Sagnac Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: USM
Next: The real twin paradox.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 23 Oct 2007 06:24 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > Imagine two identical bicycle chains arranged in a circle, one on top of the > other. They will represent the two rotating light rays. Each link is a > wavecest. > Mark two adjacent links to represent points on both rays leaving the source > with similar phase. The two chains will move at c+v and c-v in opposite > directions. Very good, indeed. Finally a sensible model from you. > The position of the detector where the marked links reunite can be represented > by a line somewhere around the ring. Its position is determined by ring speed. > ....as per: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm > > It is easy to see that the links will generally not line up at that detection > point indicating that the phase of the two rays will not be the same. Quite the contrary, Henri. It is easy to see that your links will pass the detector at the same phase. Since the detector is moving at v, both chains will pass the detector at c. phi_1|-> <-c -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> | -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> c-> <-|phi_2 phi_1 = phi_2 = 0 ------------------------------------------------------------ <-c -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> | -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> c-> phi_1 = phi_2 = pi/2 ------------------------------------------------------------ <-c -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> | -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> c-> phi_1 = phi_2 = pi ------------------------------------------------------------ <-c -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> | -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> c-> phi_1 = phi_2 = 3/2 pi ------------------------------------------------------------ <-c -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> | -<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<0>-<O> c-> phi_1 = phi_2 = 2pi = 0 ------------------------------------------------------------ etc. Since the detector and the source are colocated, you can see that since the chains are in phase at the source, they _have_ to be in phase at the detector as well. BTW, Henri, How does the difference in number of wavelengths (links) in your two chains vary with v? > This is not hard to understand...and of course, it produces the right > answer..... Indeed it does. A splendid model of the emission theory. Not hard to understand at all. Congratulations. You could also see Jerry's animation of your model. -- Paul ...wondering what Henri will do when he realizes what he just did. "The source emits photons, not bicycle chains" maybe? :-) http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Androcles on 23 Oct 2007 06:38 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:471DCBEE.8040602(a)hiadeletethis.no... : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: : > Imagine two identical bicycle chains arranged in a circle, one on top of the : > other. They will represent the two rotating light rays. Each link is a : > wavecest. : > Mark two adjacent links to represent points on both rays leaving the source : > with similar phase. The two chains will move at c+v and c-v in opposite : > directions. : : Very good, indeed. : Finally a sensible model from you. : : > The position of the detector where the marked links reunite can be represented : > by a line somewhere around the ring. Its position is determined by ring speed. : > ....as per: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm : > : > It is easy to see that the links will generally not line up at that detection : > point indicating that the phase of the two rays will not be the same. : : Quite the contrary, Henri. : It is easy to see that your links will pass the detector : at the same phase. Since the detector is moving at v, : both chains will pass the detector at c. Quite the contrary, Tusseladd. It is even easier to see you are wrong. Both racks move at c but pass the detector with different phases to do. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rack.gif
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 23 Oct 2007 18:18 On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:38:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message >news:471DCBEE.8040602(a)hiadeletethis.no... >: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >: > Imagine two identical bicycle chains arranged in a circle, one on top of >: > The position of the detector where the marked links reunite can be >represented >: > by a line somewhere around the ring. Its position is determined by ring >speed. >: > ....as per: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm >: > >: > It is easy to see that the links will generally not line up at that >detection >: > point indicating that the phase of the two rays will not be the same. >: >: Quite the contrary, Henri. >: It is easy to see that your links will pass the detector >: at the same phase. Since the detector is moving at v, >: both chains will pass the detector at c. OK, I explained that wrongly. The links DO end up in phase at the detedtion point. This illustrates the classical wave equation and is essentially the same as Jerry's 'moving sine wave' animation. Whthe chain shows however is that the number of links (wavelengths) iin each path is different.....AND IT IS THIS FACT RATHER THAN THE CLASSICAL WAVE APPROACH THAT CORRECTLY EXPLAINS SAGNAC. >Quite the contrary, Tusseladd. >It is even easier to see you are wrong. >Both racks move at c but pass the detector with different phases to do. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rack.gif I repeat, quote: George, I thnk I now know the problem. YOU are treating light as though it is a classical wave that obeys the general wave equation: A= sin[2pi(t/tor-x/lambda] This works for waves in a medium and can be literally observed in the case of water waves. Jerry's animation shows this....it assumes light is nothing but a 'moving sine wave'. My 'cycle chain' idea also describes the classical traveling wave although it was intended to show the different path lengths. The plain fact is, George, light does NOT behave like this. Photons are complex particles and their leading edge cannot be regarded simply as 'a moving point of constant phase'. The equation describing their wavelike motion appears to be more like: A= sin[2pi(x/lambda].....but that needs qualifying.... It seems to fit in with my 'standing wave' photon model. The problem now is to investigate possible properties of photons that might explain this type of behavior. That is what I will be working on in future. I'm going to cut the number of threads covering Sagnac. There's far too much repetition. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 24 Oct 2007 04:25 On 23 Oct, 23:18, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:38:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message > >news:471DCBEE.8040602(a)hiadeletethis.no... > >: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > >: > Imagine two identical bicycle chains arranged in a circle, one on top of > >: > The position of the detector where the marked links reunite can be > >represented > >: > by a line somewhere around the ring. Its position is determined by ring > >speed. > >: > ....as per:http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm > >: > > >: > It is easy to see that the links will generally not line up at that > >detection > >: > point indicating that the phase of the two rays will not be the same. > >: > >: Quite the contrary, Henri. > >: It is easy to see that your links will pass the detector > >: at the same phase. Since the detector is moving at v, > >: both chains will pass the detector at c. > > OK, I explained that wrongly. The links DO end up in phase at the detedtion > point. This illustrates the classical wave equation and is essentially the same > as Jerry's 'moving sine wave' animation. Excellent, Henry you finally got it. Now imagine each link of the chain has a capacitor on it. As it passes the source, a voltage is applied and of course you get the same voltage on the links on both chains, but the voltage of the source varies with time. Jerry's simulation shows a sine wave source but it could equally well be any other function, it doesn't even need to be periodic. Ibn fact if the voltage on each link is entirely random, then you get a white noise source. At the detector, the voltages on the capacitors are measured as they pass, perhaps by a wire brushing a passing contact. That is the ballistic theory model for EM propagation, the chains move at c+v and c-v in the inertial frame and the same voltage is on both links at the detector, they are _always_ in phase. > Whthe chain shows however is that the number of links (wavelengths) iin each > path is different.....AND IT IS THIS FACT RATHER THAN THE CLASSICAL WAVE > APPROACH THAT CORRECTLY EXPLAINS SAGNAC. The detector can only sense the links as they are in contact, just as Sagnac's photographic plate could not be affected by what was being emitted at the filament bulb until it had travelled to the plate. > >Quite the contrary, Tusseladd. > >It is even easier to see you are wrong. > >Both racks move at c but pass the detector with different phases to do. > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rack.gif > > I repeat, quote: > > George, I thnk I now know the problem. > > YOU are treating light as though it is a classical wave that obeys the general > wave equation: A= sin[2pi(t/tor-x/lambda] > This works for waves in a medium and can be literally observed in the case of > water waves. > Jerry's animation shows this....it assumes light is nothing but a 'moving sine > wave'. > My 'cycle chain' idea also describes the classical traveling wave although it > was intended to show the different path lengths. > The plain fact is, George, light does NOT behave like this. Photons are complex > particles and their leading edge cannot be regarded simply as 'a moving point > of constant phase'. The equation describing their wavelike motion appears to > be more like: A= sin[2pi(x/lambda].....but that needs qualifying.... It seems > to fit in with my 'standing wave' photon model. > > The problem now is to investigate possible properties of photons that might > explain this type of behavior. > That is what I will be working on in future. > > I'm going to cut the number of threads covering Sagnac. There's far too much > repetition. To help that' I'll cut and paste a previous reply from another thread where you said something similar to your last section above. George That is valid for monochromatic light. In general any real signal will have a spread of frequencies, however you can always use Fourier analysis to split it into equivalent monochromatic components. In general you could start with an entirely arbitrary signal being emitted from an antenna or equivalently "white" light from a black body source, which is mathematically equivalent to a random number sequence fed through a filter to give the right spectrum, and each sample of that source would propagate at "c+v" according to ballistic theory. > This works for waves in a medium and can be literally observed in the case of > water waves. > Jerry's animation shows this....it assumes light is nothing but a 'moving sine > wave'. Yes, but she could generalise the sine wave to an arbitrary function or a filtered random noise generator and the application of ballistic theory would remain the same. What would hit the detector would be two copies of the source waveform both delayed by the same amount hance both still in phase. > My 'cycle chain' idea also describes the classical traveling wave although it > was intended to show the different path lengths. That idea works, it correctly illustrates what ballistic theory says should happen and if you modified your program to show it we could stop talking round stupid points where your imagined results aren't what you would see if you actually wrote the code. > The plain fact is, George, light does NOT behave like this. The plain fact is, Henry, ballistic theory says it does. In reality you are right, light doesn't behave like that, but ballistic theory says it does.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 24 Oct 2007 08:01
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > : > Imagine two identical bicycle chains arranged in a circle, one on top of the > : > other. They will represent the two rotating light rays. Each link is a > : > wavecest. > : > Mark two adjacent links to represent points on both rays leaving the source > : > with similar phase. The two chains will move at c+v and c-v in opposite > : > directions. > : > > : > It is easy to see that the links will generally not line up at that detection > : > point indicating that the phase of the two rays will not be the same. > : > : Quite the contrary, Henri. > : It is easy to see that your links will pass the detector > : at the same phase. Since the detector is moving at v, > : both chains will pass the detector at c. > OK, I explained that wrongly. The links DO end up in phase at the detedtion > point. This illustrates the classical wave equation and is essentially the same > as Jerry's 'moving sine wave' animation. Indeed. And your very good analogy of a Sagnac ring according to the emission theory illustrates that whatever the v might be, the two rays will always be in phase at the detector. And that's all what the discussion is about isn't it? So it's settled. The emission theory predict no phase difference between the contra moing rays. > Whthe chain shows however is that the number of links (wavelengths) iin each > path is different.....AND IT IS THIS FACT RATHER THAN THE CLASSICAL WAVE > APPROACH THAT CORRECTLY EXPLAINS SAGNAC. What ARE you talking about, Henri? We have two chains (rays), moving in opposite directions. The number of links (wavelengths) is constant, so how would you count them to get a different number of links (wavelengths) in the two chains (rays)? Would you count some of them twice, and others not at all? And even if you do count them in such an idiotic way, how do you imagine that your inventive way of counting the links can change the only fact that matters, namely that BOTH RAYS ARE AWAYS IN PHASE AT THE DETECTOR? > The plain fact is, George, light does NOT behave like this. You are indeed right. The fact that there IS a phase difference between the rays, prove that light does not behave as predicted by the emission theory. That's why the Sagnac experiment falsifies the emission theory. SR, OTOH, predicts what is observed. Which you can see in these correct analyses: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |