| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
|
李子丰教授以决议的形式反对相对论，算是一个“创造”。 刘久明教授是签名者之一。 在中国竟然出现这样的闹剧，也算是一大奇迹。 |
|
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， 我以前写的东西是给那些反相，但是连相对论还没有看懂的人写的，比如：QSTT和西路陈诚等。对于您，副教授，我就不能再用大是大非，黑白分明的腔调说话了。 物理虽然是求真的工作，但是物理界从来不说自己的研究成果是真理。他们常用的字是发现，结论，验证，理论，假设，主流，接受，相信等字眼。物理界总是充满了分歧的。有分歧，大家讨论一下，深入研究一下：消除了分歧，不见得是好事；分歧继续存在不见得是坏事。科学界对于研究成果的判定有一项叫相容性。数学界曾经提出一个问题：现在的数学结论都相容吗？到现在没有答案。连数学这种纯理论的，最严谨的东西都不能相容，更何况物理呢。物理比数学还多了个实验部分。 相对论在物理界是主流，没有谁强迫你接受理论。主流和非主流是互相尊重的。大家都是做学问。所以反相活动变得很滑稽。物理界是允许分歧的。我前边说了：消除了分歧，不见得是好事；分歧继续存在不见得是坏事。换言之，分与合对于做学问没有太大关系。可反相却想统一，还要多数服从少数。有点像唐吉格的：自己想象一个敌人，然后去战斗。从娱乐角度上很不错。 关于迷信，进而迷信地推崇相对论的问题 这个问题我觉得跟学界没什么关系。这些问题和教育界，政界，以及国民的意识关系很大。至于推崇相对论是否正确，还是两分的。你们一棒子打到学界，有些过份了。 教育界与学界看似前店后厂的关系，实际不是。教育与学界有各自的宗旨和教规。教育界可以向学界，社会，政界等采购，自己包装一下，再卖出去。教育的目的应该是传授知识，培养能力等等。国内教育在传授知识方面做得不错，但是在培养能力方面却远远不够。学生有点像鸭子，刚开始还问问为什么，后来就是给什么吃什么。你不吃，考试通不过。所有人都对你说相对论是对的，你就认为它是对的。迷信就产生了。你们反相应该向教育界多打几下。 政界推崇相对论，赞扬爱因斯坦，目的主要是宣扬科学精神。始作俑者肯定知道相对论是主流才用它作素材。为了宣传，就将分歧那部分删掉了。这么做，我认为是可以接受的。毕竟无数中外科学家都是听着爱因斯坦的故事投身学界。 有人说爱因斯坦的成名以及相对论的推崇是物理界的一个阴谋。我读了许多国外关于相对论的文章，没有一个字提到上述事情。估计是编的吧。 最后关于您我想说几句。 您在这个论坛已经好几年了。相必对您的战友的水准应该清楚地很。我认为您是懂相对论的。可是我从来没看见您对您战友的文章发表过批评意见。他们文章里的很多问题是很显而易见。您在讨论问题上是不是有些义字当头？作为搞学问的您应该求真，搞教育的您应该解惑。这是您的职业操守。QSTT有篇批评洛仑兹变换的文章如下，请你给他讲讲。我的话他是不会听的。
请看狭义相对论的时空关系的荒谬推导 |
|
fuj0先生:
谢谢您转过来的关于新以太各种观点的资料。 其实大家都知道，关于绝对静止以太假设的错误，不论主流科学还是我们这些民科。 但关于可拖拽以太的假设也是由来已久的，这种可拖拽以太已经完全不同于那个原始的、绝对镜子的、完全刚性的以太概念。 不同形式的验证实验一直在进行当中，其实大可不必。其实就连主流科学也知道现有各种实验的相对论、量子力学等解释之间存在不可调和的矛盾，只要用可拖拽以太假设解释这些实验时不会产生那些矛盾，就能够表明可拖拽以太假设比起光速不变假设来更值得信任。 我用可拖拽以太对您给出的光行差、斐索实验、迈莫实验、铯原子钟飞行实验进行了粗略的评价。其实不仅如此，我还可以用这种可拖拽以太来解释宇宙边缘物质的扩散机制、引力异常、引力透镜等实验现象。并且引用这种架设的可拖拽以太，不会产生诸如双生子、飞杆、黄新卫杠杆等著名悖论。 当然我赋于可拖拽以太的这些性质，是在试图解释现有实验时逐渐完善起来的，不比为正式这种以太的存在而进行怒力，我现在经常思考的，是在什么情况下有可能推翻关于这种可拖拽以太的假设。这个目前来看也很难，我的这种以太假设也开成了万金油了，没有确定它的存在状态，所以怎么需要，就怎么赋予它的性质，当然所有后加入的性质多不能违背先前定义的性质。 目前这中可拖拽以太的性质大致可以描述如下： 这种以太是一种实在的粒子，以一种超气体形式存在；（比已知粒子还小，比气体分之间距还要大） 这种以太不会大量渗透到物体中，甚至也不能渗透到空气中；（就象空气不能渗透到水中那样） 这种以太在太空中的分布是不均匀的；（向引力场附近集中，向真空区域扩散） 这种以太对星体的运行会产生阻力；（但由于万有引力的重新分布，以太的阻力不足以时星体运动停下来） 这种以太可被运动物体进行附层面拖拽；（其附层面的厚度将与运动物体的质量、速度和表面粗糙度有关） 这种以太是光线和引力的传播媒介。（以太的密度将影响光和力传播的速度，没有以太的真空中不能传播） 您看这样一些性质够不够解释您说听说过的实验的，有没有需要补充的建议？ 另外，不知您是否喜欢下棋，平时您在街上看到摆滩下棋的是否也愿意伸手指点？反正我是不会轻易出手的。 反相学者我比较尊敬黄德民、刘岳泉、陈诚等喜欢研究的人。维相学者我与ptg是朋友，同时我也比较敬重沈建其的。 另外，自从秦皇岛签名后大家知道我是个副教授，虽然如此，但我还是要告诉大家，我不是靠物理学吃饭的，所以我仍然是民科。我喜欢非主流，科学的历史总是由非主流改写的，这一点决不夸张。 |
|
fuj0
你既然来到这个论坛,你要面对所以人提出的理论问题,不要讲题外话!也不要理会别人讲题外话!! 就事论事,以理服人. 任何复杂的问题理论,都可以用简单语言来描述,这才是真正的爱因斯坦!! |
| 思维是我们认知的唯一方法，我们所有的观点和结论都是思维的产物，如果不首先确定宇宙是否遵守思维逻辑，那就无法证明思维逻辑是否是衡量一切观点和结论的标准，今天的物理学认为宇宙不完全可知，不完全遵守思维逻辑，因此也认为思维逻辑不是衡量一切观点和结论的绝对标准，我们已经没有必要按着思维逻辑在此讨论任何问题，不会有任何结果，你说你的理，他说他的理，大家把思维逻辑定为评判所有观点和结论对错的标准，却又矢口否认，这样争论下去，只能是泛泛而论，没有结论，我的话就算是结论吧，别争论了，没意义。我看大家还是把时间用在证明宇宙是否遵守思维逻辑数学逻辑因果逻辑上更好。只要证明宇宙遵守思维逻辑，或不遵守思维逻辑，一切就都水落石出了。 |
|
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。 |