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: RP on 11 Apr 2005 21:06 N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > 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. Well just have to disagree. Photon theory also does nothing more than account for the effect. I've derived Einstein's photoelectric equation several times in this NG without reference to any sort of mediation, much less to photons. The quantum aspect of this effect lies in, and only in, the fact that the molecules have discrete energy levels, in both the source and the detector. This in no way implies that the energy emitted from one molecule is propagated to a given electron, ignoring all others. On the contrary, it only implies that energy is conserved even in complex wave systems. The equation can be derived directly as a form of conservation of energy, i.e. E1=E2. > >>>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. Not in em. As I explained previously: *nothing* waving is equivalent to nothing *waving*. A medium isn't required, the reason being that there are no waves other than those on paper. The SR waves are the result of the faulty assumption that something is actually propagating between the charges. It was a lack of better judgment that led to the postulation that energy is a thing, and since it is indeed conserved, then it was supposed to be completely accountable for in any given instant; it's whereabouts known. In em wave theory this notion fails miserably, since waves can annihilate each other. Energy isn't locally conserved, as a matter of empirical fact. The em field is a force field, it has no energy, it is not made of energy, nor does it transport energy, just force. Regarding PE as something tangible is the greatest blunder in all of physics history. When KE is lost to a system it is simply gone, no more, evaporated into the void. PE is just another expression for the KE that was lost, and which will enter into the system somewhere, sometime, via the *forces* exerted by the em fields. Geometry of spherical wave superposition is the accountant. (Again, the waves are fictitious but it is easier to think in terms of waving fields than to think in terms of fields extending through time as they extend outward. We can use the wave model, but should keep in mind that they are just mathematical devices with no physical correspondence to *things* of any sort.) A particle model is inherently quantum. GR is a > statistical method... I agree that GR is a superficial approach, that is since mass is reducible, but there is nothing statistical about it. > >>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 There is no such thing as a photon, let alone photon-photon interactions. Not to mention the fact that there are no such interactions even in standard theory. Tom Roberts just addressed this in another thread, stating almost verbatim my views on this that I posted a few years ago, namely that it would violate all sorts of conservation laws. Frequency is frame dependent, you need a couple of fermions in there somewhere. My contention is, and was then, that the interaction is that of em waves and positronium atoms. The wave(s) simply separate these already existing particles. Moreover I explained this effect initially as due to the fact that only a gamma frequency wave can force these particles in different directions, which latter is an argument that I repeated just days ago. This is exactly the same mechanism that I applied in this thread to the emission of the photoelectron. A longer wavelength produces a local field gradient that simply isn't great enough to sever the particles from each other, they being in more or less in a uniform field in the small volume that they are contained in. Longer wavelength em waves deflect the entire molecule rather than its parts one from another. > (nothwithstanding Mr. Mingst's objections) have been observed to > produce particles. Not once have the been observed to do so. The best that you can say is that they cause particles to be observed that were previously not observed. IOW, you are assuming what you want to hear. Richard Perry
From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 11 Apr 2005 23:58 Dear bz: "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns9634AF3039C6CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> > wrote in > news:wIf6e.6563$EX4.3962(a)fed1read01: .... >>>> 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. >> >> "Quantification" or "discreteness" might have been better word >> choices. Discretion being what it is... > > I know it was indiscrete of me, but I couldn't resist the pun. ;>) I hung up those spurs a long time ago... >>> All of the quantities can be measured under >>> certain circumstances. >> >> I disagree. The ones I claim are model >> dependent are inferred from observation, >> not the result of direct observation. > > Diffraction gatings infer the wavelength Correct. You need slit geometry, distance from detector to slits, and a *model* to get wavelength. > while photo-electric ejected > photons are direct observables? Yes. Current flow (or lack thereof) indicates cutoff. > Momentum is observable? Yes. A change in state of an orbital electron... > I don't think ANY of them are DIRECTLY > observable. We infer there is quantification, > momentum, energy, frequency, and > wavelength from the effects. Frequency and wavelength are *much* further from being an observable. > I don't know of ANY direct way to measure > any of them. The diffraction grating is the > closest to a direct measure of any of them, > AFAIK. Emission, absorbtion spectra give > us information from which we can calculate > energy and infer quantification. You can think of many ways to measure energy (bolometer for one). A radiometer (if tiny enough, and truly evacuated) can get close to measuring momentum. .... >>>>> 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 why did you say: >> >>>>> 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? >> >> You knew we were discussing both... > > Mia culpa. Excuse me, please. I figure I was running my fingers over the "he's picking on me" keys. I don't know how else to help you, if I don't work on what I see as your fantasy... It isn't personal, OK? .... >>> There may not be a change-in-polarization, >>> just in intensity. Nothing, AFIK is exactly >>> quantifiable. >> >> Just for jogging your memory, materials >> that select polarization, alter polarization. >> Remember the experiment where a polarizer >> at 45 deg is inserted between two polarizers, >> one at 0 deg and one at 90 deg. > > That is one I never ran, but I see what you > mean. I will have to play with 3 polarizers. > I know that some plastics rotate the plane > of polarization. Some select circular > polarized [right] and some select cp [left]. > Some LCD screens use cp to filter out > ambient lighting because reflection reverses > the sense of cp. > > I don't think ALL polarizers rotate the plane > of polarization. They all do, if they select polarization. Just as all light mediums affect a c_medium < c if light is transmitted. > For example, reflections from non metalic > surfaces tend to be plane polarized, so you > can use such reflections to polarize a beam. All reflection is in fact absorption and re-emission. > Icelandspar separates photons based on > polarization as does calcite. But they do this during *transmission* where the medium already moderates a great deal of what happens to the light. >>> 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. >> >> *Some* photons are detected at all spots. The >> distribution shows the pattern. The location of >> a single photon's arrival does not. > > You make your point. > I argue that some locations do NOT receive any > photons. I think I make mine also. There are photons at all locations, given a sufficiently large population. We aren't keeping score. I'm just trying to share what I know, to fill in the gaps you still appear to have. > .... >>>> 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. >> >> So "information" belongs to the host? Is >> "wavelength" information? > > wavelength, phase, path, many other things > are all information. But not the blow of a fist (a single photon absoption, to be less cryptic)? That requires "context" to convey information, right? >>> Ah I missed the word 'reflection'. I have >>> reflected upon your point. I do not see any >>> difficulty. >> >> Water waves can exactly cancel at such an >> interface. > > but only at certain points, on the wave fronts. anechoic chambers. Think again. Divide and conquer... >> Why doesn't light do so, if it is "wave only" >> with existence tied to some mythical >> medium, with finite length? > > I never said light was 'wave only. And I don't > claim a medium. OK. We can drop this line. > As far as I know, there can be some places > where a reflected beam of light can interfer > with itself. > > I know that in the Radio frequency range, > especially the frequencies used for > broadcast television, the direct signal from > the station and a reflected signal from an > airplane or a car DO produce signal > cancellation at the receiver. The signal > starts faiding in and out as the phase of the > reflected signal keeps changing as the > plane/car position changes. Agreed. >>> How does a zero length particle interfer >>> with itself when going through double slits? >> >> What is geometry to the quantum world? >> It doesn't care about path, separation, >> slit geometry, or even velocity. That is >> my point. Self-interference simply shows >> quantum behavior, not wave behavior. > > This is easy to believe when we talk > about visible light. It is harder to swallow > when we talk about 10 meters RF. Yet > they are both part of the same continuum. Agreed. But the size of the laboratory necessary to express all the same effects for 10m RF is what I call "provincial thinking". Imagine you had eternity, and all the money in the world, you could duplicate for 1Hz, what you can to for THz, right? >> Particles larger than C60 buckyballs have been made to >> self interfere. And it is the host that provides the >> pattern... >> not any individual member. > > Host? The multitude. The population (or a statistically significant sample thereof). >>> But photons and electrons do have wavelength >>> (momentum). >> >> And detection of momentum of either particle >> does not imply wavelength. Only the model >> provides the wavelength. > > I can measure the wavelength of a 440 MHz > transmitter (0.68 meters, 2.9e-25 Joules) with a > section of HO guage MODEL train track and a > 6 volt dial lamp by measuring the distance > between voltage peaks on the standing wave. > So, in a way I am using a model, but it sure > looks like a direct measurement to me. I > realize I am working with many photons in > this case. Can't do this very will with infrared. But then, provincial thinking... By the way, how does this method of "direct measurement" of wavelength handle c_medium in the conductor of the train track, and how do you know you have a half- or quarter- wave or full wave? Are you *sure* you don't need a model to get to wavelength? >>>> 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. >> >> Does a photon change because I am moving >> wrt the source of the photons? > > That depends on whether or not we are looking > at the photon from your framework or the > sources frame work or my framework. > > As someone pointed out to me, if a 10 meter > transmitter was sending a signal, and you > were approaching at a high velocity so that > the 10 meter signal was doppler shifted > enought, it would knock electrons from your > photocathode. And are the photons different, or is my detector different? >> Or does only my "difficulty of design" >> change? I suggest that the word "only" >> is correct, even if it is not trivial. > > It may be, but