GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: John Kennaugh on 6 Dec 2007 17:08 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh ><JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:29:56 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>John Kennaugh wrote: > >>>>This is not "me", this is the common and well-established meaning of >>>>"photon": In the standard model, photons are elementary particles with >>>>no internal structure. They have no mass or charge, but do interact >>>>electromagnetically with charged particles. >>> >>>If a particle has no internal structure, it cannot possibly posssess >>>properties >>>that would make it any different from 'empty space'. >> >> >>How can anyone possibly know that a photon has no internal structure? It >>is an article of faith. >> >>Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can >>do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you >>know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can >>make no claims as to the structure of a photon. > >It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be considered >as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. This fits in with the BaTh explanation >of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena. >The nature of that oscillation is not known but I suspect it could be a >rotating +/- charge pair This was my suggestion some time back. If you think about it Maxwell's equations are built solely on relationships relating to charge - Faraday having shown that magnetism is caused by moving charge. As Maxwell's equations model light very well that success means there must be a link between light and charge therefore there must be a link between photons and charge. Physics is undisciplined because it has turned its back on the idea that maths and physical interpretation compliment each other and now physical interpretation is considered an unnecessary adjunct to theory. If one insists on maintaining that discipline see where it leads. If there is no aether (as believed by mainstream physics) then it cannot be responsible for action at a distance forces. There is no obvious alternative explanation so one might ask if one is actually needed. Ultimately all force acts at a distance and one is lead to the conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept this as fundamental without need of explanation. If so, then a 'field' becomes a 'field of influence'. A mapping of the direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on a charge *if* a charge were placed at a given point. In which case a field is not physical but metaphysical it cannot exist without a source of influence and cannot store energy (because it isn't physical) nor propagate through space as a separate entity. If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge. > or something like a standing wave running along the >length of the photon 'envelope'. >Photons also have effective 'cross section and length', If photons contain rotating charge then they produce a surrounding field. You therefore have both the physical cross section but an effective width beyond that to the extent of the field. >which explains the >double slit experiment. I am told that even if the light level is reduced such that photons arrive singly at a double slit, interference fringes are detected, 'interference' still takes place. I beg to differ. Not as I understand interference at any rate. If two sine waves each amplitude unity are interfering with each other then depending on the phase the result is anything from an amplitude of 2 to 0 and *any amplitude in between* e.g. an amplitude of say 0.333 is perfectly possible. In the case of photons you cannot have 0.333 of a photon. Although the result might be mathematically similar to interference in fact either a whole photon arrives at a point on the detector, or doesn't. A maximum may indeed be a build up of photons each adding to the intensity but a minimum is not where two things have cancelled. The slits somehow determine the probability that a photon will travel in any given direction, the probability of travelling in some directions being much higher than in others. Thus a fringe pattern is built up over time. A minimum represents a direction with a very low probability where very few photons have arrived. Explaining this behaviour is a difficult matter but at least let us be clear about what it is we are trying to explain and not go into fantasy land and suggest that a photon becomes a wave and passes through both slits and interferes with itself as I have seen suggested. If it did you could get 0.333 of a photon. Now if you study the original double slit experiment the slits are illuminated by a single slit. Without such things as lasers this is necessary so as to select a small area of the source in order that the light from it is sufficiently coherent to give interference fringes. For an ordinary source photons are given off in large coherent bursts (all oscillating in phase). If you take the light from two big an area you collect bursts of different phases (there is also something called temporal coherence which is that light from the same spot but later in time will not cause interference with earlier light from the same spot). OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce 'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference fringes? We take it for granted that the material in which the slits are cut plays no part in it the process but you wouldn't use transparent material would you? If you wanted to do the experiment at RF you would have to make the slits in metal as that is not transparent to RF. Just as with the optical experiment you would select the size of the slit to give best results - clearest fringes. Now I am an electronics engineer but aerial design is not something I know too much about but I think that that arrangement at RF would be described as two slot antenna. The excitation of those slots not being the RF which manages to make it through the slots but the metal plate as a whole being excited by the incident RF energy and being re-radiated by the slots. Even if you think of an optical double slit as a shooting gallery where some photons go through and some do not the geometry is such that more photons will miss the slots than go through. One cannot simply ignore them and say they play no further part. It is possible that those which do not go through the slits play as important a role as those which do. That they in some way prime the fields which exist in the slots in such a way that the next photon passing through them is deflected by an angle whose probability is effected by the previous photons - including those which didn't go through. >Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation >frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its >source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it slowly lose >energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift). If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost? I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron: Waldron R.A. 1983b "the spinning photon" SST 6,259 I believe SST may stand for "Speculations in Science and Technology". You might be interested in Waldron, R. A., 1981b. "Is the Universe Really Expanding?" SST 4, 539. -- Cheers John Kennaugh
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 7 Dec 2007 17:32
