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: bz on 11 Apr 2005 07:28 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:crgk51phu180c3v483f93pfgaeccvl9dlt(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:57:42 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:v3nj511icu9kn77pctu396jpgsg9ep39ud(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>> >>>>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. >> >>It is NOT necessary to measure the OWLS accurately. >>It is only necessary to show that OWLS does not CHANGE when the source >>changes speed (and frequency due to doppler shift). >> >>Some tests that you say are invalid because they measure the TWLS rather >>than OWLS are perfectly valid for confirming that the OWLS does not >>change when the source changes speed. >> >>For example, my spinning disk experiment carrying source with two fixed >>detectors at different distances from the source. >> >>Once the photon has been detected and converted to electric impulses >>traveling down the scope leads, we need not fear that some mysterious >>effect will nullify any effect due changes in the speed of light. You >>are not going to tell me that the electronical impulse travel at >>different speeds down the wire and THAT speed is dependent on the speed >>of the photons that generated the impulse, are you?? > > Listen idiot, you know nothing about physics. Do a few calculations and > you will see that your 'experiment'; is totally useless. From the elegant way you argue your point, it is clear that I MUST be an idiot. On the other hand, I have never found someone so ignorant that they didn't know something that I didn't know, so I am always willing to listen and learn, so long as someone treats me with respect. Perhaps you, too, can learn something from an idiot. -- 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: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 11 Apr 2005 09:25 Dear RP: "RP" <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:_4WdnZ0b2trPjsffRVn-ig(a)centurytel.net... > > > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: .... >>>Right. There are no photons. >> >> Photoelectric effect. Resonance doesn't work. Wave models >> don't work for PE. > > The fields are just forces, potential energy is just > the energy that can be gained by the particles > being forced. I agree that it's a mistake to > model an em wave as having energy. Wave > models do work for em interactions. So do particle models. If you have the computing power to use them. .... > BTW, mine is consistent with Plank's second > theory, which is outlined in the Baez articles > and listed as one of the 4 remaining probable valid candidates. But you still can't do the photoelectric effect. Don't worry about it. A lot of really smart people have tried to extend the wave model without success. They'd have as much success as someone trying to extend GR to cover quantum mechanics. Different abstractions for different needs. David A. Smith
From: bz on 11 Apr 2005 10:33 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:crgk51phu180c3v483f93pfgaeccvl9dlt(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:57:42 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:v3nj511icu9kn77pctu396jpgsg9ep39ud(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>> >>>>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. >> >>It is NOT necessary to measure the OWLS accurately. >>It is only necessary to show that OWLS does not CHANGE when the source >>changes speed (and frequency due to doppler shift). >> >>Some tests that you say are invalid because they measure the TWLS rather >>than OWLS are perfectly valid for confirming that the OWLS does not >>change when the source changes speed. >> >>For example, my spinning disk experiment carrying source with two fixed >>detectors at different distances from the source. >> >>Once the photon has been detected and converted to electric impulses >>traveling down the scope leads, we need not fear that some mysterious >>effect will nullify any effect due changes in the speed of light. You >>are not going to tell me that the electronical impulse travel at >>different speeds down the wire and THAT speed is dependent on the speed >>of the photons that generated the impulse, are you?? > > Listen idiot, you know nothing about physics. Do a few calculations and > you will see that your 'experiment'; is totally useless. > worlds fastest oscilloscope [circa 2002] had 6GHz bandwidth, 20GHz sampling rate. http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/tek/tek129.html 6 GHz is 1e-10 seconds. a 10000m/s doppler shift, if it changed the speed of the photons, would result in a 3.33e-5 shift in speed. 10000 m/s could be achieved with a 100 cm radius disk spinning at 95493 rpm. [this would have to be in a vacuum as it would be supersonic in air]. We would need about 1 mile between detectors in order to be able to see the time difference with the above scope. There are ways to get much better time resolution. Those would decrease the path length needed. We could use much higher speeds. That would reduce path length needed. We could use longer path lengths. We could use a sampling scope. [quote] Because sampling oscilloscopes can measure signals up to an order of magnitude faster than real-time oscilloscopes, they are ideal tools for capturing and characterizing computer, datacom and telecom signals. Sampling oscilloscopes are indispensable for characterizing the high- frequency components of signals from 50 Mb/s to 40 Gb/s. [unquote] With 40 Gb/s capture rates, we could compress our 1 mile path length to 224 meters. 2 and 1/2 foot ball fields. Here is another device that could be used for our time-of-flight measurement: http://www.boselec.com/products/documents/MultiscalersetcCOLOR.pdf Or we could use the detectors and electronics from a pulsed time of flight laser range finder. http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514269667/html/c305.html Do you STILL think the experiment can not be done? -- 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: RP on 11 Apr 2005 13:09 N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > Dear RP: > > "RP" <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:_4WdnZ0b2trPjsffRVn-ig(a)centurytel.net... > >> >>N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > > ... > >>>>Right. There are no photons. >>> >>>Photoelectric effect. Resonance doesn't work. Wave models >>>don't work for PE. >> >>The fields are just forces, potential energy is just >>the energy that can be gained by the particles >>being forced. I agree that it's a mistake to >>model an em wave as having energy. Wave >>models do work for em interactions. > > > So do particle models. If you have the computing power to use > them. > > ... > >>BTW, mine is consistent with Plank's second >>theory, which is outlined in the Baez articles >>and listed as one of the 4 remaining probable valid candidates. > > > But you still can't do the photoelectric effect. But I have accounted for it. Don't worry > about it. I'm not worried about it :) > A lot of really smart people have tried to extend the > wave model without success. Thus it can't be done? > They'd have as much success as > someone trying to extend GR to cover quantum mechanics. > Different abstractions for different needs. This isn't like the other, it is exactly the same as the other. The difficulty is attempting to keep track of the complexities, which cannot be done precisely, OTOH the probabilities of QM are of something, they are not themselves the fundamental reality. Attempting to relate changes in the buying habits of consumers to the transfer of particles between themselves and the distributors is about like photons and QED. Light is an effect, not a thing. Richard Perry
From: George Dishman on 11 Apr 2005 15:33
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:3e7j51pufhl884iav96einhf6ee09n7aq0(a)4ax.com... > 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. I think it is obvious. The the speed of the light is c in the lab frame, a simple deduction from the postulates of SR. To emphasise the point, consider two such experimental setups in the same lab. One is fixed to the floor while the other moves through the lab on rails at constant speed. My analysis holds good for both because the speed is c in an inertial (non-rotating) frame referenced to the centre point of _either_ table. > It is based on an aether concept that > there is an absolute frame. Whether some other aether-based theory might look similar is irrelevant, the explanation is valid for an SR analysis. That said, you should also note that what I posted is _not_ a valid analysis for most absolute frame theories where the speed of light is c in that frame and you have to consider the speed of the lab with respect to the preferred-frame to find the speed of the light at any point. The simplest example might be a Galilean aether with the lab moving through the aether in a directon that lies in the plane of the turntable. The speed of the light when moving round the table in the same direction as the lab is moving wrt. the aether is c-V while on the other side of the table is it c+V. Of course this mostly cancels out as both beams traverse almost one full turn but the beam going the same way as the table rotation covers the section between the emission point and where it hits the detector twice while the other beam never travels that part. The result is that the speed in that section varies depending on the alignment of that part with the direction of aether flow and as it varies slightly round the table, there would be a slight modulation of the signal with orientation. That would be tiny and unmeasurable in reality but it is there theoretically. Clearly that is a quite different approach and a slightly different result. With a Lorentz-invariant aether, we know it gives the same results as SR so it could borrow the analysis I gave. Still, from first principles, you should start as I did for the Galilean aether to find the speed at any point round the path but taking account of length contraction which turns the table into an ellipse instead of a circle. Then note that the frequency of the light emitted will be altered by the Lorentzian equivalent of "time dilation" depending on the speed of the source through the aether at the time of emission. Then find the phase difference between the delayed version of this that reaches the detector by the two paths. I'll say good luck if you want to try that approach, I don't like the look of it at all, but it must end up giving the same result as SR. Anyway, the point is that any preferred-frame analysis must take account of the motion of the table centre in the preferred-frame and that factor does not appear in what we have done so far so you cannot mistake the analysis for an absolute-frame theory, and as I said at the top, even if some aether theory did by chance coincide, it doesn't prevent this being a valid SR analysis. >>> 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? Solid, follow the link to the e-core material on the KVH site. Those I have seen so far have used internal reflection rather than graded index but much of the technical spec. for the materials is over my head. BTW, I haven't mentioned refractive index as I assumed you would realise it cancels out in both theories. It is actually one of the nice feaures of using these devices as a test of Ritz because any thoughts of the speed changing due to interaction with the air in the lab in the normal experiment is removed since the fibre rotates with the table. I know you dislike thinking in the table frame but when you realise there are no moving parts at all when viewed that way yet the speed of the light appears to change, I think it brings home the problem for Ritz. Centrifugal force on the photons is the only thing that could have an effect and that applies equally to both paths. <snip> >>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) The angles are illustrated in the simple path- drawing applet but it doesn't affect the time taken along the path so there is nothing to put into the animation. > There is also a quite complex velocity change to consider > at each reflection. No, we covered that last year. In SR of course the speed is c on each leg of the path regardless of the speed of the mirror. In Ritz, it could be more complex as there is a difference between a model involving absorbtion and re-emission versus a billiard-ball model, both of which could be compatible with the basic concept of ballistic primary emission. However, for paths that are a regular polygon, the symmetry means that the light approaches each mirror at c relative to the mirror so the question becomes moot, both models say the reflected light will move away from the mirror at c. Remember this? http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif So again there is nothing to add to the animation. Can you think of any other possibilities? I have asked about half a dozen Ritz supporters including yourself over about six years and so far nobody has found anything I have missed. George |