GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Pentcho Valev on 18 Nov 2007 02:44 On 17 Nov, 18:29, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > bz wrote: > > As I have pointed out to Henri many times, (and perhaps to you), > > 'extinction' requires a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics > > This is simply not true. Optical extinction is what makes eyeglasses and > other lenses work. > > > it (1) reduces the entropy by 'increasing the ordering of the light' > > passing through a region of space (this requires both an unknown mechanism > > and a lot of energy) > > Your argument against c+v is bogus. One can easily construct a model in > which the light interacts with the medium, transferring energy and > momentum to the medium as required. This is just a minor variation on > how classical electrodynamics models this process (without c+v of course). > > > (2) must take energy from fast light and pass it to > > slow light to speed up the slow light. > > > Nonsense. The individual portions of a light ray can exchange energy and > momentum with the medium, resulting in the light traveling at c/n > relative to the medium, regardless of the light's initial speed. As long > as the light path through the medium is significantly longer than the > medium's extinction length. > > There are quite a few measurements for which extinction is negligible > that refute ballistic theories that claim light is emitted with speed > c+v. See the FAQ for references (more are cited in the new version > coming soon). > > John Kennaugh said: > > > I will explain extinction to you. > > Your "explanation" is both confused and downright wrong. To have any > hope of explaining anything, you must PICK ONE THEORY and stick to it > throughout; you must also UNDERSTAND that theory. Then do the same for > another theory, if appropriate. Intermixing two theories just confuses > both you and your reader. > > For an accurate classical explanation, see: Born and Wolf, > _Principles_of_Optics_. > > > The basic problem is that there is no independent verification of what the source is. > > Nonsense. There are several terrestrial experiments which refute > ballistic theory, for which the source motion is completely known. And > even for the observations of binaries, it is perverse to make such a > statement. For instance, many of the binaries are now resolved into two > mutually-orbiting stars using VLBI and other high-resolution instruments > -- YOU are not living back when DeSitter made his observations. > > As for the subject of this thread: it simply is not possible to "get > rid" of relativity. An intelligent person would STUDY it to learn its > limitations, and then go look for exceptions and/or enhancements. Of > course a number of physicists are doing just that.... > > Tom Roberts Yes Roberts Roberts but those physicists will kick you out of Einstein criminal cult soon. So far you have somehow realized and often hint that the future of physics is in the transition from the field concept of light (light as CONTINUOUS structures) to Newton's particle model of light (light as DISCONTINUOUS structures), although, according to Einstein, this transition will be awful and will involve the disappearance of all contemporary physics: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." However you have not realized yet that Newton's particle model is INSEPARABLE from c'=c+v, the prediction of the emission (ballistic) theory, and continue to "refute" this prediction. Cleverer hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult are doing the opposite Roberts Roberts. They have a project called "The Other Einstein" where the emission theory is no longer refuted - rather, it is ADOPTED: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279 Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein." http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain circumstances." http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux." Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly, there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays." Pentcho Valev
From: John Kennaugh on 18 Nov 2007 05:43 Tom Roberts wrote: >bz wrote: >> As I have pointed out to Henri many times, (and perhaps to you), >> 'extinction' requires a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics > >This is simply not true. Optical extinction is what makes eyeglasses >and other lenses work. > > >> it (1) reduces the entropy by 'increasing the ordering of the light' >> passing through a region of space (this requires both an unknown mechanism >> and a lot of energy) > >Your argument against c+v is bogus. One can easily construct a model in >which the light interacts with the medium, transferring energy and >momentum to the medium as required. This is just a minor variation on >how classical electrodynamics models this process (without c+v of >course). > > >> (2) must take energy from fast light and pass it to >> slow light to speed up the slow light. > > >Nonsense. The individual portions of a light ray can exchange energy >and momentum with the medium, resulting in the light traveling at c/n >relative to the medium, regardless of the light's initial speed. As >long as the light path through the medium is significantly longer than >the medium's extinction length. > > >There are quite a few measurements for which extinction is negligible >that refute ballistic theories that claim light is emitted with speed >c+v. See the FAQ for references (more are cited in the new version >coming soon). > > >John Kennaugh said: >> I will explain extinction to you. > >Your "explanation" is both confused and downright wrong. To have any >hope of explaining anything, you must PICK ONE THEORY and stick to it >throughout; you must also UNDERSTAND that theory. Then do the same for >another theory, if appropriate. Intermixing two theories just confuses >both you and your reader. If you are going to respond to my posts respond to them. don't lift something out of context and insert it in another post. > >For an accurate classical explanation, see: Born and Wolf, >_Principles_of_Optics_. > > >> The basic problem is that there is no independent verification of >>what the source is. > >Nonsense. There are several terrestrial experiments which refute >ballistic theory, The quote is taken out of context from a different post to the one you are responding to. What are you a comedian ? -- John Kennaugh
From: bz on 18 Nov 2007 12:35 John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:dMgV7eCqULPHFwsX(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk: > bz wrote: >> >>Yes, you said wrong there. There is no guarantee, in general, that a >>source is in inertial motion. If the source is NOT in inertial motion, >>THEN irrespective of whether we are speak of SR or the Ballistic theory >>of light, there is NO theory [except YOURS] that says the light would be >>constrained to move in any particular way with respect to how the source >>moves AFTER the light is emitted. > > I am gratified that I have managed to teach you something. First of all, that claim is disingenuous. What I said above is the same as I said to Sean *before* you 'taught me' anything. I suggest you not take credit for things I said before and after you tell me something because you would also have to take blame for everything I say. Second, I was talking to Sean. >>SR says that light moves at c with respect to EVERY inertial frame of >>reference, including the one that the source was co-moving with at the >>instant of emission. Ballistic theory says that light moves at c with >>respect ONLY to the inertial frame of reference that the source was in >>at the instant of emission. Ballistic theory says that [for some time or >>distance from the point of emission] light moves at c+/-v with respect >>to any other inertial frame of reference. where v is the relative >>velocity between the co-moving with source inertial frame of reference >>(cmwsifr) and the other IFR. > > If you make your predictions based upon what an observer stationary with > the FoR of the source would predict - both theories predict the same and > that prediction is correct. Where the theories differ is in how they > explain that same prediction when viewed from a different FoR. Not in Sean's case. He claims that, even after the light is emitted, it ALWAYS travels at c wrt the source, no matter how the source moves after the light is emitted. He has the light somehow magically tied to the source by a permanent inflexible string. ..... > > It would appear that the Lorentz transforms distort time and space in > such a way as to get the same results as the simpler ballistic theory. > If you are going to devise experiments to show the difference between > the two theories you first have to be very sure you know what they both > predict and be sure it is different. In most cases it isn't. We (Sean and I) are talking about what HIS theory predicts. >>> Well lets look at whats observed. >>> Whats observed is that the source frame rotates. Whereas your inertial >>> frame, to the best of my understanding, doesnt rotate. >> >>That is correct. It doesn't rotate but it DOES continue to move in the >>direction that the source was moving at the instant that the light was >>emitted. > > Remember that - I'll come back to that later. > >>> Therefore, >>> the source frame and your inertial frame are NOT the same. >> >>If the source is rotating, then that is correct. If the source is in >>inertial motion, which is what Einstein spoke of, then they are the >>same. SR deals with sources in inertial motion or with things looked at >>FROM an inertial frame of reference. >> >>The sources frame, in MMX, does not strictly qualify an an inertial >>frame of reference, > > NO FoR strictly qualifies as an inertial FoR. Correct. Only approximations are available. Just as no human is perfect, we can only be perfectly human. And, if you had kept reading, you would have seen that I made that clear. >> so we can not measure things from it, we must 1) use a frame >>that approximates an inertial frame or 2) restrict our observations to a >>short enough period of time so that the source is 'for all intents and >>purposes' in inertial motion. >> >>And for the periods of time that observations were made by MMX, the MMX >>apparatus DID qualify as an inertial frame of reference. >> >>Remember what MMX was testing for. > > It was measuring the speed of the apparatus w.r.t the aether and always > got zero. Yes. > Therefore the observation