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >>On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh >><JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can >>>do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you >>>know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can >>>make no claims as to the structure of a photon. >> >>It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be considered >>as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. This fits in with the BaTh explanation >>of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena. >>The nature of that oscillation is not known but I suspect it could be a >>rotating +/- charge pair > >This was my suggestion some time back. If you think about it Maxwell's >equations are built solely on relationships relating to charge - Faraday >having shown that magnetism is caused by moving charge. As Maxwell's >equations model light very well that success means there must be a link >between light and charge therefore there must be a link between photons >and charge. I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but looks something like this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg The fields are oscillating and form a standing wave along the photon's length. Each photon has a well defined INTRINSIC 'wavelength' that is absolute and the same in all frames. You can see my model oscillating and moving (in reality at c wrt its source) at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe > >Physics is undisciplined because it has turned its back on the idea that >maths and physical interpretation compliment each other and now physical >interpretation is considered an unnecessary adjunct to theory. If one >insists on maintaining that discipline see where it leads. > >If there is no aether (as believed by mainstream physics) then it cannot >be responsible for action at a distance forces. > >There is no obvious alternative explanation so one might ask if one is >actually needed. Ultimately all force acts at a distance and one is lead >to the conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept >this as fundamental without need of explanation. > >If so, then a 'field' becomes a 'field of influence'. A mapping of the >direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on a charge *if* >a charge were placed at a given point. > >In which case a field is not physical but metaphysical it cannot exist >without a source of influence and cannot store energy (because it isn't >physical) nor propagate through space as a separate entity. > >If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of >influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if >photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge. I agree with that. I am now wondering if each photon consists of an individual package of 'the stuff that fields are made of'. Since photons are apparently everywhere, so is the 'stuff'. Even though the individual photons are moving, does the 'stuff they carry' form a kind of continuous aether? ....just a thought.... >> or something like a standing wave running along the >>length of the photon 'envelope'. >>Photons also have effective 'cross section and length', > >If photons contain rotating charge then they produce a surrounding >field. You therefore have both the physical cross section but an >effective width beyond that to the extent of the field. Yes. Even a pair of spinning charges should generate a similar field that operates withing a 'volume'. >>which explains the >>double slit experiment. > >I am told that even if the light level is reduced such that photons >arrive singly at a double slit, interference fringes are detected, >'interference' still takes place. I beg to differ. Not as I understand >interference at any rate. If two sine waves each amplitude unity are >interfering with each other then depending on the phase the result is >anything from an amplitude of 2 to 0 and *any amplitude in between* e.g. >an amplitude of say 0.333 is perfectly possible. > >In the case of photons you cannot have 0.333 of a photon. Although the >result might be mathematically similar to interference in fact either a >whole photon arrives at a point on the detector, or doesn't. A maximum >may indeed be a build up of photons each adding to the intensity but a >minimum is not where two things have cancelled. The slits somehow >determine the probability that a photon will travel in any given >direction, the probability of travelling in some directions being much >higher than in others. > >Thus a fringe pattern is built up over time. A minimum represents a >direction with a very low probability where very few photons have >arrived. Explaining this behaviour is a difficult matter but at least >let us be clear about what it is we are trying to explain and not go >into fantasy land and suggest that a photon becomes a wave and passes >through both slits and interferes with itself as I have seen suggested. >If it did you could get 0.333 of a photon. > >Now if you study the original double slit experiment the slits are >illuminated by a single slit. Without such things as lasers this is >necessary so as to select a small area of the source in order that the >light from it is sufficiently coherent to give interference fringes. For >an ordinary source photons are given off in large coherent bursts (all >oscillating in phase). If you take the light from two big an area you >collect bursts of different phases (there is also something called >temporal coherence which is that light from the same spot but later in >time will not cause interference with earlier light from the same spot). I was hoping my model might explain this. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg The thing is oscilating. The diffracted angle depends on the phase of the intrinsic field on arrival at the slits. A small portion of the individual photon is deflected to an angle that somehow depends on that phase.....I don't know how 'wavelength' comes into the picture though. >OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce >'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference >fringes? CMIIW but I don't think that's true for incoherent MONOCHROMATIC light. >We take it for granted that the material in which the slits are >cut plays no part in it the process but you wouldn't use transparent >material would you? If you wanted to do the experiment at RF you would >have to make the slits in metal as that is not transparent to RF. Just >as with the optical experiment you would select the size of the slit to >give best results - clearest fringes. Now I am an electronics engineer >but aerial design is not something I know too much about but I think >that that arrangement at RF would be described as two slot antenna. The >excitation of those slots not being the RF which manages to make it >through the slots but the metal plate as a whole being excited by the >incident RF energy and being re-radiated by the slots. > >Even if you think of an optical double slit as a shooting gallery where >some photons go through and some do not the geometry is such that more >photons will miss the slots than go through. One cannot simply ignore >them and say they play no further part. It is possible that those which >do not go through the slits play as important a role as those which do. >That they in some way prime the fields which exist in the slots in such >a way that the next photon passing through them is deflected by an angle >whose probability is effected by the previous photons - including those >which didn't go through. I don't think you need to worry about that. A single photon has a finite cross section. Some of it passes through each slit and presumably disperses a little. The amount of reinforcement and hence diffracted angle depends on the relationship between the (phase?) properties of the 'two bits' as they meet. >>Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation >>frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its >>source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it slowly lose >>energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift). > >If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost? Part of the CMBR >I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron: > >Waldron R.A. 1983b "the spinning photon" SST 6,259 >I believe SST may stand for "Speculations in Science and Technology". > >You might be interested in >Waldron, R. A., 1981b. "Is the Universe Really Expanding?" SST 4, 539. will look. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |