EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Ian Parker on 13 Jul 2008 06:31 On 13 Jul, 02:19, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 5:54 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It seems that anti-relativists would go to any length to > > debunk time dilation, length contraction at the cost of > > even weirder mechanisms. In your years of experience > > with them. Do yo think anti-relativists are purely newtonian? > > Or do anti-relativists still believe in quantum mechanics "now you > > see it, now you don't" foundations? Because if anti-relativists > > are quantum followers. They could propose creatures > > that can control quantum probability (call it fairies) > > that can create the same predictions and observations as > > time dilation, length contraction in physical stuff. This > > is the only way I think they can explain the same relativistic > > experiments. But if anti-relativists don't believe in fairies > > and they don't think time and length can distort and just > > believe in absolute space and absolute time, there seems > > no way to pull off those SR, GR experimental stunts, isn't it... > > unless anti-relativists are aetherists. Are they? In essence, > > how many percentage approximately of anti-relativists > > believe in quantum mechanics and how many percentage > > approx. believe in the aether and how many percentage > > believe in neither of them. I'd like to have rough idea of > > how their brains work. > > With a few exceptions, the anti-relativists *here* don't really have a > physics agenda. They are not Newtonian, necessarily, because most of > them don't understand Newtonian physics, either. They have some vague > and poorly considered ideas along the lines of > - strict causal determinism But Relatrivity IS a theory of causal determinism. Einstein in fact argued against "God playing dice" and this is the point of departure for me and a lot of other people. That is why I have vehemently denied a "cult". Relativity is correct, but Einstein's ideas on other aspects of Physics were often wide of the mark. Professional physicists in fact say so. I am struck in particular with the topological interperation of chaos and the fact that even without the Q word there is uncertainly. In fact looking a chaos classically and thermodynamically we can say that the information involved in prediction linearly increases with time. Relativity makes no difference to that. It merly introduces a little stretching, a little homotopy at high speeds. I am speaking here about deformation in topological space. > - material basis for all causal effects; only "stuff" can influence > "stuff" > - a model's credibility is based on how clear a mental image can be > formed of it; shape and dimension and tangibility overweigh > mathematical or logical structure > - consistency with common sense > Note that many of these things Newton also thought little of. > > What really bothers anti-relativists is the notion that one > investigator receives such popular adulation (note *popular* > adulation, not the adulation of the physics community). It is > important to them that no such adulation should occur at all, and this > drives a desire to take physics and physicists down a peg. And what is > especially rankling is the folklore (which is not accurate) that > Einstein did what he did just by thinking things through on his own, > without much hard work or calculation, or anything that the average > lay person could look at and say, "Hey, that dude sure earned what he > got." And in fact, some try to emulate the folklore by inventing their > own "theories" and "gedanken experiments" and "postulates", under the > mistaken impression that this is how he did what he did -- all in the > hopes that they too will get a piece of the pie. Of course, since > they're not really doing what he did, their efforts do not pay off as > expected, and this fuels their rage, which comes out as scorn. > Popular adulation?! I believe personally that there are in fact a very small number of anti relativists. The number appears larger because they write under a variety of aliases. You see they come up with the same arguments time after time. I think there is a master screed somewhere. Should they simply be ignored. No, they do influence our young people. I have spoken of Alebaran (and aldebaran khayyid). Area 51 researched antigravity after the war. Now if relativity is true the CIA were sold a pup and don't want to admit it. One antirelativist (Tom Potter) is a card carrying denier of the Holocaust. This should be of great concern to everyone - not just physicists. It means that Nazis have infiltrated deeper into the US military than has been officially admitted. McCarthy got rid of Oppenheimer and replaced him with "aldebaran khyyid". The same thing happenned to a lot of other good people. This must have had consequences. On the question of aether. It takes time for a new concept togain currency. Einstein worked out Relativity, but clung to the Aether. I think this was a failing of Einstein's. Subsequent investigators have used an exclusively mathematical approach. - Ian Parker
From: Spaceman on 13 Jul 2008 20:50 Danny Milano wrote: > On Jul 13, 11:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: >> Danny Milano wrote: >>> On Jul 13, 9:54 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> >>> wrote: >> >>>>> James, >> >>>>> When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does >>>>> your time dilate or your length contract? It never does >>>>> in your own first person view or reference frame. >>>>> Relativity didn't say it does. >> >>>> But the problem is it saying it does at all. >>>> The other observer is simply not measuring >>>> correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time >>>> and distance if he uses relativity at all and including >>>> a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though >>>> all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring >>>> the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support >>>> a relative motion theory. >>>> It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too >>>> long. >> >>> What do you mean "multilple standards for time >>> and distance"? Pls. explain. >> >> Two clocks will be compared, one clock will fly away >> and come back to the same spot, it will have less time >> shown on it. >> A typicle relativist will say that both clocks functioned >> properly. >> But yet, they do not show the same times. >> That means they have accepted a multiple standard >> "second" just to ignore the clock in motions malfunction. >> And length contraction is also done the same >> way sorta except the meter comes back and >> it is the same as it ever was and they >> simply say the moving meter is shorter than the >> "at rest" meter. and that make the multiple >> standards for thier "meter". >> >> The meter problem is usually combined with >> the clock problem so they can remove >> the paradox occurance if you used >> absolute measurement systems that had >> no single "standard" for a second and a meter. >> Clear enough? >> >> Another stupid thing about the typicle relativist >> that has been brainwashed is the fact that they must >> ignore the "relative speed of light" in order to >> support the relative motion theories. >> >> And even one more stupid relativity trick is >> the old "limited speed math" that makes all of >> other math basically prove that 186,00 mps (c) >> + 186,000 mps (c) does not equal 2c. >> So they use basic math/algebra, to prove basic >> math/algebra is wrong when they limit objects >> to wave speeds for observational bullshit, >> instead of actually finding true relative speeds. >> How silly is that? >> :) >> If we go into outerspace and keep relativity >> and the malfunctioning clocks as a "reality" >> we will be crashign into planets that are not there yet >> according to our malfunctioning clocks. >> because those planets do not care what "your" clock >> is doing. but they do care about what that clock on Earth >> said.. and seem to follow it wonderfully and that is why >> we know what time to see things in the sky. >> :) >> >> So, >> The clock malfunctioned, >> and the meter did not shrink physically, >> and if you think such at all, you will be stardust >> or planet dust all over again. >> That is "reality", not this silly time travel,wormhole >> point particle, singularity zero point energy complete >> utter bullshit based upon malfunctioning clocks and >> rubber rulers. >> :) >> >> -- >> James M Driscoll Jr >> Spaceman- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I was reading a material by supreme anti-relativist Pentcho > about Harvey Brown and got me into thinking. > > Brown says that relativists believe the geometrical structure of > Minkowski spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving > rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow while Brown believes > that spacetime has a Minkowski geometry because the dynamical > laws are Lorentz invariant. The geometry, in some sense, depends > on the structure of the laws. Yet we don't have causal laws at > present on how the particles and atoms behave during time > dilation and length contraction and no laws how these particles > are coupled to spacetime. This I think is why there are so > many anti-relativists because the dynamic laws were not > given in details. So does Minkowski geometry determines > the dynamic laws of the atoms or do the dynamic laws of > the atoms recreate the Minkowski geometry?? We don't seem > to know the definite case. Hope PD can assist here. The laws are only there when you find "physical" causes. Until such is found, it will remain a theory. To find the laws of physics in motion, one must find the causes of such effects like the clock slowing down. Find the physical cause of the "frequency rate change" and you find the real reason it changed rate.. just saying it actually changed rate because it "changes rate" is all that relativity has done so far. The circular cause bullshit is why the "anti-relativists: are growing. The simple lack of "physical" cause.. IF you wish to look for the physical cause and find it.. You will first have to admit.. the clock screwed up. and then find out "why" and your answer can not be because "time slowed down" because that is like saying. The clock slowed, because the clock slowed. Relativity is a circular cause theory based upon a multiple standard as the cause. It is a joke to anyone that knows anything about "timing" things for real. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: BURT on 13 Jul 2008 20:59 On Jul 10, 2:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by > Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It > is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The > following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can > someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it > wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR > is really wrong. > > Baird said: > > "16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity > > We're told that the experimental evidence for special > relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable > doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all > this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results > reckoned to support the special theory include: > > * E=mc^2 > > * transverse redshifts > > * longitudinal Doppler relationships > > * the lightspeed limit in particle accelerators > > * the searchlight effect (shared with dragged-light > models and NM) > > * "velocity addition" behaviour (shared with dragged-light models and > NM) > > * particle tracklengths > > * muon detection > > * particle lifetimes in accelerator storage rings / > centrifuge time dilation / orbiting clocks > > * the failure of competing theories > > ... we'll be looking at all of these, along with a > couple of important background issues. > > 16.2: ... E=mc^2 > > For a long time it seemed to be received wisdom that > the E=mc^2 result was unique to special relativity, We > were told that if special relativity wasn't true then > nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons wouldn't work, and > without SR's prediction of E=mc^2, nuclear fusion > wouldn't operate as it does. Without special > relativity, the Sun wouldn't shine. > > And while this was a good story to tell credulous > schoolchildren, it was essentially pseudoscience. The > idea that E=mc^2 "belongs" to SR doesn't hold up to > basic mathematical analysis, and to Einstein's credit > he went on to argue for the wider validity of the > result by publishing further papers that derived the > relationship (or a good approximation of it) from more > general arguments outside special relativity. We also > found in section 2.5 (with working supplied in the > Appendices, Calculations 2), that E=mc^ 2 is an exact > result of NM, if we ignore standard teaching and go > directly to the core mathematics. Not only is the > NM-based derivation of E=mc2 reasonably > straightforward, it's shorter than its SR counterpart, > and it's also part of every hypothetical model in > section 13. > > Whiile it's historically understandable that the > equation wasn't widely recognised and embraced until > Einstein came along, its less clear why so many > brilliant physicists with outstanding math skills > continued to insist for so long that the equation > somehow provides cornpelling evidence for the special > theory. Since the math is so straightforward, how were > so many clever physics people caught out? We might have > expected that enough time had passed since 1905 for us > to have checked the math dependencies, not iced the > parallel compatibility with NK and (in a respectable > field of scientific study), made a high-profile > retraction so that we didn't continue to pass > misinformation onto students. But perhaps "E=mc^2 > proves special relativity" was just too convenient a > tale for people to want to give it up, regardless of > what the Mathematics really said. > > 16.3: *Classical Theory" vs. Special Relativity > > When we read about experiments that compared the > predictions of SR against those of "Classical Theory", > we can come away thinking that we've been told how SR's > Predictions stack up against most earlier theories (for > instance, Newtonian theory). > > This isn't usually the case. When we look at what's > meant by "Classical Theory', in this context, we find > that it's a sort of hybrid. It's a pairing of two sets > of incompatible assumptions and math that have the > advantage for experimenters of (a) being well known and > standardised, and (b) making optical predictions that > are so exceptionally bad that by comparison special > relativity (and almost any other theory) looks very > good indeed. > > Did "Classical Theory" ever really exist? > > In the context of SR-testing, "Classical Theory" refers > to a mixture of two sets of conflicting assumptions > that didn't work together before SR/LET: "Classical > Theory" uses Newtonian mechanics for the equations of > motion for solid bodies, but for light, CT is > equivalent to assuming an absolute, fixed, "flat" > aether stationary in the laboratory frame. The energy > and momentum relationships of these two different parts > are, of course, irreconcilable ... NM requires the > Doppler relationship to be (c-v)/c, but " Classical > Theory" gives cl(c+v). These aren't compatible. They > never were. If they were, we wouldn't have needed > special relativity. > > There doesn't seem to be any single theory that > attempted to combine these two predictions before > LET/SR, or at least, there doesn't seem to have been > anyone prepared to lend their name to one, and in a > subject where people love having things named after > themselves, this should make us suspicious. If > "Classical Theory" doesn't mean "pre-SR theory", then > where did it come from? The phrase appears in > Einstein's explanations of the basis of special > relativity, as a convenient form of words to refer to > two appa rently diverging predictions that special > relativity then reconciled by applying Lorentz effects: > to Einstein, "Classical Theory" represented > incompatible aspects of earlier theories that didn't > work together, but that could be reconciled using > special relativity. > > When we're look for a historical counterpart to > Classical Theory there doesn't seem to be anything that > would have made these optical predictions unless we go > all the way back to preGalileo, pre-Newton times, and > posit an absolute aether that permeates space and is > locked to the state of a stationary Earth. That would > give us the "Classical Theory" prediction of "no > transverse redshift" for a laboratory stationary with > respect to the Earth. But every other decrepit old > theory that we can dig up seems to pre dict at least > some sort of transverse redshift effect, sometimes > weaker than SR, sometimes stronger than SR, and > sometimes swinging wildly between the two depending on > the Earth's motion. The one idea that didn't seem to be > considered to be credible during the Eighteenth Century > was the idea that lightspeed was fixed with respect to > the observer, which is presumably why Michelson had so > much grief with his colleagues over his "failed" > aether-drift experiment. > > SO, why do we persist in carrying out these "SR vs. > Classical Theory" comparisons if they don't demonstrate > very much? Well, to a cynic, Classical Theory is an > excellent reference to test against, because its > predictions are about as bad as we can get. If we set > aside the theories that predicted time-variant effects, > no other old predictions seem to be quite as bad at to > CT when it comes to predicting real Doppler shifts, and > this makes "CT vs. Theory X" experiments very much > easier to carry out and analyse . Test theory authors > love CT because it meshes well with the chain of > arguments that Einstein used when explaining the > special theory, and experimenters design tests around > the test theories that are available legitimate process > - as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that > that the results represent a realistic comparison of > how special relativitys predictions really compared to > those of its predecessors. > > 16.4:- "Transverse" redshifts > > Special relativity tells us that if an object moves > through our laboratory, and we carefully point a > highly-directional detector at right angles to its path > (measured with a "laboratory" set,square), the signal > that manages to register on the detector should be > redshifted (section 6.7). > > But the popular "educational" notion that this sort of > redshift outcome is something unique to special > relativity is as best misleading, and at worst ... it's > simply wrong. The equations of newtonian mechanics (or > even the basic equations for audio, properly applied to > the case of a stationary source) don't just predict > redshifts in this situation, they'll often predict > "aberration redshifts" that are stronger than their SR > counterparts (section 6.4), so in a physical sense, the > appearance of redshifts in t his situation isn't just > not unique, it's not even particularly unusual. In > fact, the thing that would be unusual with this sort of > experimental setup would be a theory that didn't > predict some sort of redshift. > > Although we tend to regard special relativity's > transverse predictions as conceptually unique, > experimenters have to know when supposed differences > between theories generate physically unambiguous > differences in the readings taken by actual hardware, > and when the differences are more a matter of > interpretation. This distinction isn't always obvious > from the relativity literature. > > Einstein's special theory requires these sorts of > "pre-SR" redshifts to exist for its own internal > consistency. The theory must predict the same physical > outcome regardless of which inertia] reference frame we > choose to use for our calculations, so the emitter is > entitled to claim that c is globally fixed for them > (Einstein 1905, 7), and this means that they're > entitled to claim that our relative motion makes us > time-dilated, giving our view of the emitter's signal a > Lorentz blueshift ... so in order for u s to be able to > instead see a Lorentz redshift, propagation-based > effects in this situation - light moving at a constant > speed in the emitter's frame, and arriving at us at an > apparent 90 degrees - must, by default, generate a > Lorentz-squared redshift to allow the same final SR > outcome. This is the right answer (see Calculations 3). > > So to fully understand the logical consistency of SR in > this situation requires us to know that similar or > stronger redshifts would appear in the same apparatus > under other light-propagation models. Since different > SR "views" can explain the same redshift component as > the result of (a) conventional aberration effects, (b) > time dilation, or (c) a combination of the two (we're > allowed to try an infinite number of alternative views > from intermediate reference frames), SR requires these > two explanations to be q ualitatively > indistinguishable. Although expert sources may tell us > that "transverse redshifts" are unique to SR, the > theory itse~f tells us otherwise. We can distinguish > SR's "transverse" predictions from those of other > theories by their strength, but a redshift outcome in > this situation doesn't automatically need SR. > > The Hasselkamp test > > We only seem to have one experiment that set out to > measure the amount of redshift actually seen at 90 > degrees to moving material (Hasselkamp et. al., 1979), > and it reported about twice the redshift predicted by > SR, as we'd expect if the older NM equations were > right. This result was nevertheless presented as > supporting SR: the experimenters used a test theory > that compared SR with "Classical Theory" (which > predicted no redshift), and reasoned that the > inexplicable excess redshift must have been due to an a > ccidental detector misalignment. They were then able to > use statistics to argue that, taking into account > possible alignment efforts, the "SR" prediction still > made a significantly better match to the data than "CT" > did. > > But subsequent papers verifying that the presumed > misalignment was real, or repeating the experiment > (Perhaps with the help of clever cancellation methods > to eliminate the effects of these sorts of detector > misalignments from further results), don't seem to have > appeared. This Makes it difficult to tell whether the > result really supported the special theory, or > invalidated it. > > 16.5: ... "Longitudinal" Doppler shifts > > The Hasselkamp experiment was unusual - in practice, we > don't normally . try to measure SR's transverse > redshift effect by really aiming a detector at the side > of a moving particle bearn - we find it easier to > measure the forward and rearward Doppler-shifts, and > then calculate the strength of the transverse effect by > comparing them against each other. > > This is a nice method ... because it compares two > shifts, the technique makes it easier to cancel out > various types of systemic error, known and unknown, and > these "end-on" readings are less sensitive to the > effect of small angular errors. By comparing the > resulting three sign.("recession-redshifted", > "approach-blueshifted", and an "unshifted" reference > signal), we can derive a characteristic "signature" > that lets us rule out certain relationships without > having to commit to a theory-specific value for the > exact velocity of the particle beam. We can select , > theory, use one of the shift ratios to calculate what > the velocity would have to have bee. according to that > theory, use this hypothetical velocity value to > "predict" the second shift ratio, and then compare this > against the second set of figures to see how close we > got to the real data. > > Ives-stilwell > > The best-known of these "non-transverse" transverse > tests is the early 1938 test by Herbert Ives and G. R. > Stilwell, which set out to compare tile predictions of > Lorentz Ether Theory (and SR) against those of > "Classical Theory". Ives and Stilwell's approach was > simple: "Classical Theory" says that the two shifted > signals (red and blue) should change in wavelength by > precisely the same amount, so with all three wavelength > values marked on a linear scale, we'd find perfectly > even spacing between them. If the shift relationships > obeyed the "redder" relationships of SR (or NM) there'd > be an asymmetry. > > Ives and Stilwell found a definite offset in the > wavelength values. The simplicity of this experiment > makes it tempting to reanalyse the data for a possible > agreement or disagreement with NM, and when we do this > we find that the stronger offset predicted by N1M > appears to lie outside the data range, by more than the > experimenter's quoted experimental error. This seems to > indicate that the SR predictions are significantly more > accurate than NM. > > Further experiments > > There've been several more experiments of this type > published