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: Henri Wilson on 11 Apr 2005 20:47 On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:33:40 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:crgk51phu180c3v483f93pfgaeccvl9dlt(a)4ax.com: > >>> >>>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. What the hell are you trying to say. Doppler shift doesn't 'cause' a light speed change. You have it back to front. >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? Do the maths. .....OK I'll do it for you. The peripheral speed of a 3m circumference wheel, spinning at 500 rps (30000 rpm) is 0.000005c. Light reflecting from it at normal incidence will return to the source at twice that speed... or 0.00001c. At 45 deg incidence, it will travel at 0.000005c. Let the experiment be carried out over 3000 metres in vacuum. Light moving at c takes 10^-5 secs for the return leg. Light moving at 1.000005c, takes 5x10^-11 seconds less time....(corresponding to 1.5cms distance travelled) The experiment requires the travel time comparison of two pulses sent from a source 3000 metres from the detector. One pulse is sent directly to the detector and the other reflected from the moving mirror. The travel times of the two are compared on a fast CRO. Now the problems....... The distance between the source and the spinning mirror must be accurate to considerably less than 1.5 cms. The rise time of the pulses must be of the order of 10^-11 secs. The resolution of the detector must be such that it can separate two such pulses that are only 10^-11 secs apart. The source has to be sufficiently powerful for the spinning spot to be detected. So, bz....do you still think it is possible? 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 11 Apr 2005 21:08 On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:33:31 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. But you don't know if the number of fringes moved is the same in both cases for the same rotation! To show that you will have to move one setup at a very high speed. > >> 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. It might be an analysis but is it correct? > >>>> 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. Does it? I'll have to think about that. It certainly complicates the animation. Mine is well uinderr way...but is going to take some time. My apparatus will have arms that are 1 light second long to make the effect more apparent. > >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. I think there is a lot more to this. The standard explanation is 'inadequate'. > ><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. It DOES affect the time. Why do you claim it doesn't? > >> 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 I don't understand that diagram. Why are the green lines sloping? I will use the non-rotating frame in my animation.. > >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 > 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: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 11 Apr 2005 21:11 Dear RP: "RP" <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fYWdnTyUnNo0M8ffRVn-gQ(a)centurytel.net... > > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: .... >>>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? If "accounting for it" is the best that can be done, no. >> 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. A wave model is a statistical method, that applies to a population. A particle model is inherently quantum. GR is a statistical method... > 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. Light is also a thing. Photon-photon interactions (nothwithstanding Mr. Mingst's objections) have been observed to produce particles. David A. Smith
From: Jerry on 11 Apr 2005 21:17 Henri Wilson wrote: > So, bz....do you still think it is possible? Hi, Henri and bz! Many experiments testing emission theory have already been performed, with uniformly negative results. I have done the following. I set up a web page which will be valid for a one-week period starting from April 8. http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm Today is April 11. After April 15, I am deleting the page. During this limited period, members of the sci.physics.relativity discussion group may download, for their personal use, Krisher et al. (1990) Turner and Hill (1964) Gagnon et al. (1988) Beckmann and Mandics (1965) Alvager et al. (1964) Filipas and Fox (1964) Brecher (1977) Repeat: after April 15, I -will- delete the page. I have no desire to get sued for exceeding the limits of "fair use" Jerry
From: bz on 11 Apr 2005 22:17
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:583m51h8hhu0g8ajo90b41hkplnu33b21m(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:33:40 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:crgk51phu180c3v483f93pfgaeccvl9dlt(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>> >>>>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. > > What the hell are you trying to say. Doppler shift doesn't 'cause' a > light speed change. You have it back to front. I don't think that the velocity of the source changes the velocity of the photons. I don't think that doppler shift changes the speed of light. I want to test the theory that the speed of the source does NOT effect the speed of the photons. I want to falsify the theory that doppler shift is caused by a change in the speed of the photons. Here is my original proposal at the left is a spinning disk that carries a light SOURCE such as an LED or a laser diode. Perhaps to balance things, it should carry two. spinning disk second detector >>-----------------------|-----------------------------| << first detector above is a diagram of the test set up. On the left is a spinning disk with an LED mounted on the edge. In the center is a half silvered mirror that deflects half the passing photons to a detector, on the right is a second detector that detects the rest of the photons. Between the LED and the first detector there are a couple of pin holes to make sure that we only see photon that are emitted when the LED is travelling straight toward the detectors. We are measuring time it takes the light to pass from the first detector to the second detector. We will measure the time of flight with the source traveling at different speeds. We will see if the time of flight changes with source velocity. >>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? > > Do the maths. > > ....OK I'll do it for you. > The peripheral speed of a 3m circumference wheel, spinning at 500 rps > (30000 rpm) is 0.000005c. My experiment has a peripheral speed that is 6.66 times your peripheral speed. Your reflection doubles your effect, so I have only 3.33 times your velocity. ..... > Now the problems....... > > The distance between the source and the spinning mirror must be accurate > to considerably less than 1.5 cms. > The rise time of the pulses must be of the order of 10^-11 secs. You are running a much different experiment than I am. I am measuring time of flight between two stationary points. I don't CARE if the distance to the source varies. I want to know if the VELOCITY of the source has any effect on the speed of the photons. I don't have the alignment problems you have. I don't have problems with the strength of the source. I don't have many of the problems you have. ..... > > So, bz....do you still think it is possible? Even more so, now. -- 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 |