View Single Post
  #51  
Old 09-06-2010, 10:32 AM
Jarvamundo (Alex)
Registered User

Jarvamundo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
Even if the detector is mounted on the turnatable and is not at the same radial distance as the splitter and mirrors it will have a different tangent velocity. It is in a different frame of reference. The observed interference pattern is still caused by path length differences.
Not at same radial distance to a non rotating observer. But to me, the whole experiment is rotating... cos well... it is.

Quote:
Wrong. A universal or absolute frame of reference implies that time is absolute for all observers. If you run the turntable fast enough you will find a clock on the turntable will run slower than a clock in an inertial frame. The clock on the turntable is in an accelerated frame of reference.
bingo, the clock runs slower. Time is an invention of the clock.

Quote:
Wrong. The emitter is not an observer. It is not a measuring device.
The result (measuring device) and observer in this circumstance are the same.

Regards

Steven
yes it is... it sent the signal, the receiver received it. Tangental velocities are only due to the 3rd observer.

two points = a line
a tangent to a line = 3rd point.

Your statements of geometry are contradictory, you cannot have a tangent without the 3rd observer. If you can draw, on paper, a tangent without 3 points, i'd be keen to see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
Only the splitter and mirrors rotate. The detector and the source are stationary in the observer's frame of reference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
Put the CCD on the turnatable and you won't get an interference pattern.
The CCD is now the "observer".
This is the same as rotating the room containing the observer and the interferometer. The observer is now stationary relative to the interferometer as they are now both in the same frame of reference.
I've done that by referring to the experiment. You are still introducing tangents.

Anyways, i think we see where we disagree. I'm happy with that.

Modern Nonlineor Optics, Part 3, Second Edited by Myron W. Evans. Series Editors I.
ISBN 0-471-38932-3 O 2001 John Wilev Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Volume I19, Prigogine and Stuart A. Rice. & Sons, Inc

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...milan_meszaros

I'd be keen to see a ccd on the table, will post here if it is found.

Last edited by Jarvamundo; 09-06-2010 at 10:49 AM.
Reply With Quote