Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Jul 2005 18:12 On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... >... >> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. > >Not really, it's the distance between points >of equal phase measured in the directon of >propagation. You can say that about generated radio waves but not individual photons. > >> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests >> change >> or not? > >Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you >need your "tick fairies" at every change of >refractive index. Think of light passing >through a sheet of glass, there must be the >same number of wavefronts passing a point >within the glass as points outside in any >given time. No doubt about that one, George. Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in his frame? > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: George Dishman on 10 Jul 2005 11:33 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... >>... >>> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. >> >>Not really, it's the distance between points >>of equal phase measured in the directon of >>propagation. > > You can say that about generated radio waves > but not individual photons. Another interesting subject. Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser. If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright line in the centre with fringes either side. Conventionally the high brightness at a location ten fringes to one side is due to the signal interfering such that the peak through one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths later that has travelled a longer path having come through the other slit. If you reduce the brightness of the laser and add a shutter, you can allow single photons into the setup. At the same location as above, you still get a peak of probability of photons arriving while half a fringe either side, the probability is zero because a peak through one slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5 wavelengths later. That must apply to each photon individually. >>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between >>> wavecrests change or not? >> >>Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you >>need your "tick fairies" at every change of >>refractive index. Think of light passing >>through a sheet of glass, there must be the >>same number of wavefronts passing a point >>within the glass as points outside in any >>given time. > > No doubt about that one, George. > > Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the > observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in > his > frame? In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength to change according to the classical formula for a moving observer while if SR is right, it should change according to the relativistic formula. George
From: sue jahn on 10 Jul 2005 11:56 "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:dareqb$6d8$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net... > > "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg(a)4ax.com... > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" > > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > >> > >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >>news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... > >>... > >>> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. > >> > >>Not really, it's the distance between points > >>of equal phase measured in the directon of > >>propagation. > > > > You can say that about generated radio waves > > but not individual photons. > > Another interesting subject. > > Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser. > If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright > line in the centre with fringes either side. > Conventionally the high brightness at a > location ten fringes to one side is due to the > signal interfering such that the peak through > one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths > later that has travelled a longer path having > come through the other slit. > > If you reduce the brightness of the laser and > add a shutter, you can allow single photons > into the setup. If you do this by reducing the brigtness of the laser you allow a single *absorbed* photons to eject a photoelectron. Quantum dot emitters that will measure out a single photon are now available. <<The experiment and Results This experiment proved that the following two things were possible in an open photonic network environment such as the Internet. 1. A single photon can interfere...>> http://www.physorg.com/news4536.html IOW a single *emitted* photon goes through both slits. That doens't look favorable for BaT or particle propagation models. Sue... At the same location as above, > you still get a peak of probability of photons > arriving while half a fringe either side, the > probability is zero because a peak through one > slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5 > wavelengths later. That must apply to each > photon individually. > > >>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between > >>> wavecrests change or not? > >> > >>Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you > >>need your "tick fairies" at every change of > >>refractive index. Think of light passing > >>through a sheet of glass, there must be the > >>same number of wavefronts passing a point > >>within the glass as points outside in any > >>given time. > > > > No doubt about that one, George. > > > > Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the > > observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in > > his > > frame? > > In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength > to change according to the classical formula > for a moving observer while if SR is right, it > should change according to the relativistic > formula. > > George > >
From: Henri Wilson on 10 Jul 2005 21:15 On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:33:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... >>>... >>>> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. >>> >>>Not really, it's the distance between points >>>of equal phase measured in the directon of >>>propagation. >> >> You can say that about generated radio waves >> but not individual photons. > >Another interesting subject. > >Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser. >If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright >line in the centre with fringes either side. >Conventionally the high brightness at a >location ten fringes to one side is due to the >signal interfering such that the peak through >one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths >later that has travelled a longer path having >come through the other slit. > >If you reduce the brightness of the laser and >add a shutter, you can allow single photons >into the setup. That is a pretty tricky operation. >At the same location as above, >you still get a peak of probability of photons >arriving while half a fringe either side, the >probability is zero because a peak through one >slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5 >wavelengths later. That must apply to each >photon individually. How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser. If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of photon cross section. > >>>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between >>>> wavecrests change or not? >>> >>>Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you >>>need your "tick fairies" at every change of >>>refractive index. Think of light passing >>>through a sheet of glass, there must be the >>>same number of wavefronts passing a point >>>within the glass as points outside in any >>>given time. >> >> No doubt about that one, George. >> >> Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the >> observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in >> his >> frame? > >In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength >to change according to the classical formula >for a moving observer while if SR is right, it >should change according to the relativistic >formula. I would not expect the wavelength to change at all. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 10 Jul 2005 21:17
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:56:23 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >"George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:dareqb$6d8$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net... >> >> "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg(a)4ax.com... >> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" >> > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> >>news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... >> >>... >> >>> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. >> >> >> >>Not really, it's the distance between points >> >>of equal phase measured in the directon of >> >>propagation. >> > >> > You can say that about generated radio waves >> > but not individual photons. >> >> Another interesting subject. >> >> Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser. >> If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright >> line in the centre with fringes either side. >> Conventionally the high brightness at a >> location ten fringes to one side is due to the >> signal interfering such that the peak through >> one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths >> later that has travelled a longer path having >> come through the other slit. >> >> If you reduce the brightness of the laser and >> add a shutter, you can allow single photons >> into the setup. > >If you do this by reducing the brigtness of the >laser you allow a single *absorbed* photons to eject a >photoelectron. > >Quantum dot emitters that will measure out a single >photon are now available. ><<The experiment and Results >This experiment proved that the following two things were possible in an >open photonic network environment such as the Internet. > >1. A single photon can interfere...>> >http://www.physorg.com/news4536.html > >IOW a single *emitted* photon goes through >both slits. > >That doens't look favorable for BaT or >particle propagation models. Why not? Photons have an effective cross section that stretches to infinity. It does off very rapidly with distance from the central axis, though. >Sue... > > > >At the same location as above, >> you still get a peak of probability of photons >> arriving while half a fringe either side, the >> probability is zero because a peak through one >> slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5 >> wavelengths later. That must apply to each >> photon individually. >> >> >>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between >> >>> wavecrests change or not? >> >> >> >>Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you >> >>need your "tick fairies" at every change of >> >>refractive index. Think of light passing >> >>through a sheet of glass, there must be the >> >>same number of wavefronts passing a point >> >>within the glass as points outside in any >> >>given time. >> > >> > No doubt about that one, George. >> > >> > Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the >> > observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in >> > his >> > frame? >> >> In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength >> to change according to the classical formula >> for a moving observer while if SR is right, it >> should change according to the relativistic >> formula. >> >> George >> >> > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |