Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 10 Apr 2005 00:49 Dear RP: "RP" <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:so2dneqgYefX6MXfRVn-rg(a)centurytel.net... .... >> How does it know to emit 29.96 MHz photons, at that moment, >> rather than >> 29.959 MHz? > > Right. There are no photons. Photoelectric effect. Resonance doesn't work. Wave models don't work for PE. They are useful abstractions, just as particle-only models are useful abstractions. So there are no waves. ;>) David A. Smith
From: kenseto on 10 Apr 2005 04:15 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1113097125.118583.55900(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > > In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) > > <H@> > > wrote > > on Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:45:18 GMT > > <16bv4112a99gjs54gmro5c0hrsb9rtfak2(a)4ax.com>: > > > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:00:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > > > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > > > > > >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) > > >><H@> > > >> wrote > > >>on Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:21:50 GMT > > >><f5au41p1m4h5pjacaresa5e6082hcuro8q(a)4ax.com>: > > > > [crunch] > > > > >>Optical fibre would suffer the same signal-speed anisotropy > > >>as electrical cabling. That is not a solution. > > >> > > >>Of course, it turns out signal-speed anisotropy is not > > >>really a problem, either. :-) OLWS lightspeed is isotropic > > >>to a few parts per billion, if my memory is correct > > >>regarding certain experiments thereon. (My memory also > > >>tells me that the experiments did not measure OLWS directly.) > > > > > > Well Ghost, I was trying to keep that a secret > > > > > > It is true because light speed is source dependent. > > > > And what experiments show this source dependency? > > > > Color me curious. > > There are plenty of experiments that show it is not. > Filipas and Fox (1964) is quite good. So is Brecher (1977) > > I set up a web page which will be valid for a one-week period > from April 8. > http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm > Today is April 9. After April 15, I am deleting the page. How did you put up the pages in the pdf format? What does it cost? Ken Seto
From: Jerry on 10 Apr 2005 04:43 kenseto wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:1113097125.118583.55900(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > > > In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) > > > <H@> > > > wrote > > > on Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:45:18 GMT > > > <16bv4112a99gjs54gmro5c0hrsb9rtfak2(a)4ax.com>: > > > > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:00:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > > > > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) > > > >><H@> > > > >> wrote > > > >>on Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:21:50 GMT > > > >><f5au41p1m4h5pjacaresa5e6082hcuro8q(a)4ax.com>: > > > > > > [crunch] > > > > > > >>Optical fibre would suffer the same signal-speed anisotropy > > > >>as electrical cabling. That is not a solution. > > > >> > > > >>Of course, it turns out signal-speed anisotropy is not > > > >>really a problem, either. :-) OLWS lightspeed is isotropic > > > >>to a few parts per billion, if my memory is correct > > > >>regarding certain experiments thereon. (My memory also > > > >>tells me that the experiments did not measure OLWS directly.) > > > > > > > > Well Ghost, I was trying to keep that a secret > > > > > > > > It is true because light speed is source dependent. > > > > > > And what experiments show this source dependency? > > > > > > Color me curious. > > > > There are plenty of experiments that show it is not. > > Filipas and Fox (1964) is quite good. So is Brecher (1977) > > > > I set up a web page which will be valid for a one-week period > > from April 8. > > http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm > > Today is April 9. After April 15, I am deleting the page. > > How did you put up the pages in the pdf format? What does it cost? PrimoPDP Creator is a free, very barebones tool. No popups, no ads, passes Spybot and Ad-Aware checks. http://www.primopdf.com/ There are lots of things PrimoPDP Creator doesn't do, example no thumbnails, no color optimization, etc. For that, they want you to download ActivePDF Maestro ($35) or ActivePDF Composer ($79). http://www.activepdf.com/products/pricing/ Jerry
From: George Dishman on 10 Apr 2005 05:37 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:o7lg51h09o1qrva29p3mqp5r5prdacbq0j(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:31 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:nl0a51tnupghqese7t86l3g4p18o6338sg(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:36:36 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>>news:65g851dn7asmetb67jjv5cnue56cbsjlai(a)4ax.com... <snip> >>> I still cannot see why fringe pattern should >>> change at all while the apparatus is rotating at >>> constant speed. >> >>OK Henri, I got it working. I have used a >>circular path appropriate for the iFOG >>technology I mention on the site. The are >>some important engineering aspects in real >>devices but the principle of operation >>remains the same and is also applicable to >>the original experiment with mirrors and >>straight paths. >> >>http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/iFOG.html > > Yes that works