[Physics] Double Slit experiment and our motion through space

[Norm Silliman]

Hello Doug,

	Thanks for educating us in the use of the double slit .   Sounds like you are going through the same logical arguments that Michelson went though 150 years ago.

	If you want to detect relative motion you need a machine that will tell you that something is moving around/near by you.  Einstein says that there so No Aether, so he is not help,

	We  have machines that will tell us how fast we are going relative to the air,  and machines for telling us how fast our boat is going, and our cars is traveling.

	So, my best guess it to ignore Einstein, and use the flow of aether to tell us about our relative  motion.

	We don’t have a vehicles that can go more that a few thousands mile an hour.  So we can can’t get very far from other known light sources.  We can use them to calculate our ‘relative’ speed.


	You said that you can’t detect motion with your machine.  Your machine should detect motion, IF you are pointed where the Flow is located.  Michelson found out that there is no motion at the surface  of the Eath.  I used Michelson’s machine and found motion.

	All you have to do is turn your  machine on its edge.

      Live Long and Prosper,
      Norm


From: Doug Marett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:03 AM
To: General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list
Subject: Re: [Physics] Double Slit experiment and our motion through space

Hi Gentlemen,
    I already accept that the experiment won't detect our motion through space (I have already tried it )- I am just trying to explain why the result would be the same whether there was an aether or not. In my mind this is not that complicated - if we are  approaching the preferred frame, then the speed of light becomes C-v in our frame  (where v is the velocity of approach) and because v = freq. x wavelength, the wavelength must become shorter, as is shown in the picture (since the frequency can't change between the co-moving source and receiver). When the wavelengths shorten, the fringes contract, but because the screen is also receding from the preferred frame,the fringes have more time to expand and then they land on the same place on the screen. SO this is really just about asking if we can logically expect a shorter wavelength and a longer path, which would cancel out in principle. Does that idea make sense in principle? 
I modeled this in a straight forward Excel spreadsheet calculating the point of intersection of two expanding circles that differ by 1 wavelength, and the answer comes out to be the same to within 1 part in 300,000. So it is not the calculation I am concerned with - it is whether this argument is logically correct. : )
thanks,
Doug

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
    I am trying to develop a model to explain why a double slit experiment can't reveal our motion through space. Some people have argued that if we were moving through a preferred frame of reference for light, that the double slit fringe pattern would be broadened or narrowed depending on which direction we were pointing. I have attempted to counter this idea by suggesting that any motion of a co-moving source/observer through a preferred frame would cause both a change in the velocity of light and a change in the wavelength, in equal measure (in order to preserve v= f x lambda) and that this change in wavelength would be such that the interference fringes would contract or expand just enough to exactly land at the identical spot on the moving screen. I can attach a picture to illustrate this, if anyone can tell me if this seems correct or needs revision, it would be appreciated. I have also modelled it in Excel. I also have an explanation in the attached .pdf. 
Feedback would be appreciated.
thanks,
Doug Marett


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20171216/73f69f5d/attachment.html>