|
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject History of Science}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Physics}}.
|
||
(14 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
||
{{ |
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Physics|class=c|importance=low|relativity=yes|hist=yes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{old move|date=23 August 2023|from=Emission theory|destination=Emission theory (relativity)|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1172045583#Requested move 23 August 2023}} |
|||
== I deleted the line about incompatibility witn modern shift experiments == |
== I deleted the line about incompatibility witn modern shift experiments == |
||
Line 63: | Line 66: | ||
[[Special:Contributions/82.69.31.176|82.69.31.176]] ([[User talk:82.69.31.176|talk]]) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
[[Special:Contributions/82.69.31.176|82.69.31.176]] ([[User talk:82.69.31.176|talk]]) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
== Direction of chart recorder? == |
== Direction of chart recorder? == |
||
Line 78: | Line 83: | ||
:::::Really, a simple schematic of the original experiment is more than enough. But if you want to make a more complex graph, maybe you should also create an image based on the cavity experiment of [http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2002/Braxmaier-2002-PRL10401.pdf Braxmaier et al]. --[[User:D.H|D.H]] ([[User talk:D.H|talk]]) 08:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::::Really, a simple schematic of the original experiment is more than enough. But if you want to make a more complex graph, maybe you should also create an image based on the cavity experiment of [http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2002/Braxmaier-2002-PRL10401.pdf Braxmaier et al]. --[[User:D.H|D.H]] ([[User talk:D.H|talk]]) 08:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
I'm having some difficulty understanding Braxmaier's image so that I know what to leave out in providing a simplified view for the typical Wikipedia reader |
I'm having some difficulty understanding Braxmaier's image so that I know what to leave out in providing a simplified view for the typical Wikipedia reader. A good deal of the technology is unfamiliar to me. Fortunately I located [http://www.spektron.de/Publikationen/1998/OL23_1031.pdf this article]. You'll need to give me a few days. [[User:Stigmatella aurantiaca|Stigmatella aurantiaca]] ([[User talk:Stigmatella aurantiaca|talk]]) 05:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
* What is the purpose of f<sub>m</sub>? |
|||
== The luminosity curve that has never been seen was seen in 1999 == |
|||
* EOM pump? |
|||
The luminosity curve that has never been seen (according to Stigmatella aurantiacacan) be found from the British Astronomical Association, http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif |
|||
* AOM? |
|||
[[User:Lord Androcles|Lord Androcles]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
* All of this means that I don't quite understand the feedback loop on the time standard side. In principle, I feel that I should be able to simplify most of the time standard side into block diagram showing a laser, a servo, and a single block representing the iodine time standard, but I don't know how to draw the arrows connecting the blocks. |
|||
== More arguments against traditional refutations of emission == |
|||
While Fox's arguments (and experiment) vis a vis extinction are noted in the Astronomical and Terrestrial Sources sections, his other arguments against the refutations of Tomashek, Michelson, Fizeau, and Sagnac seem to be ignored in the Interferometry section. The conclusion to his 1965 "Evidence Against Emission Theories" paper<ref name=fox65>{{Citation|author=Fox, J. G.|title=Evidence Against Emission Theories|journal=American Journal of Physics|volume=33|issue=1|year=1965|pages=1–17|doi=10.1119/1.1971219|postscript=.|bibcode = 1965AmJPh..33....1F }}</ref> is that ''none'' of the refutations of emission theory (up to that time, of course) bore full weight except for Babcock and Bergman, Filippas and Fox, and Alvager et al. Other experiments could all be either explained or questioned in some way another. The Martinez paper<ref name=martinez>{{Citation|author=Martínez, Alberto A.|journal=Physics in Perspective|title=Ritz, Einstein, and the Emission Hypothesis|pages= 4–28|volume=6|issue=1|doi=10.1007/s00016-003-0195-6|bibcode = 2004PhP.....6....4M|year=2004 }}</ref> goes into that in some detail. Fox's arguments are all the more interesting because he was never anything but fully convinced in the correctness of special relativity. [[User:Pgf|Pgf]] ([[User talk:Pgf|talk]]) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
== Back to front discovery == |
|||
When I first came across special relativity, with its weirdness about changing fundamental things like space and time, it seemed that the Emission theory was an obviously simpler explanation (although I only discovered that term quite recently). Yet the binary star refutation was provide long *after* Einstein's special relativity, and Fox's refutation of that much later again. So Einstein's comment about light being "all mixed up" did not refer to that, in which case what did it refer to? |
|||
Some elaboration on that, particularly in the special relativity section would be helpful.[[User:Tuntable|Tuntable]] ([[User talk:Tuntable|talk]]) 00:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move 23 August 2023 == |
|||
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|||
The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> <b><span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px"><span style="color:#FC0">❯❯❯</span>[[User:Raydann|<span style="color:#fff"> Raydann</span>]][[User talk:Raydann|<sup><i><span style="color:#D3D3D3">(Talk)</span></i></sup>]]</span></b> 20:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
[[:Emission theory]] → {{no redirect|Emission theory (relativity)}} – No clear [[WP:PTOPIC|primary topic]]. [[Emission theory (vision)]] gets over three times as many [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&range=all-time&pages=Emission_theory|Emission_theory_(vision) page views]. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 20:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Stigmatella aurantiaca|Stigmatella aurantiaca]] ([[User talk:Stigmatella aurantiaca|talk]]) 03:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per nom. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 16:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --> |
|||
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 23 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Emission theorytoEmission theory (relativity). The result of the discussion was moved. |
I deleted the line about incompatibility with modern shift experiments,
Because, AFAIK, these experiments don't tend to claim to be run and analysed in such a way to make them useful for comparing the shift predictions of emission theory against those of current theory.