since Ives-Stilwell, using more advanced > equipment, more complex optics and higher relative > velocities, and these have supported the predictions of > SR over "Classical Theory" with increasing confidence. > However, when we try to use them to cheek how well they > support SR over NM, we run into difficulties: with > several of these tests, the more complex setup and > calibration techniques make it dangerous to attempt a > safe reanalysis for possibilities t hat weren't > considered in the experimenters' setup procedures ... > in others the quoted error margins seem rather similar > to the margins that wed need to be able to interpret an > 'NM" result as a "SR" result ... or extreme accuracy > when making the comparison between SR and CT is > achieved by 1 technique that makes it difficult to > differentiate between SR and NM ... or "excess" > redshifts are explained away as the result of mirror > recoil . > > It seems that even with this additional technological > sophistication, our primary evidence for SR's > superiority over NM is still that early Ives-Stilwell > experiment. And since ]at . er experimenters have had > trouble understanding how the test's accuracy could > have been quite as good as the paper said (estimating > accuracy can be difficult when using an experimental > configuration for the first time), we don't yet seem to > have a solid core of experimental results claiming that > that the newer SR Doppler relatio nships really are > more accurate than the NNI set. Perhaps if our > experiments had been devised with this comparison in > mind from the beginning, we might by now have > significant amounts of evidence to point us one way or > the other ... but they weren't, and we don't. > > 16.6: ... The lightspeed upper limit in particle > accelerators > > Another of the results often trotted out as unambiguous > evidence for the validity of special relativity is the > fact that even our best particle accelerators can't > persuade electrically charged particies to move faster > than the background speed of light. As the speed of the > particles approaches background lightspeed, it becomes > progressively more difficult for the fixed accelerator > coils to force them to move any faster. As the speed of > a particle approaches accelerator lightspeed, the > energy that we have to pump through our coils to get an > additional background increase in speed seems to tend > towards infinity. some commentators attach great > significance to this result and argue that the > outlandish scale ,,d sheer brute force required by > modem particle accelerators is an obvious indication > that tile special theory is correct. If we believed in > the equations for light used by "Classical Theory" > (section 16.3), we'd expect these machines to be able > to accelerate particles to far higher speeds, but, in > real life ... this quite clearly isn't the way that > things work. Special relativity wins! > > And certainly, special relativity wins when compared to > CT. It just doesn't necessarily win when compared to > other models. From the point of view of the coils, we > can argue that the particle's resistance to > acceleration (and its apparent inertial mass), goes to > infinity as its speed through the accelerator > approaches lightspeed, and we might blame this on the > particle's additional relativistic mass at higher > speeds. But the idea of relativistic mass isn't always > fashionable amongst physicists, so it's handy to have > another way of describing the situation, and we can do > this y describing the experi ment from the point of > view of the particle. > > Coupling efficiency > > Suppose that our "SR particle" is coasting through a > straight section of accelerator tube at close to > background lightspeed, and we throw more EM energy at > it ... the particle sees the receding accelerator coils > to be redshifted, reducing the frequency, energy, and > radiation pressure of their signals. With the coils > moving away at lightspeed, SR's Doppler relationships > describe this energy and momentum of their fields > disappearing altogether. So the coupling efficiency > between the accelerator coils and the particle drops > toward zero as their relative recession velocity > approaches lightspeed, and with SR we therefore expect > to be able to accelerate the particle towards the speed > of light, but not to it or beyond it. This is what we > see happening in our accelerators. SR wins! > > .. Except that, when we try a similar exercise with > the Doppler relationships for other theories, similar > things have a habit of happening. If we try the > "Newtonian" Doppler relationships we find that with fIf > = (c-v)lc, setting the recession velocity to lightspeed > once again gives a frequency (and energy, and coupling > efficiency) of zero. When we directly accelerate a > particle, the lightspeed limit that we usually think of > as a validation of SR also shows up under Nemonian > mechanics, and presumably also under a range of other > theories. > > Indirect acceleration > > This "direct acceleration" lightspeed barrier can have > different characteristics under different Models: in > the NM version of the story, an unstable particle > travelling at close to background lightspeed can > fragment and throw off daughter particles, some of > which might travel at more than background c. This > effect is related to NM's support for classical > indirect radiation effects ("semi classical Hawking > radiation), and wouldn't seem to be possible under > SR-based Models. Unfortunately, when we start to deal > with the more "particle-y" aspects of particle physics, > quantum effects become relevant, allowing the > appearance of particles in "impossible" situations to > be explained away by ideas such as quantum tunnelling: > even if we found something that looked like evidence of > superluminal daughter particles, by classifying this as > a quantum effect we could probably still get away with > arguing that the result didn't threaten SR. > > 16.7: The "searchlight" effect > > We met the searchlight effect in section 8.2: it's the > tendency of moving bodies to throw more of their signal > forwards rather than trailing it behind them. Special > relativity and NM both apply the same "relativistic > aberration" formula, and the effect also exists (to > various degrees) in different dragged-light models. > > This behaviour doesn't happen in the "Classical Theory" > of section 16.3. > > 16.8: Velocity-addition > > Special characteristics for "velocity addition" appear > in a variety of models, including NM (section 14.8), > and usually suggest that the propagation of signals is > being affected by the motion of intermediate objects in > the signal path. Although we usually choose to > interpret th > > Fizeau and Zeeman results as supporting SR's > velocity-addition formula, the special theorye match to > the data isn't supposed to be any better than Fresnel's > ancient dragged-light theory. Again, this behaviour > doesn't appear in the "Classical Theory" of section > 16.3. > > 16.9: Particle tracklengths > > Since we've brought up the subject of daughter > particles, how do we test how fast they really go? > Let's suppose that we have a particle that's only > supposed to survive for a nanosecond, and we measure > the length of straight-line distance that it covers > between being created and blowing itself to bits. If we > know the particle's "official" decay time, then surely > We can measure the length of its track, and divide that > by the time to get the speed? If this track length was > longer than the distance that particl e would travel at > the background speed of light, wouldn't this mean that > we'd shown that its velocity was superiuminal, > disproving SR? And if the particle tracks were always > shorter than this, wouldn't this support special > relativity? > > But things aren't that easy. We're used to thinking of > velocity as an unambiguous property, but since we can't > be in two places at once, the properly often has to be > interpreted. Since special relativity redefines all of > the properties associated with velocity - energy, > momentum, distance and time - fair comparisons between > SR and other theories can become quite convoluted, and > this can make it difficult to tell, when we're using > these agreed, uninterpreted quantities, whether there's > really a physical diff erence between the SR and NM > tracklength predictions. > > Special relativity assigns greater energies and momenta > to particles and signals than NM does, by a Lorentz > factor: > > NM SR > Momentum p= mv p=mv x gamma > Doppler effect E'/E=(c-v)/c E'/E=(c-v)/c x gamma > > , so ... for a high-energy particle moving along a > straight line with constant speed, with a known energy > and/or momentum, Newtonian theory and special > relativity will be assigning consistently different > velocity values to the same particle. The nominal "SR > velocity" value ("vSR") will always be less than > lightspeed, while the nominal 'NM velocity" value > ("vNM") will be larger than its SR counterpart by a > Lorentz factor (calculated from vSR)' > > When we migrate from NM to special relativity, a > particle's nominal velocity gets reduced by a Lorentz > factor, shortening the distance that the particle would > be expected to travel before decaying. But SR's "time > dilation" effect then predicts an extension of the > particle's lifetime by the same Lorentz factor thanks > to time dilation, lengthening the particle's track by > that same ratio. Because these two corrections exactly > cancel, the particle's decay Position as 3 function of > its energy and momentum is precisely the same for both > theories. The results of both sets of calculations are > necessarily identical. > > 16:10 Muon Showers > > Similar arguments apply when we try to assess evidence > from "cosmic ray" detectors. High energy cosmic rays > hitting the upper parts of the Earth's atmosphere > create showers of short-lived "daughter particles" that > survive for an incredibly short amount of time before > decaying - their lifetimes are so short that even if > they were travelling at the speed of light, we might > think that they still shouldn't be able to reach the > Earth's surface before decaying. > > But ground-based detectors do report the detection of > muon showers, and there are two main ways that we can > interpret this result: > > SR-based interpretation > > According to special relativity, we should explain the > detectors' result by saying that since we "know" that > nothing can travel faster than background lightspeed, > the rations' ability to reach the ground shows that > their decay-times must have been extended, and we > interpret this as demonstrating that the special > theory's time-dilation effects are physically real. We > say that the muons move at a very high proportion of > the speed of light and are time-dilated, and if it > wasn't It for this time-dilation effect , they wouldn't > be able to reach the detectors. > > Or ... we could adopt the muon's point of view, and > suggest that the muon is stationary and the Earth is > moving towards it at nearly the speed of light. In this > second SR description, all of the approaching Earth's > atmosphere is able to pass by the muon in time even > though its speed is less than c, because the moving > atmosphere's depth is Lorentz-contracted. These two > different SR explanations (length-contraction and time > dilation) are interchangeable. > > NM-based interpretation > > But is the success of the SR mtion calculations > significant? Is it significantly different to the > calculations weld have made using earlier theory? When > we compare the tracklengths predicted by SR and NM, > starting from theory-neutral properties, the final > results seem to be identical (section 16.9): for a > given agreed momentum, the mtion's decay point > according to SR would seem to be precisely the same as > the NM prediction - the two models don't disagree on > where the muon decays, they disagree as to whether it > achieves that penetration by travelling at more or less > than background lightspeed, which is more difficult to > establish. > > Fast or ultrafast? > > Muon bursts seem to be associated with Cerenkov > radiation - the optical equivalent of a supersonic > shockwave - but since lightspeed is slower in air than > in a vacuum, using the Cerenkov effect to show that the > innuons are moving faster than lightspeed in air > doesn't show that they're also moving faster than the > official background speed of light, in a vacuum. > > So how do we find the real speed of the muons, given > that we don't have advance warning of when a cosmic ray > is going to strike? With additional airborne muion > detectors we can try to cornpare the detection times in > the air and on the ground, but interpreting this data > neutrally could be difficult: one such experiment > seemed to indicate that the muons were travelling at > more than than Cvacuum (Clay/Crouch 1974), but > subsequent experiments seem to have supported the > opposite position. > > Frorn here on, things get muddy. Given that we know > that the record of SR-trained theorists trying to > interpret non-SR theory isn't exactly faultless, it's > difficult to know exactly how to treat this situation > ... but there's one thing here that we can be sure of. > When SR textbooks tell us that ground-level muon > detection gives us unambiguous evidence for special > relativity, and tell us that these muons couldn't reach > the ground unless SR was correct, and couldn't bay, > been predicted by earlier theories ... those statements > are wrong. > > <snip rest> > > 16.14: Conclusions Although we're told that the > evidence for special relativity is beyond dispute, much > of the supporting evidence and argument is individually > so patchy that it wouldn't be taken seriously in other > branches of physical science. Or at least, we should > hope that this lack of sceptical scrutiny is unusual, > because otherwise science in general would seem to be > in a great deal of trouble. Almost every general > argument for SR seems to have been missold in some way. > > The E=mc^2 relationship wasn't unique to SR after all, > neither were transverse redshifts, and the centrifuge > redshifts that we'd been told had no other explanation > had been predicted from more general gravitational > arguments independently of SR. Although the > experimenters may well have been scrupulously honest, > some of the special theory's more active proponents > seemed to be badly misrepresenting the available > evidence and the mathematics, and their colleagues > seemed to be allowing them to get away with it. > > Since most of these mistakes can be found with a little > basic critical analysis, this leaves us wondering > whether the theory's proponents genuinely didn't > realise that what they were saying was wrong or > misleading (in which case the standard of cross-theory > expertise 'S low), or whether they knew that evidence > was being misrepresented, but chose not to raise the > issue. Perhaps people thought that it wasn't so > important if a few of these experiments were over-sold, > because of the sheer breadth of other suppo rting > evidence ... and that even if the SR. dependency of a > few results had been hyped, that the exaggeration was > harmless because mathematics told us that the theory > was right ... but once a "casual" approach to > scientific evidence is allowed to become widespread in > a research subject, and once everybody starts to rely > on the idea that the standards of evidence in > individual cases don't matter so much, it allows the > awful possibility that perhaps every piece of e vidence > used to support the theory might be similarly flawed. > Mistakes will tend to cancel each other out in a > diverse population, but in a monoculture they'll tend > to reinforce one another. If evervone believes that the > number of experiments provides a solid safety margin > for their own work, and if everyone depends on the > existence of that assumed safety margin, then it might > be that the margin doesn't exist. > > The experimental record may make a decent case for the > principle of relativity being correct and also gives us > strong evidence against a number of nonrelativistic > models and against simple emission theory ... but when > it comes to establishing whether SR is the correct > implementation of the principle of relativity, things > are less straightforward. If we believe that any > relativistic model must reduce to SR by definition, > we'll tend not to bother testing SR against other > potential relativistic solutions, beca use we won't > believe that they can exist. > > The misrepresentation of the evidence for SR means that > we're entitled to be suspicious, but it doesn't mean > that special relativity's relationships are necessarily > wrong. Definitive tests of "SR vs. NM" would seem to > require direct tests of the Doppler relationships > themselves, and in this case we seem to have two basic > experiments, both slightly problematic - One apparently > favouring SR against NM (Ives-Stilwell) and one > apparently favouring NM against SR (Hasselkamp etal.). > If the "NM" Doppler relationsh ips are correct, it > seems incredible that we wouldn't have already noticed > it, but if the SR set are really better, it also seems > incredible that after a century of testing, we wouldn't > yet have a body of results claiming to demonstrate it. > It's hard to find an ' v SR tests where experimenters > claim to have compared the NM Doppler relationships > against the SR set, and found the SR version better - > it's just not something that people tend to do. If the > SR set really is better, then the community really > ought to have been able to find people able to verify > it by now. A century should have been sufficient time. > > Which of these relationships is better than the other > at describing the universe we live in? > > The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know. > > Flip a coin. Velocity additions remain linear. Closing velocity applies when two objects are considered. Each has an absolute motion of its own through space in a particular direction. No flat Atoms No Contracted space No relativistic velocities because everything has its own motion through space. But objects can move together. Mitch Raemsch
From: John Kennaugh on 14 Jul 2008 05:16 Sue... wrote: >On Jul 12, 12:28 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >wrote: >> Sue... wrote: >> >On Jul 11, 4:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >> >wrote: >> >> >> By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase >> >> have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the >> >> sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a >> >> point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent >> >> photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. >> >> The maximum has >> >> the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically >> >> conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and >> >> cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with >> >> the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some >> >> physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the >> >> normal intensity pattern. >> >> >Photons don't "arrive". They are undefined >> >until absorbed. >> >> No they are simply particles with mass and some sort of dynamic >> structure which gives rise to wavelike phenomena. >> >> > They are not a model of light >> >propagation and don't even know how to move in >> >a straight line. >> >> Of course they do. Otherwise my digital camera wouldn't give a nice >> sharp picture the right photon having found its way with unerring >> accuracy to the pixel on the chip. > >You might try removing the lens and >see if your logic still holds. It would work perfectly well as a pin hole camera illustrating that photons travel in straight lines. > >Are photons divisible? > I don't know. Provided the energy equations balance I see no theoretical reason why a photon should not be split into two lower energy photons. Is there some point to your question? If you are asking whether you can detect the same photon twice then no not without violating the conservation laws. Detecting a photon involves the transfer of energy and you cannot get two lots of energy from the same photon. If I am trying to make a point I explain it in sufficient detail that you, and anyone else understands the point I am making. If my argument requires supporting text I provided it. You appear to be playing some sort of game where you point me to URL's expect me to flog through them and try and guess what point it is you are making. I won't play that game if you have a point you wish to make then make it. >http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ > >> >> BTW in one of the experiments which supposedly shows source independence >> the Alvager et al experiment the photons were expected to find their way >> down a leaden collimator with diameter of 5 mm approx 2m long which the >> authors show in their diagram but fail to explain in their text. Even >> relativists seem confused about what they do believe. > >Isn't that a pion experiment ? Yes but it is one of the photons which is expected to navigate the collimator. >> The problem with physics is it mixes the physical and the metaphysical. >> If I sit under an isolated tree in a thunderstorm there is a chance I >> might be hit by lightening. It is possible that the probability could be >> worked out. If I am killed however it will not be because of the >> probability. It will be the lightening which kills me. > >There is also some probabilityy an atomic oscillator will >change energy states. It can be much more predictable >than lightning strikes with a path integral. > >> >> Unfortunately Physics today has limited its remit to prediction. It does >> not attempt to try and 'understand' nature, to understand what is >> happening. It ascribes things to metaphysical parameters such as >> probability. In the double slit experiment the wave model is a >> statistical model. Just as I am killed by the lightening not the >> probability that I would be, so the fringe distribution is not caused by >> the wave model which simply provides a statistical distribution of where >> the photons end up and nothing at all about which direction a particular >> photon will go or why. > >If you could use QED for lightning, the probability will kill you. >This, because the classical path is a part of the probability >amplitude. Probability never killed anyone, neither did a mathematical equation. They are both essentially metaphysical. >> There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular >> direction we don't know what it is and even if we did we have not got >> enough information about a particular photon to predict the result. > >We certainly do know. We could not build lasers if we didn't. >http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html If you have a point you wish to make then make it. I was talking about the direction taken by a photon from the direction of the double slits. >> Modern physics gets this all mixed up. Instead of admitting our >> ignorance, our uncertainty it has decided that it is nature which is >> uncertain. It describes the uncertainty reflected in the maths as an >> uncertainty of nature. Instead of saying that we do not know the exact >> starting parameters so we don't know where it will end up until it gets >> there they say the maths says it could end up anywhere (same thing) so >> it travels in all possible paths (illogical) and the act of detecting it >> determines its history (silly). > >If you think classical paths illogical then remove all the lenses on >your optics and sell whatever you have that could be an antenna >for scrap metal. I haven't a clue what you mean. If I throw a dice it has an equal probability of coming up with one of 6 numbers. If you could devise a machine which always starts with the dice in the same orientation and imparts to the dice exactly the same motion every time then in theory you should end up with the same number every time. Although the causal sequence is highly complex the result is never the less a result of that causal sequence. The fact that that causal sequence is too difficult to analyse does not mean that we have to enter the realm of mysticism and ascribe to the process weirdness and haziness. >> This is the Schrodinger's cat thingy >> where the cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened. No it >> isn't it is either dead or alive and the only thing which changes when >> you open the box is the metaphysical quantity = our knowledge and the >> smell in the room which will tell you how long it has been dead showing >> that it wasn't alive and dead before the box is opened. >> > >if you can do a path integral, the cat's fate will become more >certain. If you have a point you wish to make then make it. Neither mathematical procedure nor observation can in any way affect the fate of the cat. The physical world is not affected by metaphysical quantities. They may predict the outcome very accurately but they do not affect it. The tide tables do not make the sea go up and down. >> >(you have nearly clarified that later in your >> >posting. Call me overly critial but don't take >> >it personally ) >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation >> >http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html >> >> >The assumption that photons move on any particular >> >path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some >> >coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not. >> >> What on earth does that mean. If it means that I assume a photon has >> mass then yes I do. It could not be plainer. > >Since you can't figure how it knows which way to go >perhaps need to rethink that a bit. If you have a point you wish to make then make it. >> ><<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate >> >transformation will convert electric or magnetic >> >fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, >> >but no transformation mixes them with the >> >gravitational field. >> >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > >> >> Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It >> does and it is. > >It is only the *light-particles* that make SR ~wrong~. > >i<<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between >the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light,>> > > >See equation 511 >"Retarded potentials" >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html "We are now in a position to understand electromagnetism at its most fundamental level. A charge distribution $\rho({\bf r}, t)$ can thought of as built up out of a collection, or series, of charges which instantaneously come into existence, at some point ${\bf r}'$ and some time $t'$, and then disappear again."- like magic how can a sane person possibly believe in this stuff. Try Google "retarded potentials Walter Ritz" e.g. http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908e.htm http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/rtzein2.htm > >So in the subatomic realm, SR is ~right~ . I have accepted that SR is accurate from a predictive PoV. Just as the geocentric theory was accurate from a predictive PoV. Both are based upon a false premise but get the right answer by transformation. >> >Exploring all classical paths with a clock is >> >how photons get their claim to fame. Feynman's QED >> >> >> The minimum in the >> >> low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever >> >> reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. >> >> >"Probabily amplitude" is the term you seek. It is a >> >mathmatical abstraction, not a physical process. >> >> Well I am glad we agree about that. >> Light is not a physical wave it is made up of photons. The wave model is >> a statistical model. The waves are not waves in the aether they are >> metaphysical statistical waves. Being metaphysical they cannot transport >> energy. Light is, or carries with it, real physical energy and does not >> physically consist of waves but of particles which have energy or are >> energy. They have mass and travel in straight lines unless their >> trajectory is altered by gravity acting on the mass. They gain energy as >> they fall, they lose energy if they are projected from a massive object. >> When they hit something they have momentum. > >Aether carries Newton's gravito-inertial properties. >You still assume it if you think photons have mass >and know how to follow a kinetic trajectory. Not at all. Physics is hung up on action at a distance force. That was why the aether concept was originally envisaged. It seemed to those at the time that force requires some sort of "connecting rod" so it seemed obvious that between a magnet and a pin there must be some invisible fluid (aether) which pushed (or sucked?) the pin towards the magnet. A charged rod picking up a pith ball required another aether. When they wanted something for light waves to propagate in they proposed a luminiferous aether. While a magnet picking up a pin seemed magical, an apple falling to the ground did not. If prior to Newton you had asked why an apple falls to the ground you would have been regarded as daft. An apple falls to the ground because there is nothing to stop it falling! It was the genius of Newton who saw it as action at a distance force too. I was not aware that Newton had proposed an aether but with the thinking at the time it comes as no surprise. If we fast forward to Maxwell then one of the reasons his theory had so much appeal is that it only required one aether to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance force and the same aether was suitable as a medium in which light waves travel. Thus: 1/ a field is a 'stress' (altered state) pattern in the aether. 2/ action at a distance is caused by the interaction of 'stress' patterns. 3/ the 'stress' can propagate through the aether in the form of light waves the speed of which is a property of the aether and cannot be affected by motion of the source. Physics "got rid" of the aether by deciding that physical explanations (theoretical structure) was no longer necessary to compliment maths. They did this for all the wrong reasons and fudged the issue by retaining the idea of independent fields when they no longer had anything to exist as a 'stress' (altered state) in. 'Space in which independent fields can exist' is simply a description of the aether. The proper way to 'get rid of the aether' is to accept that light is particulate and doesn't need an aether. It still leaves the question of action at a distance force but do we need to explain action at a distance force? When it was first suggested action at a distance seemed magical because it did not fit with everyday experience. However an apple falling to the ground seemed perfectly natural because that was 'everyday experience'. Now we know that all force acts at a distance why not consider that as perfectly natural, axiomatic? Action at a distance is the way force acts. No need for aether or for magic particles which pop in and out of existence to transfer the force (a digital aether). One has now got rid of not just the aether but its accompanying baggage but there are now consequences. A 'field' is now a metaphysical 'field of influence' It cannot exist without a source of influence. There can be no independent fields, independent of a source of influence. Axiom 1 Action at a distance is the way force acts. Axiom 2 Some particles contain or have a property we call mass. Mass attracts other mass. Axiom 3 Some particles contain or have a property we call charge and two types exist. Charge attracts opposite charge and repels like charge. A photon contains mass and therefore is attracted by other mass. If photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge in order to provide a source of influence. This is born out by the link established between light and charge by the predictive success of Maxwell's equations which are based upon relationships relating to charge and nothing else. > >An electrodmagnetic dielectric does not make >such assumptions. If you want to make a point make it. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space >http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html >And it agrees with our observations. ;-) > > >> >> Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It >> does and it is. That is the way science works. If something has mass and >> a theory says it can't have the theory is wrong. You don't perform >> metaphysical intellectual somersaults to redefine mass so that you can >> continue to believe in a theory which is based on a false premise and is >> physically absurd. > >If you want a photon's mass to give it directivity then >you are claiming Newton's aether. > >Antennas and dielectrics are how it is done in >the real world. If you want to make a point make it. > >"Near and Far fields" >http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html >http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html > >(Repeating myself) > >Are ~photons~ divisible ? >http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ > > >Sue... > > >> >> -- >> John Kennaugh > > -- John Kennaugh
From: Sue... on 14 Jul 2008 06:37
On Jul 14, 5:16 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > >> >Photons don't "arrive". They are undefined > >> >until absorbed. > > >> No they are simply particles with mass and some sort of dynamic > >> structure which gives rise to wavelike phenomena. > > >> > They are not a model of light > >> >propagation and don't even know how to move in > >> >a straight line. > > >> Of course they do. Otherwise my digital camera wouldn't give a nice > >> sharp picture the right photon having found its way with unerring > >> accuracy to the pixel on the chip. > > >You might try removing the lens and > >see if your logic still holds. > > It would work perfectly well as a pin hole camera illustrating that > photons travel in straight lines. It shows that only the adjecent paths are constructive if a pinhole is necessary. You don't need a pinhole to shoot a bird. ....Unless the bird is shooting back at you. > >Are photons divisible? > > I don't know. Provided the energy equations balance I see no theoretical > reason why a photon should not be split into two lower energy photons. > Is there some point to your question? If you are asking whether you can > detect the same photon twice then no not without violating the > conservation laws. Detecting a photon involves the transfer of energy > and you cannot get two lots of energy from the same photon. > > If I am trying to make a point I explain it in sufficient detail that > you, and anyone else understands the point I am making. If my argument > requires supporting text I provided it. You appear to be playing some > sort of game where you point me to URL's expect me to flog through them > and try and guess what point it is you are making. I won't play that > game if you have a point you wish to make then make it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ The VLTI does not help you decide if photons are divisible? And if thay are, is there a little fairy out in space that knows the VLTI needs four pieces so the fairy quarters them on the fly? > > >Isn't that a pion experiment ? > > Yes but it is one of the photons which is expected to navigate the > collimator. > > If it did the experiment may be a candidate for a Nobel prize/ I will stay tuned. > > > >There is also some probabilityy an atomic oscillator will > >change energy states. It can be much more predictable > >than lightning strikes with a path integral. > > > >If you could use QED for lightning, the probability will kill you. > >This, because the classical path is a part of the probability > >amplitude. > > Probability never killed anyone, neither did a mathematical equation. > They are both essentially metaphysical. You were grasping for the term "probability amplitude" so you can interpret as you please. It is not vadid argument for the abandon of statistical analysis. > > >> There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular > >> direction we don't know what it is and even if we did we have not got > >> enough information about a particular photon to predict the result. > > >We certainly do know. We could not build lasers if we didn't. http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html > > If you have a point you wish to make then make it. I was talking about > the direction taken by a photon from the direction of the double slits. As many slits as you like: http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/jpgpics/slotted-x-band-waveguide-antenna-040304.jpg http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html The same rules apply. > > > >If you think classical paths illogical then remove all the lenses on > >your optics and sell whatever you have that could be an antenna > >for scrap metal. > > I haven't a clue what you mean. If I throw a dice it has an equal > probability of coming up with one of 6 numbers. If you could devise a > machine which always starts with the dice in the same orientation and > imparts to the dice exactly the same motion every time then in theory > you should end up with the same number every time. Although the causal > sequence is highly complex the result is never the less a result of that > causal sequence. The fact that that causal sequence is too difficult to > analyse does not mean that we have to enter the realm of mysticism and > ascribe to the process weirdness and haziness. Whether you call it mysticism or something else we DO have to enter the realm of classical EM if we want correct probabilities for atomic absorbtion. > > > >if you can do a path integral, the cat's fate will become more > >certain. > > > > > >> >(you have nearly clarified that later in your > >> >posting. Call me overly critial but don't take > >> >it personally ) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html > > >> >The assumption that photons move on any particular > >> >path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some > >> >coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not. > > >> What on earth does that mean. If it means that I assume a photon has > >> mass then yes I do. It could not be plainer. > > >Since you can't figure how it knows which way to go > >perhaps need to rethink that a bit. > > If you have a point you wish to make then make it. No...Your third self delusion convinced me you are a self mutilator. I want no part of it. :-) > > > > >> ><<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate > >> >transformation will convert electric or magnetic > >> >fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, > >> >but no transformation mixes them with the > >> >gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > > >> Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It > >> does and it is. > > >It is only the *light-particles* that make SR ~wrong~. > > >i<<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between > >the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light,>> > > >See equation 511 > >"Retarded potentials" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > > "We are now in a position to understand electromagnetism at its most > fundamental level. A charge distribution $\rho({\bf r}, t)$ can thought > of as built up out of a collection, or series, of charges which > instantaneously come into existence, at some point ${\bf r}'$ and some > time $t'$, and then disappear again."- like magic how can a sane person > possibly believe in this stuff. Indeed... many blame their insanity on the rigours of studying Maxwell but none offer anything better. > > Try Google "retarded potentials Walter Ritz" > e.g. http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908e.htm http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/rtzein2.htm The VLTI at paranal ? The need to polish mirrors to nanometer accuracy ? The Ritz dog don't hunt. > > > > >So in the subatomic realm, SR is ~right~ . > > I have accepted that SR is accurate from a predictive PoV. Just as the > geocentric theory was accurate from a predictive PoV. Both are based > upon a false premise but get the right answer by transformation. I can give a list of psychics that have very good records if that is how you operate. > > >> >Exploring all classical paths with a clock is > >> >how photons get their claim to fame. Feynman's QED > > >> >> The minimum in the > >> >> low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever > >> >> reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. > > >> >"Probabily amplitude" is the term you seek. It is a > >> >mathmatical abstraction, not a physical process. > > >> Well I am glad we agree about that. > >> Light is not a physical wave it is made up of photons. The wave model is > >> a statistical model. The waves are not waves in the aether they are > >> metaphysical statistical waves. Being metaphysical they cannot transport > >> energy. Light is, or carries with it, real physical energy and does not > >> physically consist of waves but of particles which have energy or are > >> energy. They have mass and travel in straight You can make a gravito-inertial background with electrodynamic fields so mass will move in ~straight~ lines. You can not make light with gravio-inertial fields. and it doesn't move in straight lines. Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations Relativity and electromagnetism http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics (classic field theory)_ a) Maxwell equations (no movement), b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies) http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended Most will choose 3 years of study over 10 years of floundering. But self mutilators actually enjoy deceiving themselves. Sue... > John Kennaugh |