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: Jim Greenfield on 10 Apr 2005 19:31 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<du1ki2-nma.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>... > In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> > wrote > on 8 Apr 2005 15:58:50 -0700 > <e7b5cc5d.0504081458.ba543f(a)posting.google.com>: > > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<evahi2-hq5.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>... > >> >>>> Absolutely I agree that speed=frequency x wavelength; what I > >> >>>> absolutely disagree, is that the "speed" is always the same. > >> > >> Here's a hint for you. Assume two stars traveling around a common > >> center at 30 km/s = 10^-4 c, although we can't tell the speed directly. > >> What would be the wavelengths observed as these stars orbit each other, > >> assuming a spectral line initially at 500 nm [*] and an approximate > >> distance of 10 lightyears? > >> > >> BaT: > >> > >> The star is spewing out particles at lightspeed, relative to itself. > >> These particles are of course 500 nm apart. However, since the > >> star is moving toward us, the particles in realspace will be a > >> tad longer apart -- namely, 500.05 nm apart. > > > > Not im my BaT! The particles (photons) will have the same separation, > > but will arrive slightly sooner than simultaneously emitted photons > > from the regressing star, and will appear to be bluer (higher > > frequency). > > If they have the same seperation their color [*] will not > change, although their energy will (they're moving faster). > I agree that under BaT they'll arrive sooner. I suspect the eye works by analysing how often the photons strike (frequency), than by defacto measuring the distance between them. > > > As both stars emit a wide range of frequencies, and > > differring "amounts" at each wavelength, the whole of the spectrums > > would need to be analysed to see which star's light was more energetic > > due to the motion of the source (KE of all the light). I am not > > convinced that some of the redshifting might cause some photons to > > become undetectable, so the results might still be questionable > > (dammit) > > Stars consist of gas. This gas notches out certain frequencies, > allowing for analysis of a star's composition. For example, > http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/econ.html > shows the spectrum for iron. > http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Na/key.html > shows the pattern for sodium, which is rather simpler. I can find no ref to temperature here! Surely the emitted frequency / wavelength of iron etc depends on the temperature? It certainly changes colour as it heats, and would be indestinguishable from say neon light coming on, when at "red" hot. > > [*] wavelength, actually, though one might quibble here. > Presumably, the eyes respond to packet energy somewhat > a la the Compton Effect; a photon wiggles a molecule > that eventually leads to a nerve impulse. However, > a diffraction grating, which keys purely on wavelength, > will not care, though the spread from a prism might. OK Jim G c'=c+v
From: bz on 10 Apr 2005 20:14 jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in news:e7b5cc5d.0504101508.4cbaa626(a)posting.google.com: > if an experiment was EVER done > (such as with toothed wheels in cacuum), the <c would be immediately > apparent. > But thousands of experiments have verified that doppler shift is due to an actual shift in the wavelength/frequency/energy of the photons, NOT the speed. Many have been run in vaccum. None have ever seen photons change speed. It would be a nobel prize winning experiment. -- 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 10 Apr 2005 21:00 In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote on 10 Apr 2005 16:31:02 -0700 <e7b5cc5d.0504101531.1813c302(a)posting.google.com>: > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<du1ki2-nma.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>... >> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> >> wrote >> on 8 Apr 2005 15:58:50 -0700 >> <e7b5cc5d.0504081458.ba543f(a)posting.google.com>: >> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<evahi2-hq5.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>... >> >> >>>> Absolutely I agree that speed=frequency x wavelength; what I >> >> >>>> absolutely disagree, is that the "speed" is always the same. >> >> >> >> Here's a hint for you. Assume two stars traveling around a common >> >> center at 30 km/s = 10^-4 c, although we can't tell the speed directly. >> >> What would be the wavelengths observed as these stars orbit each other, >> >> assuming a spectral line initially at 500 nm [*] and an approximate >> >> distance of 10 lightyears? >> >> >> >> BaT: >> >> >> >> The star is spewing out particles at lightspeed, relative to itself. >> >> These particles are of course 500 nm apart. However, since the >> >> star is moving toward us, the particles in realspace will be a >> >> tad longer apart -- namely, 500.05 nm apart. >> > >> > Not im my BaT! The particles (photons) will have the same separation, >> > but will arrive slightly sooner than simultaneously emitted photons >> > from the regressing star, and will appear to be bluer (higher >> > frequency). >> >> If they have the same seperation their color [*] will not >> change, although their energy will (they're moving faster). >> I agree that under BaT they'll arrive sooner. > > I suspect the eye works by analysing how often the photons strike > (frequency), > than by defacto measuring the distance between them. The eye analyzes nothing. In a manner of speaking any photon hitting the eye is a de facto Compton experiment. Briefly, the photon, having a certain energy, will wiggle molecules about. Of course it does respond (within certain limits) to the intensity of the light, but a rather simple experiment shows that this response is not always linear. Stare at, say, a bookcover for a few moments, then turn your gaze to a wall. If you've stared at it long enough you should see its complementary image; the standard explanation (which AFAIK is the correct one) is chemical fatigue -- the cones have used up their non-transitioned chemical and must "recharge". I'd have to look up the details. In any event, the color (wavelength) will not change, if my understanding of the BaT is correct, just the intensity (as they come faster). SR of course predicts otherwise. So here's an obvious question. Certain experiments with gamma rays and Fe-57 may be of interest here; since iron nuclei respond to the energy of each photon and since the BaT predicts no change in energy per quantum -- how come the Fe-57 response changes if the observer block is moving with respect to the gamma source? If you answer "because the energy changes as its speed is faster", congratulations. However, that is at best an incomplete explanation, as the MMX would also show a difference if fed from a moving source. (I know of no such experiments though I don't see why one could not be attempted with the apparatus pointing at, say, Venus.) >> >> > As both stars emit a wide range of frequencies, and >> > differring "amounts" at each wavelength, the whole of the spectrums >> > would need to be analysed to see which star's light was more energetic >> > due to the motion of the source (KE of all the light). I am not >> > convinced that some of the redshifting might cause some photons to >> > become undetectable, so the results might still be questionable >> > (dammit) >> >> Stars consist of gas. This gas notches out certain frequencies, >> allowing for analysis of a star's composition. For example, >> http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/econ.html >> shows the spectrum for iron. >> http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Na/key.html >> shows the pattern for sodium, which is rather simpler. > > I can find no ref to temperature here! Surely the emitted frequency / > wavelength of iron etc depends on the temperature? It certainly > changes colour as it heats, and would be indestinguishable from say > neon light coming on, when at "red" hot. The spectrum is not caused by temperature, but by electronic transitions within the material. >> >> [*] wavelength, actually, though one might quibble here. >> Presumably, the eyes respond to packet energy somewhat >> a la the Compton Effect; a photon wiggles a molecule >> that eventually leads to a nerve impulse. However, >> a diffraction grating, which keys purely on wavelength, >> will not care, though the spread from a prism might. > > OK > > Jim G > c'=c+v -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 10 Apr 2005 22:09 On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield ><jgreen(a)seol.net.au> > wrote >on 10 Apr 2005 16:31:02 -0700 ><e7b5cc5d.0504101531.1813c302(a)posting.google.com>: >> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<du1ki2-nma.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>... >>> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield >>> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> >>> wrote >>> on 8 Apr 2005 15:58:50 -0700 >>> <e7b5cc5d.0504081458.ba543f(a)posting.google.com>: >>> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<evahi2-hq5.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>... >>> >> >>>> Absolutely I agree that speed=frequency x wavelength; what I >>> >> >>>> absolutely disagree, is that the "speed" is always the same. >>> >> >>> >> Here's a hint for you. Assume two stars traveling around a common >>> >> center at 30 km/s = 10^-4 c, although we can't tell the speed directly. >>> >> What would be the wavelengths observed as these stars orbit each other, >>> >> assuming a spectral line initially at 500 nm [*] and an approximate >>> >> distance of 10 lightyears? >>> >> >>> >> BaT: >>> >> >>> >> The star is spewing out particles at lightspeed, relative to itself. >>> >> These particles are of course 500 nm apart. However, since the >>> >> star is moving toward us, the particles in realspace will be a >>> >> tad longer apart -- namely, 500.05 nm apart. >>> > >>> > Not im my BaT! The particles (photons) will have the same separation, >>> > but will arrive slightly sooner than simultaneously emitted photons >>> > from the regressing star, and will appear to be bluer (higher >>> > frequency). >>> >>> If they have the same seperation their color [*] will not >>> change, although their energy will (they're moving faster). >>> I agree that under BaT they'll arrive sooner. >> >> I suspect the eye works by analysing how often the photons strike >> (frequency), >> than by defacto measuring the distance between them. > >The eye analyzes nothing. In a manner of speaking any photon >hitting the eye is a de facto Compton experiment. Briefly, >the photon, having a certain energy, will wiggle molecules about. > >Of course it does respond (within certain limits) to the intensity >of the light, but a rather simple experiment shows that this >response is not always linear. Stare at, say, a bookcover for >a few moments, then turn your gaze to a wall. If you've stared >at it long enough you should see its complementary image; the >standard explanation (which AFAIK is the correct one) is >chemical fatigue -- the cones have used up their non-transitioned >chemical and must "recharge". I'd have to look up the details. > >In any event, the color (wavelength) will not change, if >my understanding of the BaT is correct, just the intensity >(as they come faster). > >SR of course predicts otherwise. > >So here's an obvious question. Certain experiments with gamma rays >and Fe-57 may be of interest here; since iron nuclei respond to >the energy of each photon and since the BaT predicts no change >in energy per quantum -- how come the Fe-57 response changes >if the observer block is moving with respect to the gamma source? Where did you get that idea Ghost? Of course light energy is speed dependent. > >If you answer "because the energy changes as its speed is >faster", congratulations. However, that is at best an >incomplete explanation, as the MMX would also show a difference >if fed from a moving source. (I know of no such experiments though >I don't see why one could not be attempted with the apparatus >pointing at, say, Venus.) It would have to be done on the moon. Tricky optical tracking system!!! > >>> >>> > As both stars emit a wide range of frequencies, and >>> > differring "amounts" at each wavelength, the whole of the spectrums >>> > would need to be analysed to see which star's light was more energetic >>> > due to the motion of the source (KE of all the light). I am not >>> > convinced that some of the redshifting might cause some photons to >>> > become undetectable, so the results might still be questionable >>> > (dammit) >>> >>> Stars consist of gas. This gas notches out certain frequencies, >>> allowing for analysis of a star's composition. For example, >>> http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/econ.html >>> shows the spectrum for iron. >>> http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Na/key.html >>> shows the pattern for sodium, which is rather simpler. >> >> I can find no ref to temperature here! Surely the emitted frequency / >> wavelength of iron etc depends on the temperature? It certainly >> changes colour as it heats, and would be indestinguishable from say >> neon light coming on, when at "red" hot. > >The spectrum is not caused by temperature, but by electronic >transitions within the material. Are they caused by transitons between nuclear or intermolecular bonds? > >>> >>> [*] wavelength, actually, though one might quibble here. >>> Presumably, the eyes respond to packet energy somewhat >>> a la the Compton Effect; a photon wiggles a molecule >>> that eventually leads to a nerve impulse. However, >>> a diffraction grating, which keys purely on wavelength, >>> will not care, though the spread from a prism might. >> >> OK >> >> Jim G >> c'=c+v 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 22:13
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:14:31 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in >news:e7b5cc5d.0504101508.4cbaa626(a)posting.google.com: > >> if an experiment was EVER done >> (such as with toothed wheels in cacuum), the <c would be immediately >> apparent. >> > >But thousands of experiments have verified that doppler shift is due to an >actual shift in the wavelength/frequency/energy of the photons, NOT the >speed. Many have been run in vaccum. Rubbish. OWLS has never even been measured so how the hell do you think your statement could make any sense. The equation for the BaT doppler and SR doppler are virtually the same at low speeds. > >None have ever seen photons change speed. It would be a nobel prize winning >experiment. Until recently, OWLS differences from moving sources has been impossible to detect. Even now it can only just be done. 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. |