Researchers may well fully expect these results to be incompatible with emission theory, but that's not the same thing as actually having demonstrated it.
If anybody can find supporting arguments or evidence for #4, it can go back in. ErkDemon (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning de Sitter critique: 'This can be expressed in terms of the "extinction effect", and it arguably undermines the cogency of deSitter type evidence based on optical stars.'
the next reference to tests in the x-ray spectrum still looks to me subject potentially to the photon re-emission/ extinction effect. In the atmosphere for example light is reemitted about every millimetre, and this would not exclude x-rays as far as I am aware. This sort of issue for binary stars was raised by [1] - as referred to in [2].
From the discussion:
'it's quite possible to get a result that seems to agree better with emission theory than than SR, and still get it published it in a peer-reviewed journal as supporting SR.'
'(Hasselkamp et al, 1979), the experimenters found twice as much redshift as SR predicted, in line with emission theory's predictions ... but reasoned that since this result was obviously wrong, their detector must have been misaligned,'
'If we mention Ives-Stilwell in this article as a significant result for emission theory, it opens up the debate as to whether the I-S results were "over-optimistic", which is again getting a bit off-topic.'
The passing points mentioned - regrettably not in the article itself - here are enough to cause outrage about such scientists to someone like me who suspects that these points questions the validity of Special relativity over emission theory/ or other doppler theory light applications. Rarely have I seen such unscientific attitudes as referred. There was also Shankland et al's, misrepensentation of the various interferometry data as indicating insignificant fringe shift levels; just because they were all lower than for a 30km/s relatively moving ether (re. orbiting earth). That 'only' interferometerist Dayton Miller, seemed to take any notice of the still significant fringe shifts often found, shouldn't be the sort of attitude used justify the S - R view when partial ether entrainment can be positted for this.
We are then, amidst a dominant view where the rest of us are generally treated as children who need to read another introductory text book on the subject and so forth. This would miss the much more central issues that surround the details of the referred to experiments themselves, along with addressing the counterarguments concerning supposed validation evidence for special relativity. Recently, work in the microwave range questions the applicability of special relativity: [3]See also [4].
To conclude, was much more interested in those extraordinary revelations from the discussion page, than the pat on the back of dominant physics to be found in the main article - would be brilliant to see these points put into article itself..
Many thanks. 82.69.31.176 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1] J G Fox in Am. J. Phys. 30, 297 (1962)
[2] 'Special Relativity' by A P French (1968)
[3] 'Absence of the relativistic transverse Doppler shift at microwave frequencies' H W Thim, Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on; Oct 2003, Vol 52, Issue 5, pp 1660-1664
[4] E Baird 'Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special Relativity.'
82.69.31.176 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
Uploaded a new animation of de Sitter's argument against emission theory. I animated the chart recording of the variable star light curve moving to the right, but should it be going to the left? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some difficulty understanding Braxmaier's image so that I know what to leave out in providing a simplified view for the typical Wikipedia reader. A good deal of the technology is unfamiliar to me. Fortunately I located this article. You'll need to give me a few days. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The luminosity curve that has never been seen (according to Stigmatella aurantiacacan) be found from the British Astronomical Association, http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Lord Androcles —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While Fox's arguments (and experiment) vis a vis extinction are noted in the Astronomical and Terrestrial Sources sections, his other arguments against the refutations of Tomashek, Michelson, Fizeau, and Sagnac seem to be ignored in the Interferometry section. The conclusion to his 1965 "Evidence Against Emission Theories" paper[1] is that none of the refutations of emission theory (up to that time, of course) bore full weight except for Babcock and Bergman, Filippas and Fox, and Alvager et al. Other experiments could all be either explained or questioned in some way another. The Martinez paper[2] goes into that in some detail. Fox's arguments are all the more interesting because he was never anything but fully convinced in the correctness of special relativity. Pgf (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
When I first came across special relativity, with its weirdness about changing fundamental things like space and time, it seemed that the Emission theory was an obviously simpler explanation (although I only discovered that term quite recently). Yet the binary star refutation was provide long *after* Einstein's special relativity, and Fox's refutation of that much later again. So Einstein's comment about light being "all mixed up" did not refer to that, in which case what did it refer to?
Some elaboration on that, particularly in the special relativity section would be helpful.Tuntable (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 20:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Emission theory → Emission theory (relativity) – No clear primary topic. Emission theory (vision) gets over three times as many page views. Schierbecker (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.