nicely. > > It shows the standard explanation of ring gyros. It appears > on the surface to be perfectly sound. Then help me here Henri, I'm puzzled. You clearly understand my explanation, it's nothing new as you say, but a few posts back you said: >> I cannot see that any theory other than some kind of >> 'local aether' one can account for this. >> >> SR certainly doesn't and I cannot yet see how it fits >> in with the ballistic theory. The description I have illustrated is basic SR, the speed of the light in the lab frame is c, so what do you mean when you say SR doesn't explain the effect? > I accept that rotation CAN be detected absolutely but I don't > agree with that explanation because it ignores the fact that > light is actually being internallyreflected an infinite number > of times by and infinitesimal amount. That is dealt with by the more thorough analysis that shows the effect is proportional to the area eclosed by the light path. See for example this page where it is calculated for an arbitrary polynomial after the circular version: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > I only want to analyse the four mirror system. Your demo > would have to consider a few other factors then. Ok, but you will need to tell me what other factors you want to consider. AFAIK, we have covered all the areas of uncertainty you brought up last time and eliminated any effect from them. >>I haven't found out how to stop the slider >>being reset when you reset the simulation so >>after each run, press reset before adjusting >>the table speed. > > Remove the default slider setting. Declare an initial > value that operates only on the program load. After > that, the setting should retain its current value. Yes, that's what I'm trying but the code generator seems reluctant to remove the setting once it is entered, although it is happy to change the value. It just needs a little investigation. >>You should think of the fast-moving dots as >>being a single wavefront that has been split >>to go in both directions. I might change >>them to short line segments later. >> >>The bottom line is that the speed of the >>light cannot be c+v in the lab frame or >>there would be no output, and it exactly >>matches the result of the experiment if it >>is precisely c regardless of the speed of >>the source. > > No, I will not give an opinion until I see the four > mirror analysis. What did you have in mind, something like the circular one but with the wavefronts moving along the straight paths of the previous static beam diagram? That would take some time and I'm not sure it would prove much. The key I suspect is what extra you want to take into account. George
From: bz on 10 Apr 2005 08:10
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> wrote in news:Ub26e.6498$EX4.1131(a)fed1read01: > Dear bz: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns963397D904118WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> >> wrote in >> news:KRV5e.6445$EX4.4126(a)fed1read01: >> >>> Dear bz: >>> >>> "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9633824B59BF5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >>>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox >>>> T:net(a)nospam.com> >>>> wrote in >>>> news:p2S5e.6044$EX4.5168(a)fed1read01: ..... >>>>> >>>>> Including exhibiting a variable E and/or >>>>> B, and providing the characteristic >>>>> self-interference pattern. >>>> Single photons exhibit interference in >>>> dual slit experiments. >>> Single photons arrive at locations indistinguishable >>> from "random". Only when you have a population, >>> is a pattern revealed. And this all says as much >>> about the geometry through which the photon >>> stream passed, as it does the photon stream. >> http://www.teachspin.com/products/two_slit/experiments.html >> A dual beam experiment, working with single >> photon events, shows that single photons carry >> polarization information. > Which says nothing about geometry of a photon. It says 'something' has effected the photon in a way that indicates that each photon has wave-like properties, including a wavelength and the corresponding frequency. The photons can NOT be said to 'arrive at locations indistinguishable from "random". If that were true, single photon experiments would never show a pattern of arrival locations. >> http://web.phys.ksu.edu/vqmorig/tutorials/online/wave_part/ >>>>>>> You will note that the photons pass you also at c. >>>>>> yes. >>>>>>> So the photon has no length (from left to right). >>>>>> length of each photon is c/f >>>>> Experimentally determined to be zero length. >>>>> There is no experiment than can get >>>>> wavelength information from a single photon... >>>>> only its energy. >>>> what about scattering of single photons from >>>> a diffraction grating? >>> Individual photons express "random". >>> Populations express "pattern". >> See previous references. Single photons are NOT random. > Polarization passed is "random". Polarization is simply not > aligned at 90 deg to the preferred orientation of the polarizing > medium. That leaves an infinite number of other orientations. What does this have to do with the single photons being diffracted from a grating at an angle that depends on the wavelength of the photon? > Arrival location (aka "detection" for a dual slit experiment) of > a single photon is "random". Then there would be no pattern found at the detector(s). ..... >>>>>>> You can run a long wavelength signal through >>>>>>> a spinning drum with two slits, and the signal >>>>>>> doesn't get "spun around" as if the photons >>>>>>> were caught in the slits... and diverted from >>>>>>> their course. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Several methods of determining c >>>>> used such. Some included rotating >>>>> mirrors, which provides even more >>>>> difficulties for your imagined photon >>>>> structure, since each photon would >>>>> now be tortured into a much longer >>>>> wavelength and mixed momentum. If >>>>> photons were such long creatures as >>>>> you imagine, these constructs would >>>>> not work. But they did, and did it >>>>> without affecting the wavelength. >>>> >>>> an 850 nm signal has a period of >>>> 2.8e-3 pico seconds. >>> >>> And on a rotating mirror, over tens of >>> kilometers between source/detector >>> and mirror, the effect on a finite length >>> photon would be nothing? >> >> I don't know. I suspect that some >> photons might be lost. Some might >> show a doppler shift. Do you know of >> any experiment that looked for photons >> OFF the expected path? > All the photons detected were ON the expected path, and the > intensity was as expected. A few lost photons are uninteresting > since a source for them could likely never be isolated. Laser 'gyros' work, and would work even at single photon rates. >>> Consider reflection of your finite >>> length photon. At one point during >>> reflection, the E and B field exactly >>> cancel each other out. The E and B fields are orthogonal to each other, they can't cancel each other out. >>> A zero >>> length particle, a quantum of an >>> established E and B field, doesn't >>> have this problem. >> A zero length particle has other >> problems. Interaction with slits, for >> one thing. > An electron is also a zero length particle, and it > self-interferes. Length is not required for self-interference. > One would imagine that "breadth" might be necessary to pass > through all slits, but one would also be wrong there. How does a 'zero length particle' express its wavelength? We often simplify problems by considering objects as points. That approximation is useful as long as the limitations are kept in mind. For example, when considering the orbit of the moon around the earth, to a first approximation, one can consider each as a point at the center of mass. That does NOT make the earth or moon have zero length. Likewise, when we consider a photon or electron as a point, we are using a useful approximation. Einstein, in formulating his theories, dropped the higher order terms. It made the math much simpler. >>>>>> Have you tried it? I don't know of anyone that >>>>>> has spun a slit anywhere near the frequency >>>>>> of the EM radiation. >>>>> 60Hz can be EM radiation. >>>> No one has ever detected a single photon at >>>> 60 Hz. The wavelength is 6,000 km. The energy >>>> is 4e-32 Joules. Much too weak to be detected >>>> as a single photon except very close to >>>> absolute zero because of thermal noise. >>> So you could not reflect a 60 Hz signal from a >>> spinning mirror, right? >> Not unless you have ONE huge mirror, that >> is for sure. :) > 60Hz signals are relecting off clouds, the ionosphere, buildings, > mountains. (Just ask the folks that do CE testing for electrical > devices.) Only the ionosphere has the requisite geometry > (according to you) to reflect such long wavelength light. To do MMX with 60 Hz, you would need a HUGE mirror, hundreds of times the wavelength of 60 Hz. This does not imply that 60 Hz doesn't have both near field and far field effects. The NAVY used 76 Hz for ELF communications with submarines. If 60 Hz reflects off of clouds there is significant ionization involved in the clouds, and with thunderstorms that is a normal situation. Loop antenna radiate significant signals (-9 dB gain) when they are 1% of the wavelength, so it is probable that some buildings will do so also. [quoting from a previous article of mine] Here is an article about a small one, used for transmitting. http://webpages.charter.net/aa5tb/loop.html and here is a commercially available line of loop antennas: http://www.ara-inc.com/PDF-HF/024-027.pdf I notice that at 3 MHz the gain is about -9dB it doesn't become zero until about 6.1 MHz. At 20 MHz the gain is about 7dB This is for a loop that is 3 feet high by 4 feet wide. If I take the average diameter as 3.5 feet, then the loop is 1% of the wavelength and has a 9 dB loss. Gain was zero when the antenna was 2% of the wavelenght. I am not sure WHAT comparison standard they used, isotropic or dipole. [unquote] >>> Don't get distracted about the photon issue... >>> concentrate on what it would mean for a >>> photon to have a physical length that is >>> some function of its "wavelength". >> I am. But when you cite 60 Hz EM radiation >> we must look at the implications. > Of? Physical length of a photon has been determined to be > inclusive of zero. And much much less than wavelength. cite? How much 'much much less'? >>>>> 1m corresponds to a wavelength. >>>> 1 meter has a frequency of 300 MHz >>>> and an energy 2e-25 Joules. I doubt >>>> that one meter single photons have >>>> been detected. >>> So I approach this 1m wave source >>> with a gamma of 1000. >>> Will I >>> be able to detect individual photons then? >> Sie Sie. Almost certainly. >>> Don't distract >>> yourself with our current detection >>> abilities. >> I won't, if you don't distract by citing long >> wavelength photons. > Expressing wavelength for photons is like describing a person by > "median age". More like expressing the earth's diameter as a single figure. And when you express the median age of a first grade class, you have useful information. It also tells you 'something' about the age of each of the students in the class. >>>>> Don't be silly. >>>> I try not to be. >>> Well, then try to be. >> I just be me. > Cest la vie! (Sounds better if you pronounce it as the French > would.) Oui oui. >>>>>> When you run a polarized beam through a >>>>>> layer of mylar film that is under stress, the >>>>>> plane of polarization gets rotated. When >>>>>> the source is white light and the polarizers >>>>>> are crossed, you see bright, colorful areas >>>>>> showing the stress in the plastic. >>>>> Which says something about: >>>>> - the signal passed through the mylar, and >>>>> - the variable speed of light in mylar >>>>> *nothing* about a single photon is revealed. >>>>> Because you can do the same test with >>>>> gamma or even x-rays and polarization is >>>>> unaffected. >>>> I fail to follow your logic. >>>> Why would we expect Gamma or x-rays to >>>> be effected by polarizers that work for visible >>>> light? Why would we expect mylar film to >>>> effect either? >>> If the "mechanism" of mylar affects light >>> based on a finite photon length, why >>> should it not have the same effect on shorter >>> wavelengths? >> Because mylar[and everything else] has >> different effects on different frequencies >> of EM radiation. > Ah! So now it is "frequency" that is important? In some experiments it is frequency that is important. In some, it is wavelength. In some, it is energy. The three are inseparable in reality. > If frequency is > important, and this is the rate at which a pattern is repeated in > a signal that propagates at c, and photons propagate at c, then > how is it that a photon repeats? A photon does not repeat. You have a single cycle. > Will it now be several > wavelengths long? No. But a single cycle has frequency and wavelength [and energy]. BTW, the single cycle might just go from peak to peak rather than from 0 crossing to 0 crossing. So photons may look more like w than ~. >>> Since transmission is a complex >>> phenomenon involving resonance, >>> it makes sense that on *that* basis, >>> re-emission of an *absorbed* >>> photon will affect the detected >>> polarization. It says nothing about >>> a finite length photon. >> Nor does it exclude such. > So we can cease the discussion, since you will be satisfied that > it says nothing to your argument? Not really. I doubt that we have a firm grasp of what happens when a photon is absorbed and re-emitted. If the absorbtion-emission were instantanious, there would be no effect on the detected polarization. But the atom that absorbs/re-emits is moving and emission isn't instantanious, so there will be some affects. ..... >>>> When I go in my ham shack and turn my >>>> transmitter on 29.96 MHz, I generate a LOT >>>> of 10 meter photons. By your theory, some >>>> of these 2e-26 Joule photons start popping >>>> out of my 5 meter long, half wave antenna, >>>> at the very beginning of the 33 ns period of >>>> the wave? Somehow I don't think so. >>> >>> Is your antenna at something other than 0K? >>> If so, you can believe that you are radiating >>> all sorts of photons from it. Consider what a >>> photomultiplier tube can do with single photons >>> from distant stars. >> >> My antenna is certainly emitting at many >> frequencies since it is above absolute zero. >> However there is no significant coherent radiation >> until I key my transmitter. > > There is no coherent radiation even then, unless you are powering > a laser. Wrong. The emission from my antenna, when I key my transmitter, is frequency coherent, phase coherent and polarization coherent. More coherent in fact than my laser pointer. If I were using a good directional antennna, the beam divergence might even be as low as my laser pointer. > But photons "in sync" with your broadcast signal are > being emitted *continuously* except at two "instants" in 1/f > seconds. when the key is down, the photons are emitted *continuously*. The emission does NOT stop at the instant the driving voltage crosses zero because the current is 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage. There is ALWAYS current flowing somewhere along the length of the antenna, as long as the key is down. There is always a voltage gradient along the antenna length. > And the numbers being emitted are proportional to the > current flowing at that instant. Current is flowing continuously in the antenna, once the key is down. > >> Just when, in the first cycle, does the antenna >> finally emit is first burst of 29.96 MHz photons. > > Continuously. You didn't answer my question and the answer you gave was wrong. When does the antenna emit its FIRST burst of 29.96 MHz photons? NOT the thermal radiation that it continuously emits when the transmitter is not on, the first group of photon due to the current/voltage from my transmitter. When are they emitted? > >> How does it know to emit 29.96 MHz photons, >> at that moment, rather than 29.959 MHz? > > It does all of the above, unless you are firing a laser. The > power being emitted at off frequencies is low, but not zero. Even a laser has power emitted off frequency. Spectrum analysis shows multiple frequencies due to multiple modes. On the other hand, if my transmitter radiates on multiple frequencies, I will be getting a 'nice little letter' from the FCC. -- 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 |