platform (= the observer) is always > stationary w.r.t the aether - which is what the second postulate is > describing i.e. what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would > observe. This implies that 'the aether' lacks the properties it was thought to possess or that there is no aether. Those two statements being pretty much equivalent to each other. > > OTOH the MMX may be seen differently. The MMX was an experiment which > gave different results depending on whether Maxwell's wave in aether > theory was correct or Newton's corpuscular theory was correct. Newton's > theory predicted a null result. There was a null result. Then later it > was discovered that light is made up of particles just as Newton > Predicted. If by Newton you mean 'something that does not require an aether' and sometimes behaves as a particle, then you are correct. If you mean 'something that always acts as a particle', then there is much evidence that you are wrong. For example: a particle would ALWAYS move at c+/-v unless acted upon by an outside force. Such an interaction requires something to apply that force. It is easy to calculate the amount of energy that a photon leaving a rapidly moving source must lose in order to go from c+v to c. That energy must go somewhere. Where does it go? Does it get store up until a slow photon, of exactly the right frequency, going in exactly right direction, comes by? How is it stored? Does it heat up the interstellar medium? What happens if that slow photon doesn't come by before the 'energized Kennaugh/Wilson particle collides with a particle of interstellar hydrogen? The energy will be lost and the slow photon will never be speeded up. Heck the slow photon might collide with the deenergized KW particle and loose more of its energy. Those slow photons might get to going so slow that they seem to come from completely different places in the sky. > Newton 2 : Maxwell 0 > > Remind me again how physics works :o) Ah yes. Time to ignore the fact that the ballistic theory died many years ago. Doing CPR on that dead horse must be a special kind of fun for you. > Ah yes. You ignore the fact that accepted theory has been proved wrong, > and ignore the alternative theory despite the fact it predicted the > right answer. You ignore the massive boost to the alternative theory > given by experimental results and you stick with accepted theory and > adjust it by assuming that space and time are distorted so as to get it > to give the correct answer. As there are no physical processes which > could conceivably distort space and time as your theory now requires you > declare that physics need not concern itself with physical process as > that is an old fashioned way of looking at things. > > Put simply the ways physics works is to maintain the status quo despite > the evidence. Show me ANY experimental evidence of c+v and c-v photons. Show me ANY experimental evidence of a mechanism that could possibly store energy from c+v photons and dispense that energy AT THE RIGHT TIME to c-v photons so as to unite the c+v and c-v photons velocities at c. ..... >>The MMX experiment is designed to give a null result for ROTATION of the >>apparatus. MMX was NOT designed to test for rotation. Sagnac shows >>rotation. > > The Sagnac maths shows that the fringe shift is a function of the area > contained within the loop. Yep. That is exactly why I said MMX gives null result for rotation of the apparatus. > The MMX has no area contained within the > light path so would not show a phase shift anyway even when it is > actually rotating. Correct. >> >>MMX is designed to detect LINEAR motion with respect to the aether. > > correct Correct. >>They rotated it so it would point in different directions so that >>sometimes it would point along the direction of the earths motion around >>the sun and sometimes it would point perpendicular to that motion. In >>both of those cases, the apparatus is, to all intents and purposes, in >>an inertial frame of reference. > > nearly right. OK you start with the apparatus pointing in one direction. > You get a null result. This may be for several reasons. > > One is that at that point in space you just happen to be stationary > w.r.t the aether - to rule that out try at several different times of > the year. > > Another is that the aether flow is vertical - so repeat it at different > times of day. > > Finally each time you do a measurement you don't know the direction of > flow of the aether wind so you have to try all possible angles so as to > ensure that at some point one arm points in the direction of flow and at > another, the other arm. It is rotating it relative to the unknown > direction of flow of the aether wind rather than the earths orbital > direction as you implied. So, you are saying that what I said was correct. >> >>The negative results show that there is no aether. > > No! All it showed was that predictions based on Maxwell's theory were > wrong. Anything else is interpretation. It is important that you make > this distinction. No aether [of the sort that had been assumed to exist by maxwell when he formulated his theory]. I have said that enough different times that I don't think I need to restate it every time I say that MMX showed there is no aether. If I had said 'no ether' then I might not be talking about Maxwell's aether, but I use the archaic spelling to indicate the archaic theory. > > I agree that one interpretation is that there is no aether and therefore > the speed of light cannot be controlled by the aether and therefore must > be the result of the physical processes taking place in the source. > > Although that is by far the simplest and most logical explanation of the > null result it was rejected. Instead both Lorentz and Einstein refused > to abandon accepted theory and continued to assume Maxwell's wave/aether > theory was correct. Maxwell's theory had proved to be very useful as it predicted the existence of other wave phenomena that turned out to be radio. Radio is NOT predicted by the ballistic theory of light. If we abandon Maxwell, we lose Marconi. Finding a way to rescue Maxwell was a stroke of genius that, even today, inspires great jealousy and envy in would-be-scientists that try to shoot down Einstein. > Lorentz came up with a fix which was in Einstein's > view too complicated. He did not like the idea of a FoR which was > essential to the theory but which was indistinguishable from an infinite > number of other FoR. He decided not to worry about how nature managed to > have every observer stationary w.r.t the aether, he just accepted the > result of the MMX that they are (or effectively are). The second > postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether > would observe - as per the wave in aether theory interpretation of the > null result. Finding a way to rescue Maxwell was a stroke of genius that, even today, inspires great jealousy and envy in would-be-scientists that try to shoot down Einstein. > The problem is that later physics (not Einstein) accepted the 'no aether > doctrine' which makes a nonsense of that interpretation and leaves the > authors of contemporary text books with a dilemma as to how to present > that interpretation as being reasonable without mentioning the key part > the aether played in the thinking. The science books I have studied mention the dead ends in science MORE often than the successful ones because they are great object lessons. ..... Sean said: >>> This is incorrect. The aether has at least one defineable property vis >>> a vis MMx. MMx shows us that one property of the aether is that light >>> always travels through it at c relative to the source. Regardless of >>> the motion of the source through the aether. >> >>As long as the source is in inertial motion. >> >>MMX is NOT designed to be sensitive to rotation so it says NOTHING about >>light always traveling at c wrt the source _regardless of what the >>source does after the light is emitted_ (which is what you infer from >>it, erroneously). ..... >> >>> THis is what I was defining as unscientific. (Ie incorrect) In the >>> source frame, which is the lab frame, and which is the only relevent >>> frame in MMx... neither mirror nor source move relative to each other. >>> This is indisputable fact. >> >>I agree that, although MMX is designed to allow testing in various >>orientations within the lab, it is not designed for testing during >>rotation so the source frame, the lab frame and an approximately >>inertial frame of reference are all equal for MMX. But MMX is NOT all we >>are discussing. >> >>You have asserted that regardless of what the source does after it emits >>the light, the light must maintain a velocity of c with respect to the >>source. That implies that if I throw my laser away from me, at .5 c, >>perpendicular to the beam direction, the entire beam that has already >>been emitted must INSTANTLY begin to move at .5 c. This is totally at >>odds with experimental data. > > and totally at odds with any possible causality. Agreed. >> >>Picture a hose with a stream of water shooting from it. >>Wiggle the hose side to side, while keeping the stream parallel to the >>original stream. >> >>If your theory were correct, the water stream must behave like a stiff >>rod with zero inertia and instantly move, all along its length. I say >>that light acts like the water really acts. The sideways displacement >>travels away from the source at the speed of the water [c for light] >>rather than instantly as your propose. ..... >>> .... Because, as we measure light at >>> c in the source frame, this means that the motion of the source >>> relative to any other object or objects is not effected by the motion >>> of these objects or by the motion of the source relative to these >>> objects. I didnt make this up! This is what is observed in MMx. >> >>But MMX observation does NOT require light to stay in contact with the >>source and continue to move at c with respect to it, no matter how it >>moves after the light has been emitted. >> >>You keep trying to tie light to the source, even when the light was >>emitted milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days or years before. You >>keep claiming that if the source is moved after the light has been >>emitted, ALL the light that it has ever emitted MUST instantly respond >>to the movement of the source. That claim is contrary to all our >>observations. ..... >>> IF... the water effected the swimmers velocity. And yes in the river >>> a swimmers velocity IS effected ,... BUT in MMx the so called flow >>> of aether appears to do the opposite. And NOT effect the speed of the >>> light (swimmer) >> >>That is why aether does NOT act like a medium should act and why the >>aether of Maxwell was rejected. ..... >>> Unfortunately MMXs shows this to be an incorrect assumption. >> >>Or fortunately. In any case, MMX showed us that aether does NOT act like >>a flowing medium. > > Quite correct it shows either that the aether acts like a stationary > medium or that there is no aether in which case there is no > justification for continuing to assume that the physics processes > generating the light are not responsible for the speed at which it > travels. In the absence of the aether there can be no other physical > processes involved as a source is surrounded by nothing physical which > can take part in a physical process. What physics has done is accepted a > theory based upon the stationary medium interpretation, then decided > that there is no aether. That leaves it without any possible physical > process which is why in modern physics the role of mathematics has been > elevated to be the be-all and end-all and anyone talking about physical > process is scorned as clinging to old fashioned notions of what physics > is. ..... I said: >>>> Your theory is wrong and your assumptions are wrong but they lead you >>>> to a conclusion that is consistent with one experiment. >>> This is a funny statement. You are saying that emmision theory is >>> wrong, yet you are unable to supply any observed proof to substantiate >>> this claim. >> >>I have provided several. > >> >>> And you say my assumptions are wrong. What? My assumptions that MMx >>> shows us that light is travelling at c in the lab? >> >>NO, your assertion that light always travels at c wrt the source, >>regardless of what happens to the source after the light is emitted. > > Which is what you assume in your suggestion that Sagnac disproves > ballistic theory. If you assume the correct interpretation of ballistic > theory that the speed is always, and only, velocity c in the *inertial* > FoR in which the light was emitted it predicts fringe shift for Sagnac. Wrong. Sagnac, under ballistic theory, predicts no fringe shift. Anderson and Jerry have shown this to Henri, time after time. With math and with simulations. The distance increases /decreases in the exact proportion necessary for the increase/decrease in speed (c+v and c-v) to be compensated for. No fringe shift. Sagnac's experiment kills Ritz's theory[as do many other experiments]. MMx kills aether[as do many other experiments]. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: John Kennaugh on 20 Nov 2007 06:50 bz wrote: >John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in >news:34Ef2bI7ftPHFwrC(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk: > >> bz wrote: >>>John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in >>>.... >>> >>>Fox was wrong. You are wrong. >> >> Fox is far more qualified than either you or me. > You said "Emission theory was disproved by .....De Sitter." Fox showed that DeSitter's evidence is useless. You said 'fox was wrong'. You are not qualified to say that. >Does he still claim that Ritz is right? Your question is not relevant to the discussion. I am not interested in your ramblings. I have explained the basics of extinction namely that provided the frequency remains constant your carping that energy is needed is wrong, as is the idea that a force is necessary to change the speed of a massless particle. I have not studied extinction in detail so am not going to spend more time trying to argue with you. Find someone who has studied it to argue with. IF you can show me some paper in the literature which questions Fox's assertion that extinction is theoretically possible (not whether it does or doesn't take place) I would be interested in it. Otherwise I will assume that you are the only person in the entire world who thinks it is impossible. Getting back to my point. The ballistic theory was the simplest theory consistent with the facts in 1905. There is no evidence against that theory worth considering until the 1960s and DeSitters evidence was flawed with or without extinction. -- John Kennaugh
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Nov 2007 10:30
bz wrote: > Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in > news:TFE%i.22137$lD6.20414(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net: > bz wrote: >>> As I have pointed out to Henri many times, (and perhaps to you), >>> 'extinction' requires a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics >> This is simply not true. Optical extinction is what makes eyeglasses and >> other lenses work. > > I am afraid that my understanding of optical extinction is different from > yours. [quote > http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/epjd/abs/1999/06/d8252/d8252.html] The > optical extinction rate of the particle embedded in an absorbing host is > defined as a rate of local energy losses caused by the particle > (absorption in the particle volume and scattering by the particle-matrix > interface) referenced to the matrix background. [unquote] > > There is nothing about energy gain from the medium. The difficulty is that there are two different theoretical contexts being discussed, with no clear demarcation between them. They are: A) the modern theory of classical electrodynamics, including SR B) some generic emission or ballistic theory involving c+v Your quote is using (A) but most of my statements were related to (B). Some of my statements, like the one above about eyeglasses, apply to both (A) and (B). > The light leaving the medium has LESS energy (some is absorbed and > scattered) than the light that entered. One must carefully distinguish the energy of individual photons from the energy (intensity) of the entire light beam. For theoretical context (A): The energy of individual photons is proportional to their frequency. As photons propagate between mediums their frequency does not change (continuity of fields at the boundary), so neither does their energy. The total energy of a light beam is related to its intensity, and as a light beam propagates between mediums some is reflected at the boundary, and some is absorbed in the medium, so the total energy of the beam decreases. For theoretical context (B): It's not clear that photons are appropriate; certainly (B) does not include QED (which is the theory that defines photons). So I'll say "light packet" in context (B) where I would say "photon" in context (A). If individual packets of light have energy related to their speed, then as light propagates from a more dense medium to a less dense medium, the speed of the packets must increase, so some "magic" method must be invented to provide such an increase in the energy of the light packets. If packets of light have energy proportional to their frequency and independent of their speed, then no "magic" is required and the situation is the same as for context (A). In any case the intensity and total energy of the beam is reduced by the medium, as in (A). As the implicit goal of ballistic theories is to relate light to Newtonian mechanics, it is not clear how a light packet could have an energy independent of its speed, in which case such "magic" is indeed required. > Even in a laser, neither speed nor energy is gained by the light passing > through, only intensity. Again that is context (A), not (B). And the total energy of the beam is most definitely increased, as it is related to intensity; but the energy of individual photons is unchanged as you said. You must be more careful in stating "energy of what", and also what theoretical context you are using. > light enters a medium from a vacuum and slows down. This has been observed. > It does NOT speed up. When light enters a less dense medium from a more dense medium, it does indeed speed up. The inner face of eyeglasses refracts the light, too. But yes, advocates of c+v need to discuss a mechanism for light to speed up when transitioning from a less dense to a more dense medium (for the case when c-v from the source is less than c/n of the medium). This does indeed require some sort of "magic".... _I_ do not advocate such a theory, and the burden is on such advocates, not me. Context (A): In QED this occurs naturally, due to the difference in the phase interferences of the two mediums. In classical electrodynamics it also occurs naturally, due to the different indexes of refraction of the two mediums. Context (B): It's not clear how to do this at all, especially if the energy of a light packet depends on its speed. I have not seen a good explanation anywhere. >> One can easily construct a model in >> which the light interacts with the medium, transferring energy and >> momentum to the medium as required. >> This is just a minor variation on >> how classical electrodynamics models this process (without c+v of >> course). > > One might. I have yet to see any one do so. Right. This is Henri Wilson's failure (as well as other advocates of ballistic theories, or people like John Kennaugh who advocate c+v). As I said above, this depends on how the energy of individual light packets behaves; I can imagine it is possible, but the devil is in the details, and it seems likely to me that no such "magic" can be self consistent.... But advocates of theories involving c+v do not seem to understand the need for this theoretical justification for such theories. >> Nonsense. The individual portions of a light ray can exchange energy and >> momentum with the medium, resulting in the light traveling at c/n >> relative to the medium, regardless of the light's initial speed. > > That has NEVER been demonstrated. It is demonstrated with lenses all the time. Think of the refraction caused by air bubbles in water for the other case (less dense "lens" immersed in a denser medium). Or soap bubbles.... I agree that nobody has described a sensible mechanism to account for a speed c/n in a medium, for light that traveled with c-v in vacuum before entering the medium, with c-v being slower than c/n (all speeds relative to the medium). > Slowing down by the medium HAS been but speeding by the medium has not. > Simultaneous slowing and speeding have not. Sure they have all been demonstrated, using variations of less and more dense mediums. But yes, it has not been described or demonstrated for the case that distinguishes ballistic or c+v theories from SR. Tom Roberts |