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 12:25 Dear bz: "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns963449025988FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "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. No. It indicates a photon is discrete, and has a specific energy. Inferences of wave-like, wavelength, and frequency are *model dependent*. > 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. Please provide a predictive equation for each individual photon, its location of arrival, and when it is required to arrive. Do so without using any particle characterisitcs, including Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. When and where any individual photon is detected is entirely compatible with "random". Your baseless assertion is without merit. >>>> 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? When discussing self-interference, you provided site reference to polarization. When discussing polarization, you complain that we aren't discussing self-interference. So you agree or disagree that a polarizing medium has an effect on light that is is "selective" to? If you agree, is the change-in-polarization *exactly* quantifiable >> 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). (For detector I am assuming a sheet-type, photographic film, or CCD array, so that we don't have to argue about little stuff.) A single photon provides no pattern. A single photon arrives at a "spot". The host provides the pattern, and outliers are typically ignored (or are otherwise swamped). Determinism doesn't work. .... >>> 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. No, they wouldn't. Since the "off-axis" signal (or loss of signal) that a single photon might provide can easily indicate quantum processes in the medium it propagates through, rather than changes in inertia fo the assumed rigid frame that emitted and detected the light beam. You'd still have to average many photons to get a usuable signal. >>>> 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. Over one wavelength, E goes from maximum positive, through zero, to maximum negative, back through zero, and repeat-until-absorbed. At one point in *normal* reflection, maximum positive E is co-located with maximum negative E. The same can be said for the B field. Sorry I had to write out every word. I thought you would at least think about this. >>>> 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? It doesn't. It expresses its momentum, or energy. > We often simplify problems by considering > objects as points. We run experiments, and we find that some particles are indistinguishable from points. No matter how finely we try and resolve, the particle is smaller than this. Photons and electrons are like this. > 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. An approximation that agrees with experiment. A size that in incompatible with any function of wavelength (momentum). > 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. Without a great deal of success. It worked, but it wasn't all they had hoped for. > 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. Fractal antennas, can be smaller than this. > [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] So you agree or disagree that wavelength only provides for level of difficulty in design of experiment and detection of "signal"? That the choice of experiment alone should be enough to show that a photon has a finite length... >>>> 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'? A size less than the error bars. "Photon Structure and Gamma Ray Physics", D.J. Miller. Proceedings of the XVIII conference "Physics in Collaboration", Frscati, June 1998. "Questions on Two-Photon physics at LEP2; Including Data - Monte Carlo Comparison", D.J. Miller, J. Phy. G. Nucl. Part. Phys. 24 (1998) pp 317 - 324. >>>> 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. No. The Earth is comprised of atoms. How does the diameter of the Earth relate to the size of the atoms that are here? You want to "gloss over" the quantum details that the photon concept *requires*. This is your choice of model, and not indicative of what elase is known of "reality". > 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. No, it tells you nothing about the age of an individual student, unless you have much more information. Class size, for one. Locale, and from there, required age for students to start attending school. Much more (similar-type) information than you can get about a single photon. >>>>>> 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. ;>) (one cannot improve on perfection.) .... >>> 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. Frequency and wavelength are *population measures*. Applies to a population for which you can be sure they propagate at c. Energy (and momentum) is an observable for a single member of the population. The three are as separated as general relativity, or maxwell's equations, and quantum mechanics. >> 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 ~. So how does a photon then have frequency? If it doesn't repeat, aren't you invoking *both* wavelength and propagation at c to arrive at this contrived "dimension"? >>>> 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, Experimentally, this is the case. An electron is "demoted" or "promoted" (as far as we can tell) instantly between bound states (or unbound states). A photon is very much like an impulse function. > 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. You'd better do some research on "transmission" and "polarization". Photons always propagate at c. c_medium is produced when photons are involved in absorption/re-emission within the medium. The continuous nature we can describe with a value "n" (for refractive index) says nothing about finite non-zero absorption/re-emission of photons. Because it could be simply descriptive of how long it takes the "absorber" to be in the right "alignment" to exactly emit the absorbed momentum. >>>>> 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. Please use standard meanings for words. I will not play "Humpty Dumpty" meanings with you. I suggest you invest in a better laser pointer. > If I were using a good directional antennna, > the beam divergence might even be as low as > my laser pointer. Not likely. Probably be a damned sight more efficient at turning line power into emitted signal though. >> 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*. >>>>> 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. "Somehow I don't think so." I don't see how you can resolve this... > 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. This is not the question. At zero crossing, are photons being emitted? You have said yes, but not agreed that they can be "associated" with your transmission. > 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. Emission occurs when charges are accelerated. Propagation of a signal that is confined to the conductor that is your antenna is uninteresting. >> 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. Oh, so you broadcast with a DC-supplied spark antenna? How do you confine yourself to only a single frequency? Most people use AC sources, which include "zero-crossing". This includes zero current flow, right? >>> 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? I won't play with your choice of word "burst". The first associated-with-signal photon is emitted when the first charge in your antenna is accelerated. This is before maximum current is established. > 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? Answered, though perhaps not to your satisfaction. >>> 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. Not true. It depends on the amount of power you put into it. There is some emission associated with cable length to antenna tip. There is some emission associated with antenna height (and probably even asociated with water table location). You obvsiously have (at least) your third class license. Now it is time for you to dig a little deeper. David A. Smith
From: bz on 10 Apr 2005 14:21 "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> wrote in news:Frc6e.6539$EX4.6141(a)fed1read01: > Dear bz: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns963449025988FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "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. > > No. It indicates a photon is discrete, and has a specific > energy. Inferences of wave-like, wavelength, and frequency are > *model dependent*. So are inferences of discretion and specific energy. All of the quantities can be measured under certain circumstances. >> 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. > > Please provide a predictive equation for each individual photon, > its location of arrival, and when it is required to arrive. Do > so without using any particle characterisitcs, including > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. When and where any > individual photon is detected is entirely compatible with > "random". Your baseless assertion is without merit. I will have to work on this assignment for some time, teach. Something tells me that I will have to violate SOME of the restrictions, however. >>>>> 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? > When discussing self-interference, you provided site reference to > polarization. > When discussing polarization, you complain that we > aren't discussing self-interference. I actually cited two sites. BOTH were appropriate to single photon and one was a double slit experiment. > So you agree or disagree > that a polarizing medium has an effect on light that is is > "selective" to? I agree > If you agree, is the change-in-polarization > *exactly* quantifiable There may not be a change-in-polarization, just in intensity. Nothing, AFIK is exactly quantifiable. >>> 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). > > (For detector I am assuming a sheet-type, photographic film, or > CCD array, so that we don't have to argue about little stuff.) ok. > A single photon provides no pattern. A single photon arrives at > a "spot". The host provides the pattern, and outliers are > typically ignored (or are otherwise swamped). Determinism > doesn't work. But, in retrospect, it is clear that the 'spot' the photon arrived at was part of a restricted set of spots on the ccd detector screen. And the points in that set are determined. That set is the diffraction pattern. > ... >>>> 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. > > No, they wouldn't. Since the "off-axis" signal (or loss of > signal) that a single photon might provide can easily indicate > quantum processes in the medium it propagates through, rather > than changes in inertia fo the assumed rigid frame that emitted > and detected the light beam. You'd still have to average many > photons to get a usuable signal. Agreed, in practical use, you will average many photons, but you could run the experiment with single photons and collect information over a period of time. >>>>> 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. > Over one wavelength, E goes from maximum positive, through zero, > to maximum negative, back through zero, and > repeat-until-absorbed. At one point in *normal* reflection, > maximum positive E is co-located with maximum negative E. The > same can be said for the B field. Sorry I had to write out every > word. I thought you would at least think about this. Ah I missed the word 'reflection'. I have reflected upon your point. I do not see any difficulty. >>>>> 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? > > It doesn't. It expresses its momentum, or energy. How does a zero length particle interfer with itself when going through double slits? >> We often simplify problems by considering >> objects as points. > > We run experiments, and we find that some particles are > indistinguishable from points. No matter how finely we try and > resolve, the particle is smaller than this. Photons and > electrons are like this. > .... >> Likewise, when we consider a photon or >> electron as a point, we are using a useful >> approximation. > > An approximation that agrees with experiment. A size that in > incompatible with any function of wavelength (momentum). But photons and electrons do have wavelength (momentum). ..... >> >> 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. > > Without a great deal of success. It worked, but it wasn't all > they had hoped for. > >> 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. > > Fractal antennas, can be smaller than this. > >> [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] > > So you agree or disagree that wavelength only provides for level > of difficulty in design of experiment and detection of "signal"? I agree in part. I would omit the word 'only'. I would also add that the energy of individual photons ALSO provides a level of difficulty. > That the choice of experiment alone should be enough to show that > a photon has a finite length... A properly designed experiment. Yes. ..... >>> 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'? > > A size less than the error bars. > "Photon Structure and Gamma Ray Physics", > D.J. Miller. Proceedings of the XVIII conference "Physics in > Collaboration", Frscati, June 1998. > > "Questions on Two-Photon physics at LEP2; Including Data - Monte > Carlo > Comparison", > D.J. Miller, J. Phy. G. Nucl. Part. Phys. 24 (1998) pp 317 - 324. It is going to take me some time to get and read those, unless you can e-mail me copies. See e-mail address in sig. ..... >>> Expressing wavelength for photons is like >>> describing a person by "median age". >> >> More like expressing the earth's diameter >> as a single figure. > > No. The Earth is comprised of atoms. How does the diameter of > the Earth relate to the size of the atoms that are here? You > want to "gloss over" the quantum details that the photon concept > *requires*. This is your choice of model, and not indicative of > what elase is known of "reality". > >> 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. > > No, it tells you nothing about the age of an individual student, > unless you have much more information. Class size, for one. > Locale, and from there, required age for students to start > attending school. Much more (similar-type) information than you > can get about a single photon. > ..... >> 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. > > Frequency and wavelength are *population measures*. Applies to a > population for which you can be sure they propagate at c. Energy > (and momentum) is an observable for a single member of the > population. The three are as separated as general relativity, or > maxwell's equations, and quantum mechanics. I see no reason to doubt that frequency and wavelength also apply to individual members of the population. What the photons do does not depend on my model. >>> 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 ~. > > So how does a photon then have frequency? If it doesn't repeat, > aren't you invoking *both* wavelength and propagation at c to > arrive at this contrived "dimension"? yes. I don't think that a photon, when separated from the crowd, behaves differently than it did in the crowd. ..... >> >> 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, > > Experimentally, this is the case. An electron is "demoted" or > "promoted" (as far as we can tell) instantly between bound states > (or unbound states). A photon is very much like an impulse > function. There is apparently a small delay, unlike stimulated emission. >> 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. > You'd better do some research on "transmission" and > "polarization". Photons always propagate at c. agreed. > c_medium is > produced when photons are involved in absorption/re-emission > within the medium. Right. The small delay mentioned above. > The continuous nature we can describe with a > value "n" (for refractive index) says nothing about finite > non-zero absorption/re-emission of photons. Because it could be > simply descriptive of how long it takes the "absorber" to be in > the right "alignment" to exactly emit the absorbed momentum. Right. The small delay mentioned above. >>>>>> 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. > > Please use standard meanings for words. I will not play "Humpty > Dumpty" meanings with you. How do you define coherent? I don't want to argue definitions, either. I use a definition similar to the following: coherent radiation Radiation emitted by a source when all the elementary waves emitted have a phase difference constant in space and time My 10 meter signal fits that definition. What is your definition? > I suggest you invest in a better laser pointer. If I run my laser pointer beam across a glass rod, I get a line on the wall. My laser level has a special lens to produce that same effect. The beam is spread, but still coherent. My 10 meter antenna is a vertical 1/4 wave counterpoised by the ground which acts like the other 1/4 wave of the half wave dipole. >>> 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*. > >>>>>> 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. > > "Somehow I don't think so." > > I don't see how you can resolve this... > >> 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. My statement 'the current is 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage' is only true when talking about pure reactive components. If we assume the antenna is resonant, it will look like a pure resistor at the feed point and the current and voltage _at_that_point_ will be in phase. More details below. > > This is not the question. At zero crossing, are photons being > emitted? You have said yes, but not agreed that they can be > "associated" with your transmission. Wrong. I say they are emitted at zero crossing [at the feed point] and they are associated with my transmission. But zero crossing is NOT the leading edge of the signal. Which is what I was asking you about. When is the first group of photons emitted? Back to what I do understand: First, we need to look at WHERE the voltage is crossing zero. Let us look at the feed point of the antenna. The transmitter has been on for some unspecified time and we just reach zero volts at the feed point. At the same time, 1/4 wave away, at the tip of the antenna, the voltage has reached its maximum. At an intermediate point along the antenna the current is maximum. There are also standing waves on the antenna. From the standing wave viewpoint the standing wave has maximum impedence and voltage at the end of the antenna element, and minimum (about 70 ohms) impedence and maximum current at the feed point. So, there is never (once the key is down for some time) any zero crossing in the sense you are thinking of. >> 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. > > Emission occurs when charges are accelerated. Propagation of a > signal that is confined to the conductor that is your antenna is > uninteresting. Agreed. > >>> 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. > > Oh, so you broadcast with a DC-supplied spark antenna? Not hardly, the FCC (or was it the GRS back then) outlawed spark and arc early in the 20th century. > How do > you confine yourself to only a single frequency? Most people use > AC sources, which include "zero-crossing". This includes zero > current flow, right? Yes, but the point(s) of zero current flow are moving along the antenna at twice the frequency of transmission. In the standing wave pattern, there is a current maximum at the feed point and a voltage maximum at the end of the antenna >>>> 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? > > I won't play with your choice of word "burst". The first > associated-with-signal photon is emitted when the first charge in > your antenna is accelerated. This is before maximum current is > established. How does it know what the frequency/energy/wavelength is going to be? >>>> 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. > > Not true. It depends on the amount of power you put into it. The letter from the FCC depends on a lot of things. How much power is only one of them. I once got an 'FCC Advisory notice' when I was operating on the 10 meter band and the 14 MHz sub harmonic that was outside the 20 meter amateur band. I was in Denver. I was talking to a friend across town using low power. I was received in Portland Or. I can talk around the world with less than 100 mW power input to the transmitter. People have done it on much less than that. > There is some emission associated with cable length to antenna > tip. Most of the emission comes from the bottom 1/3 of the antenna. > There is some emission associated with antenna height (and > probably even asociated with water table location). Possibly. > > You obvsiously have (at least) your third class license. Now it > is time for you to dig a little deeper. Amateur Extra Class N5BZ. First Licensed in 1961 as WN5DQP/0. I have also held a 1st Class Radio Telephone and 2nd Class Radio Telegraph license with Radar Endorsement. I used to fix radars etc., on ships for a living. -- 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: Henri Wilson on 10 Apr 2005 17:47 On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:37:46 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:o7lg51h09o1qrva29p3mqp5r5prdacbq0j(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:31 +0100, "George Dishman" >> 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 cannot see any connection with SR. It is based on an aether concept that there is an absolute frame. > >> 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. Incidentally, in a ring gyro, is a hollow fibre used or a solid one? > >>>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. In the four mirror system, the light is reflected at an angle that is not 90 (during rotation) There is also a quite complex velocity change to consider at each reflection. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 10 Apr 2005 18:00 On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>>> >>>> Question, Ghost: >>>> What is this 'realspace'? >>>> Is it another name for the aether? >>> >>>Realspace is space as Earth perceives it. Perhaps I should have used >>>a slightly different term. >>> >>>> >>>> You are definitely very confused Ghost. >>>> The wavelength is the same no matter how you look at it. >>> >>>It cannot be the same if the velocity changes. >>> >>>> >>>> Proof: let the star fire a identical rods between each particle....... >>>> >>>> S_._._._._._._._._._._._. >>>> >>>> You can see that the distance between particles is constant. >>> >>>Hmm...an interesting issue, that. Not sure quite how to attack it. >> >> You cannot attack plain fact. > >Well, there's the issue that this cannot be observed directly. > >> >>> >>>But OK, an alternate explanation is that Earth will see >>>*no* shift *at all* in the wavelength, but will see an >>>energy difference. The receding star has lightvelocity >>>.9999 c, which will yield an energy .99980001 of nominal >>>(recall that E = 1/2 m v^2 in Newtonian mechanics). >>>The advancing star has lightvelocity 1.0001 c, with an >>>energy 1.00020001 of nominal. Since detectors are not >>>designed with E versus lambda issues in mind this will >>>screw up a lot of things if not done strictly according >>>to Henri. >>> >>>For example, I could see a rather simple detector >>>monitoring whether current flows from a sensitized surface >>>to an anode, depending on a voltage drop between the >>>surface and the anode, and whether light of a certain >>>frequency is falling thereon. This detector keys on >>>energy, not on wavelength, according to current QM >>>theory (or my understanding thereof), and therefore BaT >>>predicts that it will be affected. However, a classical >>>interferometer which keys on *wavelength* (e.g., MMX) >>>will see no change. >> >> In the MMX, all components are mutually at rest. There is >> constant wavelength throughout. > >Exactly. This makes MMX useless for distinguishing between >BaT and SR. It fully supports the BaT. >>>> ...but why don't you simply state the (unproven) postulate. >>> >>>I already have. All light travels at exactly the same speed, >>>regardless of observer [*]. This postulate can never be proven. >>>It is not only an unproven postulate, but an *unprovable* one. >> >> It can now be proven wrong with my 'moon relay' experiment. > >It will not be proven wrong with your 'moon relay'. It *cannot* >be proven wrong with your 'moon relay'. Why? Because your >'moon relay' will show zero difference in speed, and all of >the non-SRians will attribute that to some sort of setup fault. > >At least with MMX we were treading new ground. Null results usually mean the experiment was theoretically wrong. > >> >>>(There's a difference.) The best we can do is either adopt the >>>postulate, or accept that we can at best prove it within experimental >>>error (e.g., an experiment in the late 1970's or early 1980's proved >>>to be too much for the old KR-86 definition of the meter). >>> >>>However, the postulate c' = c+v has been proven -- to be false. >>>Several experiments involving decaying muons and or pi mesons >>>have shown strong evidence that the lightspeed from a high-speed >>>particle is still c relative to the lab. Sufficiently precise >>>radar waves from Venus (which moves at about 35 km/s, or >>>5 km/s relative to us) should also establish lightspeed issues. >> >> There is an anomalous delay in radar to/from venus adn the moon. > >Google showed many anomalies, mostly related to the Moon and to >"icy galilean satellites". Can you be more specific? >> >> This is fully explained by the ballistic theory. > >Everything is fully explained by the ballistic theory. Naturally. >>>> Ghost, you have made an error in your original assumptions, therefore your >>>> whole theory is wrong. >>> >>>Well, take your pick then. Either the delta-wavelength is 0, or >>>it's as I've computed. Either way, it differs from SR's predicted >>>results. >> >> In that case it could be partly correct then. > >Well, which is it? Anything that differs from SR has merit. >> >> Magnetic field interaction. (sun) > >Well, it turns out that Mercury does have a magnetic field, apparently >of between 100-400 nanoTelsa, or 0.0033 Gauss-Rh3 (?). > >http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/merc_mag/ >http://library.thinkquest.org/C005921/Mercury/mercPhys.htm > >It is apparently 100 times weaker than the Earth's magnetic field: > >http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18124331.400 > >but it may be sufficient to explain the 0.43 arc-seconds >per year of precession predicted between the two theories, >Newton predicts 55.57 arc-seconds per year, but the >measurements indicate 56.00 arc-seconds per year. > >http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html > >Then again, it may not; can someone do the computations? >I'm not that well-versed in electromagnetics, and >the Sun does some funny things (each sunspot is >basically associated with some very heavy magnetic >fields/vortexes/something that throw off prominences and >other such charged particles, although one might quibble as >to which came first here: the throwing off of the particles >or the generation of the field). It is too complicated. What processes cause precession anyway? There are other factors. What about galactic rotation? > >In any event, Einstein's GR predicted the 56.00 arc-seconds >per year without modifications to the theory. Pure coincidence. > > >> The speed of gravity. > >Need more specifics. Newtonian gravitation has infinite >speed, AIUI. In any event, BaT will at best have to >indicate that gravitation has the same characteristics >light does -- namely, that it is source-invariant but not >destination-invariant, and is affected by other gravfields >in a manner similar to light and/or matter. No. It doesn't say anything about the speed of gravity. ...yet. > >[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jim Greenfield on 10 Apr 2005 19:08
"PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1113049668.267119.88490(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > > > > >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) > > ><H@> .. > > The wavelength is the same no matter how you look at it. > > > > Proof: let the star fire a identical rods between each > particle....... > > > > S_._._._._._._._._._._._. > > > > You can see that the distance between particles is constant. > > > > [snip] > > This is precisely the problem. You imagine that a wavelength is emitted > from the source, fully formed, its length predestined. This is not the > case. Look at it this way: the source emits "blips" every so often. The > blips represent wavefronts (or whatever) that travel at a fixed speed > *relative to the observer* away from the source. But if the source is > moving away from the direction of transmission, the distance between > the blips/fronts (or whatever) will be larger than if the source were > stationary relative to the observer. Likewise, if the source is moving > along the direction of transmission, the distance between the > blips/fronts (or whatever) will be smaller. No, Paul. The "problem" lies in your insistence that the observer is always right, and that Doppler is NOT due to velocity change. The "blips" are source dependent, and have no way of knowing the relative motion of that source to anything else. Thus if the source moves away from the observer, the distance between the blips STAYS the SAME, but they are travelling SLOWER when the strike the observer. This slow-down is seen as redshift, and if an experiment was EVER done (such as with toothed wheels in cacuum), the <c would be immediately apparent. Jim G c'=c+v |