一定是你的认识观念错误！而非那个文章错误！！ 你说的：－－－民科定义和他们有什么职业操守－－－，我不讲民科／官科，凡以官科自诩者必是自我标榜！自称民科者，常是对那些自命正统并使用国家经费研究者的谦称加讽刺。只要不是闹着玩耍的“民科”，基本上都是有专业技术知识的至少是较高水平的人！他们这类人尊崇科学技术！他们只有追求科学－－真理的用心！而且专业技术知识的求索认真负责而严格！好发现问题和纠正错误（包括本身），如果不是物理专业出身，总有其专业问题涉及物理等基础理论问题，这时才去学相对论，结果发现了相对论的逻辑推理有问题！就会批驳！且大有可能想如何纠正！无论纠正是否都正确也是如此！这就是他们的职业操守！ 这只能是大致的粗略回答！ |
|
关于“你认为爱因斯坦应该怎么做？” 如果我是爱因斯坦，这个问题按我自己的方式处理就算回答了，可我不是，我无法替爱因斯坦回答。 我们可以从爱因斯坦的行为中间接查找答案。鉴于爱因斯坦曾给人讲关于火炉旁的少女的传说，我猜测，爱因斯坦的做法是，不管你是否真正理解了相对论，你必须相信相对论是正确的。 |