OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: bz on 9 Jun 2005 10:07 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:733ga1tlt4ill427arlcotoaop6q3gje56(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:50:11 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in >>news:v53en2-mnu.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: >> >>> In sci.physics, bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >>> wrote >>> on Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:44:49 +0000 (UTC) >>> <Xns966D44A70B5E5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: >>>> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>> news:30a8a11lhguqj8peohbfp0c25auhismk4r(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>>>> According to the BaT, light will move at c wrt every component in >>>>> the apparatus and therefore the travel time in both directions will >>>>> be the same. >>>>> >>>> >>>> how can it do so when different components are traveling at different >>>> velocities wrt the apparatus. For example, in a paricle accelerator. >>>> >>>> I thought BaT said light will move at c wrt the emitting body >>>> irrespective of the motions of anything else in the universe. >>> >>> No, BaT merely says light moves at c *only* with respect to the >>> emitting body *at* the point of the emission. >> >>ok. >> >>> After that, the >>> photon slows down, speeds up, changes direction, etc. like >>> any other Galilean particle moving at speed c, when encounting >>> gravitational fields and moving observers. >> >>How would you compare this to SR/GR photons? > > SG/GR says absolutely nothing about photons when they aren't being > observed. I suspect it says Newton's first law applies when they aren't being observed. I suspect is says Newton's second law applies when they aren't being observed. And what does BaT say about photons when they aren't being observed? >>> In one example, if hot gasses swirling around a black hole are >>> emitting at c, we would measure the photons moving slower than c. >>> >>> However, MMX cannot measure this change. (It wasn't designed to.) >> >>Henri keeps saying that photons emitted by particles moving near c in a >>particle accelerator won't show c'=c+v because of [insert hand waving >>here]. >> >>I want a real explaination, not hand waving. > > I don't want to discuss particles in accelerators or their decay > products. I understand why. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: russell on 9 Jun 2005 10:33 (I'm responding again to my own post, sorry!) russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > [I'm snipping Jerry's post... see original] > > Here's something else to think about. AIUI Gagnon et al. > claim to have falsified their semiclassical GGT theory, > and this contradicts Roberts, Zhang, etc. You claim > further that LET is falsified, but I think that doesn't > follow directly; you have to make additional arguments > a la Roberts to reach that conclusion. A problem for you. I think the crux here is that Lorentz aether contracts physical objects, while in GGT the aether is presumed to expand them. So the two aethers are not compatible; GGT and LET are not the same theory. Earlier I was confused by Gagnon et al.'s statement that the Lorentz transformation is obtained if you "impose" Einstein synch on their transformation. Now I understand better -- they are not saying that GGT is LET, or that it includes LET, but rather, that one can't tell the difference via the experiments done heretofore. They claim that their experiment is an exception, and this is of course where we find the apparent disagreement with Roberts. But Gagnon et al. never make the explicit claim that they have falsified LET itself, and I think this is for good reason. Going on, now, in all honesty I am not so confident that what I wrote in the following makes sense. It seemed a lot more compelling yesterday morning when I wrote it. > > Now let me suggest (humbly, because I'm just an amateur) > that Gagnon et al. go wrong in their analysis in the > following subtle way: they do not consider carefully > enough how slow transport will affect phase in the > waveguide that is run at extinction frequency. I meant "cutoff frequency". In essence > they are assuming that *signal* propagation speed is the > same in both waveguides, but they have no reason (other > than standard physics, which they are trying to test) to > make that assumption. My thought here was that the phase will not be uniform in the guide as the apparatus is turned wrt the lab frame; it has to readjust, and that requires signal propagation. However, I did not pursue this thought further, and now it seems to me the time scale is totally wrong for any effect to appear in the experiment; moreover any effect can be made as small as we want by simply turning the beam slower. OTOH, recall that in LET it's not immediately obvious how tiny differences in clock rate during slow transport really do add up to account for the relativity of simultaneity inherent in the Lorentz transformation, and that this effect doesn't just disappear if you move the clock slower. So maybe there's something to look at here. I won't claim to have done the looking myself. (The crux probably lies in the derivation of their Eq. 9, which I did not try to reproduce.) But, this may be a good place to suggest something else. In the light of my comments above about the difference between GGT aether and LET aether, we see the folly of expecting them to be experimentally transparent in exactly the same way. LET aether is transparent to experiment if it is not dragged; GGT (I am suggesting) may be transparent only if it *is* dragged. Put another way, I think it's possible that our other (pre-Gagnon) experiments actually do falsify undragged GGT aether, but not aether dragged in exactly the way that would cause Gagnon et al.'s experiment to be null. The authors don't explore this possibility. (E.g. It might be interesting to do an aberration calculation in GGT.) Furthermore, if my idea has merit, I think it can be reconciled with Roberts's position. While Roberts considers only the mathematics, Gagnon et al. assume (pro argumentum) that the GGT aether is real and that EM waves propagate according to what we'd expect in such an aether. That this does not agree in every respect with Roberts's math may mean only that Gagnon et al. did not pick the appropriate aether model to fit the transformation they propose.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 9 Jun 2005 11:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:29:55 GMT <ju2ga152025kp0be7sumf9ghogsot0clmu(a)4ax.com>: > On 6 Jun 2005 21:33:49 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On 6 Jun 2005 04:29:33 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> >(sigh) >>> >Download Filipas and Fox and -read- it. All of your objections >>> >are answered. You have nothing to stand on. >>> >http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf >>> >>> You don't really think that experiment proves anything >>> do you? It contains so many asumptions it could produce >>> any answers you can name. >> >>>From the nature of your response, it is obvious that >>you are incapable of providing valid criticism of the >>experimental setup or understanding the math. Hence >>you resort to rhetoric, hoping that nobody notices >>the complete emptiness of your words. > > SRians are desperate for anything that might even remotely support their > illogical pseudo-aether theory. I'd like to see your calculations on LHC, please. SR explains the specs well; what can BaT furnish there? [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Jerry on 10 Jun 2005 08:57 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > [I'm snipping Jerry's post... see original] > > Here's something else to think about. AIUI Gagnon et al. > claim to have falsified their semiclassical GGT theory, > and this contradicts Roberts, Zhang, etc. You claim > further that LET is falsified, but I think that doesn't > follow directly; you have to make additional arguments > a la Roberts to reach that conclusion. A problem for you. I was more than a little chagrined when I worked out the consequences of applying the Lorentz Transformations rather than Gagnon et al.'s Generalized Galilean Transformations (GGT). The Lorentz transformations are t' = g(t-vx/c^2) x' = g(x-vt) y' = y z' = z where g is being used for gamma g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) Assume a waveguide moving to the right at velocity v relative to the hypothetical aether. ============ ============ --0--------------x-------- Although Gagnon et al. use continuous RF in their OWLS experiment, in this thought experiment I shall inject a pulse of RF into the waveguide at point 0, which emerges from the opposite end at point x. The velocity of the pulse does not matter, but I will use c. The length of the waveguide is d, and its foreshortened length in the aether frame is d/g . The question is, what is t' when the pulse emerges from the waveguide. As a double check, x' ought to be d. x = d/g + vt x = ct Therefore, ct = d/g + vt t(c-v) = d/g t = d/g/(c-v) x = cd/g/(c-v) x' = g(x-vt) = g[cd/g/(c-v) - vd/g/(c-v)] x' = d[c/(c-v) - v/(c-v)] = d(c-v)/(c-v) = d So far so good. t' = g(t-vx/c^2) = g[d/g/(c-v) - vcd/g/(c-v)/c^2] t' = d(1/(c-v) - v/(c-v)/c] = d[c/(c-v)/c - v/(c-v)/c] t' = d[(c-v)/(c-v)/c] = d/c which is exactly the same figure as for a waveguide which is motionless in the hypothetical aether. In other words an OWLS experiment is no more capable of detecting motion through an aether obeying Lorentz transform rules than a TWLS experiment. Thanks for pointing out my error, which was to accept uncritically Gagnon et al.'s final statement, "Our results are consistent with the special theory of relativity and do not tend to support the semiclassical theory or the existence of a preferred frame of reference." Since at the beginning of the paper, the Lorentz aether was referred to as a semiclassical absolute space theory, I mistakenly took that to mean that the results were inconsistent with LET. > Now let me suggest (humbly, because I'm just an amateur) Obviously I'm even more of an amateur! :-) > that Gagnon et al. go wrong in their analysis in the > following subtle way: they do not consider carefully > enough how slow transport will affect phase in the > waveguide that is run at extinction frequency. In essence > they are assuming that *signal* propagation speed is the > same in both waveguides, but