Talk:Fizeau experiment

HoekExperiment1.png

The illustration seems to imply that Hoek, in this version of his experiment, was testing different colors of light for differences in aether drag. Is this in fact the case? Otherwise, why the prism? Thanks - Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

See s:fr:Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée. Hoek only says that the prism was used to "analyze" the ray (p. 190), and partly enters it by refraction (see description below fig. 2, p. 191). He doesn't mention that he was testing differences in aether drag due to different colors. --D.H (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. "Analyze" means to spread out into a spectrum. The light in one circuit is retarded 7/600 mm with respect to the other. That corresponds to about 30 wavelengths of violet light or 17 wavelengths of deep red light, so there should be 13 fringes across a full spectrum. Hoek says 10 fringes, which is close enough... he wasn't using the whole spectrum, but probably only the brightest part from red to blue. Dispersion effects are very small in comparison. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A remark that doesn't exactly seem to fit

On April 21, Czyx added the remark that I've put in bold face: "Fizeau's experiment is hence supporting evidence for the collinear case of Einstein's velocity addition formula.and the earliest refutation of the emission theory of light". While Czyx seemed well-intentioned, I'm not exactly sure that his addition could be considered true (nor untrue), and the emission theory of light was certainly not considered an important topic of debate in 1851. I'd like to remove his remark as out of place. Thoughts on this? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, emission theories are not the topic here. --D.H (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. BTW, can you check over Martin Hoek? Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice article

It would surely pass a GA review with a just a little bit of work. Nice job! YohanN7 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! This article is mostly what it is because of D.H's efforts, who is now retired from Wikipedia. My role was mostly to translate his Germanic English idiosyncrasies into standard English, besides a few minor additions of my own. I wish there was some way I could let D.H know that his work is still very much appreciated. Anyhow, I'll go over the article against the GA standards before nominating. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, there is a new summary section of the main article [here]. YohanN7 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fizeau experiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fearstreetsaga (talk · contribs) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Good job on the article; it was a very interesting read. Comments:

Lead

• The citations in the lead aren't needed since the content appears elsewhere in the article

Y Deleted citations in lede after double-checking body of article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Fresnel drag coefficient

• "velocity v" --> "speed v"

Y Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ref S6: No page number

Will pay visit to university library on weekend Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Y I was a bit confused since S6 is now S3 because of the removal of the lede citations. Using the rp template, I've added the page range 15–20 to the section discussing Einstein's addition formula. To be completely precise, Lorentz's comment on the dispersive term is on page 18, but I'd rather cite the complete section.

• The use of punctuation after an equation is inconsistent. E.g., a period is placed after Lorentz's formula under this section but is missing from his formula under "Lorentz's interpretation".

Y Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Repetitions

• "Fizeau's tubes were of small diameter resulting in observational difficulties" Could you elaborate on this?

Y I also elaborated on "there were uncertainties in Fizeau's determination of flow rate" since this is a related issue that Michelson also addressed. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hoek experiment

• I suggest adding a caption explaining what the spectrums in the image represent. It's not immediately obvious just by looking at the image alone.

Y Added caption. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

• "see section above" A link to the relevant section would be useful

Y Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• "On one hand, the aberration of light, the Fizeau experiment and the repetition by Michelson and Morley in 1886 appeared to prove the (almost) stationary aether with partial aether-dragging." Too verbose. What about something like "On one hand, the aberration of light, the Fizeau experiment and the repetition by Michelson and Morley in 1886 appeared to support partial aether-dragging."

Y Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lorentz's interpretation

• S1: No page number

Y S1 is now S10 because of removal from references from lede. Added appropriate page numbers via rp template.

• "He succeeded in deriving Fresnel's dragging coefficient by the reaction of the moving water upon the interfering waves" The meaning of this is unclear to me

Y I hope that the following wording represents an improvement? "He succeeded in deriving Fresnel's dragging coefficient as the result of an interaction between the moving water with an undragged aether." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Derivation in special relativity

• "approximating to the first non-trivial correction" Could you define this?

Y Replaced with "dropping higher order terms" Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• There appears to be an inconsistency italicizing v and c throughout the article: In this section there are v and c that are italicized and not italicized

Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Y Italicized. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fearstreetsaga: Article should be ready for your re-review. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Great work. I'm satisfied this article meets the GA criteria, so I'll pass it. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Fresnel Dragging can be explained by Classical Physics

The effect known as Fresnel Dragging can be fully explained and visualized in terms of Classical Physics when the transmission of light through moving optical media (such as water) is modeled as a process of continual absorption and emission rather than a continuous process determined by the medium’s refractive index. Previously the result of the famous Fizeau experiment has been explained using Special Relativity, however Classical Physics can explain the effect.

This link show the maths and explanation for Fresnel Dragging using only Classical Physics: http://gpcpublishing.com/index.php?journal=gjp&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=386

Declan Traill (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept wp:original research (see wp:NOTFORUM), and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (see wp:PROMOTION). Wikipedia needs reliable relevant wp:secondary sources. This was explained extensively to you at Talk:Michelson–Morley_experiment#The_Lorentz_Ether_Theory_should_be_acknowledged_as_a_possible_alternative_to_Special_Relativity. Contunuing this will get you blocked and the publishing site likely blacklisted. - DVdm (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Link to french page

This article is about the experiment to measure the relative speed of light in a moving medium. The french page in link is about the measure of the speed of light (between Montmartre and Mont Valérien, in Paris). Stefjourdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.106.8 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to Fizeau's 1849 paper Sur une experience relative a la vitesse de propagation de la lumière. I don't see that paper referenced in this article. Is one of the links in the article inadvertently leading to that paper, even though the link references another? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There still is a link to a page of the French Wikipedia that is not about this experiment but something else Hippolyte Fizeau has done.

Fresnel dragging coefficient?

Exactly, Fresnel dragging coefficient should be rather called dragging factor or dragging ratio being dimensionless. See ISO/IEC 80000 series standards for terms coefficient, factor, ratio. JOb 22:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You will have to convince the literature first:

Google	Scholar	Books
"Fresnel dragging coefficient"	99	433
"Fresnel drag coefficient"	171	584

- DVdm (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding my signature. Just, I have improved that, and the title too.

Concerning frequency of using (Fresnel dragging) coefficient, nothing to do -- you are right, too.

Concerning definitions of coefficient and factor, see Electropedia:

IEV ref 112-03-03

coefficient

quotient of two quantities of different dimensions, used as a multiplier to express the proportionality equation between them

Note 1 – A coefficient is a quantity having a dimension other than one. Examples: Hall coefficient, damping coefficient, temperature coefficient, gyromagnetic coefficient.

IEV ref 112-03-04

factor

ratio of two quantities, used as a multiplier to express the proportionality equation between them

Note 2 – A factor is a quantity of dimension one. Examples: coupling factor, quality factor, peak factor, power factor.

Fortunately, the concept itself is already obsolete (in fact, relativistic adition of speeds solves it immediately and exactly), so the term is not so important any more. JOb 22:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Hoping you don't mind, I have slightly reformatted your reply along these guidelines. Thanks.

This is all interesting, but in Wikipedia we cannot run ahead of the current literature, so we must keep the most common terms. - DVdm (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! JOb 08:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Light in moving air

The article should also say that Fizeau performed the same experiment in moving air and observed no fringe shift, i.e. no drag; and that this result is compatible with Fresnel's theory (Fizeau, H. (1851). "Sur les hypothèses relatives à l'éther lumineux". Comptes Rendus. 33: 349–355.).

I think you are confused. Immediately following his experiment report on air, Fizeau mentions that he got a null result *only because of the insensitivity of the device: He says "According to the hypothesis of Fresnel, the same displacement ought to be only 0.000465, that is to say, entirely imperceptible." Aether drag is determined by refractive index in Fresnel's theory and is not nil in air. IE there is expected drag in air in Fresnel's theory and Fizeau properly understood this. It seems you've misunderstood Fresnel's theory predictions. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It is already stated in the lede that Fizeau performed the same experiment in air. "When he repeated the experiment with air in place of water he observed no effect. His results seemingly supported the partial aether-drag hypothesis of Fresnel, a situation that was disconcerting to most physicists." Where do you believe that the article is confused about the predictions of Fresnel's theory? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

That's just a bad timing of reporting facts confusing you. The first fact is only incidentally related to the second. It does not lead to it. "He observed no effect in air"=true "His results supported aether drag"=true. One does not lead to the other. The null is contrary to the fact that it was positive in water. However it's okay that he got null in air because it's so small. The positive is still expected to be there... just too small for that experiment to detect. I'm sorry but believe you don't understand the context of the history. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparent original research

@Nemesis75: From the Controversy section, I removed the addition

Alternatively, one must adopt the ad hoc hypothesis that the properties of aether change to a Nonlinear_system such as found in the Soliton in the presence of matter.

You need to justify this assertion with an appropriate reference. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This is just a well established part of non-linear wave phenomena. The references are in the nonlinear systems and soliton articles. Read them and understand them before vandalizing my additions. We don't have to justify every sentence about things that have been understood for a century. If you want more context, the author referenced at this point is a historian who is just faithfully reporting on a paper written in the 1800s. A paper written by an author wholly ignorant of 150 years of scientific progress. So if the date of the previous reference is throwing you off then change the reference to the actual author of the statement, not the historian re-reporting the ignorant position Nemesis75 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Soliton phenomena are indeed well-established. I merely need a clear-cut reference that states, without any WP:SYNTHESIS on your part, that the observed dependence of apparent aether dragging on wavelength can be explained via soliton phenomena. Stating that the relationship between partial aether dragging and solitons should be obvious to anybody who has read up about these phenomena is not sufficient. Who is this "historian who is just faithfully reporting on a paper written in the early 1800s"? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

No it's not actually soliton phenomena that is responsible. That's an example not the mechanism. Is that unclear?? Yikes, maybe I do need to reword it then... The mechanism is non-linearity of mediums leading to waves of different frequencies having different refraction qualities.

The point is that Stachel -a historian - (the preceding paper cited) is reporting the comments of an 1800s paper when it says in his paper "different mediums for every wavelength would be required" That is not his assertion but a very old historical sources assertion. It's a purely scientifically false statement with around a century of falsifying experimental knowledge. We now know that a nonlinearity can occur in a mechanical medium that leads to differing refraction profiles. One single medium can refract mechanical waves in it, at different frequencies in different ways. It does not require multiple mediums. That's what happens in a soliton (the example) This is not synthesis, this is merely scientific fact you'll find references for in the soliton article and in the nonlinear article. I guess you could accuse me of being lazy though... Nemesis75 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally a soliton occurs because there is a cancellation of the normal dispersion. It's really cool because it "undoes" the "spectrum" or separation of frequencies that a medium should cause. This leads to self-reinforcement. So I guess, if you did do a little reading, I could see how you could misunderstand that I was referring to the mechanism of non-linearity, not the example of solitons. You accidentally "intuited" a hypothesis that does actually exist in which photons are modeled as solitons in a medium. Nice job! Nemesis75 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)