they have no reason (other > than standard physics, which they are trying to test) to > make that assumption. No, they don't assume that. For one thing, they use unmodulated RF. Also, standard waveguide theory predicts that group velocity is inversely related to phase velocity. A typical waveguide has phase velocity approximately 1.3c and group velocity approximately 0.7c. > Put another way, they assume that the waveguide is (in > main part) driving the wave in one case, and not in the > other (since it is idealized as traveling unhindered > through the aether) but that makes the first waveguide > essentially a clock, or rather a whole series of clocks > since it is extended in space. A clock is necessarily a free running oscillator. The two receivers at the far ends of the two waveguides are forced oscillators, not independent clocks. > And clocks that are > slowly transported wrt each other are supposed to go > out of phase in the test theory since their frequencies > wrt the aether frame will differ. The two receivers, being forced oscillators, are in essence remote readouts of the source oscillator, and must share the same frequency as the source oscillator no matter who is observing them. Otherwise you'd have what various crackpots on this group refer to as "tick fairies". > I think they do not > address this objection in their paper. > Despite its being a worthy piece of work. Again, thanks for your critique! I learned a lot. Jerry
From: George Dishman on 10 Jun 2005 13:54
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:fd2ga1h0pcl0lseak2v7oa4i8r4gcbqvs3(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:21:16 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:9lm9a1l02h33pl4fqg4cf7aurvk5etiho7(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:03:15 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>... a few weeks ago Henri posted a >>>>Visual Basic program illustration how the >>>>Sagnac experiment falsified the Ritzian >>>>(ballistic light) model. While there were >>>>some details to be resolved, he showed it >>>>produced an error of "a factor of about 2". >>> >>> Don't lie George. >>> My program obvioously surprised you because it proved what I wa saying >>> all >>> along. >> >>Not really, you were working towards something >>that matched my own but you said it would take >>some time and we left the conversation there. >>I expect that when you complete it you will >>find you get the same as me but you need to >>correct the angles so that the beams both hit >>the same point and then we can look at the >>speeds you are using. > > My beams do hit the same point when there is no rotation. They need to meet at all rotation speeds. Henri, maybe you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, there are two ways you could take it. I'm not saying that a beam will bend to get to the right place or something like that. A source has a finite beam width which means, if you like, that photons come out like droplets from a shower. If you stand under it you get wet but the path of the drops that hit you depends on where you stand. The path of any particular drop doesn't change to hit you because you move though. >>> The sagnac effect occurs no matter what light speed is used. >>> It certainly does not prove the BaT wrong. >>> >>>> >>>>Henri, how is your program development going? >>>>Have you got the beams to coincide on the >>>>detector yet? > >>> >>> They only coincide when there is no rotation. >>> That's the main principle behind the sagnac effect. >> >>I thought you had grasped how an interferometer >>worked during our chat. The intensity at any >>point on the screen (or whatever other detector >>is used) depends on the amplitudes and relative >>phase of the two beams falling on that point. >>It should be obvious that a ray landing elsewhere >>cannot change the intensity at that point. > > I dont think that is the whole story at all. I reckon the divergence of > the > beams has as much to do with it than path length difference. > Huygens principle has no QM basis. For a macroscopic effect like an interferometer, the probability of an individual photon hitting a point on the screen is directly related to the intensity found using Huygens method. A classical analysis is entirely appropriate. Still, the option is there for you to try a QM analysis if you think it might give you a solution. >>It's quite simple to work out the numbers because >>the legs are equal so each reflection point is >>90 degrees plus 1/4 of the overall angle moved by >>the detector between emission and reception. This >>applet shows the beam paths: >> >>http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/SagnacAngles.html > > I don't agree that they meet when the thing is rotating, according to > either > theory... If you consider a photon which would have hit the point if the equipment then perhaps it won't hit the same location if it is rotating. However, some other photon will hit it otherwise you see no light at all, never mind fringes. It is the path of whatever photon reaches the point that interests us. >>If I get some time, I intend to animate this to >>match your format but it won't be soon, sorry. > > Time is becoming quite a problem, I'm afraid. I share the problem. George |