I shy away from 'omniscient' > statements like 'always' and 'only' most of > the time. They have power. Most of the time. >>>> That the choice of experiment alone should >>>> be enough to show that a photon has a finite >>>> length... >>> >>> A properly designed experiment. Yes. >> >> MMX performed in a frame (using visible >> light in that frame) that has a gamma of >> 1000 wrt to you, has done this experiment. >> They can also do the rotating drum >> experiment, and they will find no different >> results than you do. They will find the size >> of the photon, photons you will decide are >> "too long", to be inclusive of zero size too. > > They will measure different sizes than I will > [for the same photons]. They will measure size "inclusive of zero", to within the precision of measurement. The laws of physics don't change... >> Why must you draw conclusions based on >> provincial rule-sets? > > perhaps I am provincial. We all are. Our common sense is raised on lack. .... >>> I see no reason to doubt that frequency and >>> wavelength also apply to individual members >>> of the population. >> >> The *model* that invokes these terms can be >> applied. It has no meaning to an individual >> member. > > But it CAN be applied? > It does have meaning to me. The answer is no. The reason is that a model involving knowing more about a single particle than can be known is involved. You can claim your credit limit is the national average, but it doesn't mean it is so. >>> What the photons do does not depend >>> on my model. >> >> What you claim they are, of finite length, >> length proportional to 1 wavelength, does >> place requirements on their behavior. > > It may require I readjust my model [when it > fails to describe what happens]. > It doesn't do anything to their behavior. So at least yoru eyes are open. Good. >>> I don't think that a photon, when >>> separated from the crowd, behaves >>> differently than it did in the crowd. >> >> I am not claiming that they do. I am >> claiming it is like applying "median >> age" to describe a first-grader. It is >> meaningless at that level to do so. > > Not if you are a year younger than the > median age. Tell little Timmy he is median age in his first grade class. >>>> 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 is NO delay. Classically it is >> expected, experimentally there is no delay. > > Then speed transiting a media should be > equal to c, since the speed between > absorbtion/emission is c. The duration is between absoprtion and re-emission. *That* is a function of the medium. >> Classically the electron has a finite size, >> experimentally that size is inclusive of zero. > > Perhaps the delay/[index of refraction] is due > to the size of the photon. Perhaps there IS > no absorbtion/emission delay. Why a longer delay for shorter wavelength? Why a longer delay for longer wavelengths, approaching cutoff? Sounds like wavelength is not important. >> The model applied provides the problem. >> Nature doesn't care. > > RiGHT. > > .... >>>> c_medium is >>>> produced when photons are involved in absorption/re-emission >>>> within the medium. >>> >>> Right. The small delay mentioned above. >> >> A "delay" that is a function of frequency. >> Usually longer for shorter wavelengths, until >> they tunnel right though the material (x-rays >> and gamma as examples). The delay is not >> associated with the absorption and emssion >> events, but only separates them. > > how? Where is the delay centered? What > causes the delay? Permittivity and permeability. In the medium. Finding the right "place" to release the absobed momentum. >>> Right. The small delay mentioned above. >> >> And contrary to your "finite photon length" >> model, the delay is longer for shorter >> wavelengths. > > That is a problem, but doesn't quite defeat > me yet. More thinking is called for. OK. Just do a little research on the index of refraction for different wavelengths. >>>>>> 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. >> >> Suitable for transmission... E and B for a >> *propagating* photon are in phase. > > But if the antenna is NOT resonant, the > transmitter still works, the SAME energy/ > frequency/wavelength photons are emitted. > > If we are far away from resonance, the > antenna will present a poor impedence > match to the transmitter and will present > a reactive load. This can damage > components in the transmitter unless an > impedence matching network is used. Thanks for the broadcast lesson, by the way. Had the same problem in cornoa-based ozone generators... >>>> 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? >> >> It appears to be an opinion contest. >> Why don't you tell me how this answers >> your contention that photons have a length >> proportional to wavelength. > > Well, I don't see how a zero-length/ >zero-width photon can be emitted until > a full cycle of the 29.96 MHz signal has > completed. In fact, not until the end of > the first cycle reaches the tip of the antenna. > > I am NOT quite sure how a 'lamda long > photon' can be emitted until the same > time, either. > > I am starting to think that a 'lamda/2 > long photon' may make more sense. > > So, How does the E and B field spin > off 2.5e25 photons/second when I key my > 29.96 MHz transmitter? > > At some point, when near field changes > to far field, the E and B fields collapse > into dimensionless points that propagate > in all directions? All good questions. I am incompentent is this topic. Bilge is pretty sharp, so if they are burning questions, you might start another thread. I don't warrant much attention from the "power players". >>> 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. >> >> Should be the same as for the voltage, >> if your "resistive" claim is to stick... No? > > Good guess, and I would be inclined to > agree, but the antenna has distributed > inductance and capacitance. It is only > really resonant when looked at from the > feed point. > > We really don't know when the current > max will reach the end. But you may > be right. Or not! ;>) > If Xsubc distributed and Xsubl distributed > are not exactly equal, the current max will > be between the feed point and the end. > >>> 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. >> >> At any point, at some specific time, >> however, there is: zero voltage (compared >> to earth reference), and zero current. > > true. > .... >>> How does it know what the frequency/energy/ >>> wavelength is going to be? >> >> The charge is accelerated. The acceleration >> describes the emission. > > When does the emission take place. How does > the photon know what energy it carries. Only two "things" attribute energy to a photon. The emitter, and the absorber. Given that transmission mediums also (briefly) absorb... The photon neither knows nor cares. >>>>> 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. >> >> How did you resolve this, by the way? > > In the case of an advisory notice, all I had to > do was determine what went wrong and write > a letter saying what happened and what I would > do to prevent it from happening again. > > More serious violations, or repeated problems > could result in a visit from the FCC, station > inspection, 'CEASE and DESIST' orders, fine, > suspension of station license, revocation of > operator license. I meant "nuts and bolts". Was it a faulty component, and bird on the wire, or what? Do you remember, or do you use a hand grenade like I do ("fix" a lot of things hoping on of them will do it). >>>> There is some emission associated with >>>> cable length to antenna tip. >>> >>> Most of the emission comes from the >>> bottom 1/3 of the antenna. >> >> Makes sense, since current flow near the >> tip is always "near zero", so is >> acceleration of charge there. Funny how >> the sweet spot on a bat is 1/3 of the way >> down from the tip... > > For not too disimilar reasons, I suspect. Ever corked an antenna? ;>) >> Excellent! Now let's look at your >> insistence that a photon have a finite >> length... > > and yours that they have none. > > :) So what do you think of "broadcast power"? Not sure if you have any interest in Nikola Tesla, but: URL:http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tesla-notes/030802.html .... giant microwave? David A. Smith
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 12 Apr 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:17:20 +0000 (UTC) <Xns9635D890BE10AWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > 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. The issue is easy to calculate if one can budge gamma enough. If one has a spinning disk with edge velocity v towards the OWLS measurement device as you propose, the energy of each photon, which presumably can be easily measured by some sort of applied-voltage electron liberation detector (taking advantage of Einstein's photoelectric effect), would be expressible as a ratio as follows: BaT: (c+v)^2/c^2 SR: 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) For v << c SR predicts an amount roughly 1/4th the amount of BaT, and should easily be detectable, given known v and known laser characteristics. One minor problem with the spinning disk is that GR gets involved, slowing down time for the laser. This may double the effect, somehow -- but that's still only 1/2 of BaT. Another minor problem is that photons from the spinning disk will spray all over the place. :-) This may also be done in tandem with a long lighttube and another identical (except that it's stationary) laser diode, setting up a "race condition". It's a pity we cannot use the moon (the detectors aren't sensitive enough to pick up the returning photons from a spinning laser diode, throwing rays at the moon). However, if we can resolve things to the nearest picosecond and have an edge velocity of 300 m/s, we can use a mirrorless lighttube of length 1 microsecond -- about 300 m. (It has to be mirrorless, mostly so that one cannot ask the dumb question "but what if the mirrors are treated as light re-emitters?". :-) Ideally it would be evacuated and cooled to below the temperature of liquid air as well -- and of course it has to be arrow-straight.) SR of course predicts a null result; BaT predicts a differential of about 1 picosecond. [rest snipped for brevity] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 12 Apr 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:28:17 GMT <n3gk51tpoi4gnqs9526kdil9ifjbpja1h2(a)4ax.com>: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 04:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 02:09:11 GMT >><grmj5197htduprdao0csmupe4ct1f9c118(a)4ax.com>: >>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >>> > >>>>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. >> >>Speed of the light, or speed of the observer? :-) > > Ghost, you seem to know very little about this subject even after evrything I > have taught you. > > Speed is always define as relative to something. That's fine. Lightspeed is c relative to everything. Got it now? :-) > > You cannot get away from the 'absolute aether > principle', can you. And you cannot seem to accept the timetwist required by SR/GR. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>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!!! >> >>And why would the MMX have to be done on the moon? > > It requires a better vacuum that can be achieved on Earth. And why is that? Is a better vacuum going to change your result? If one is going to go to all that trouble it's probably simpler to use your original two-rocket experiment. > > >>>> >>>>The spectrum is not caused by temperature, but by electronic >>>>transitions within the material. >>> >>> Are they caused by transitons between nuclear or intermolecular bonds? >> >>The Fe-57 experiments had to do with the nucleus, but most >>observed spectra have to do with electronic transitions, >>or, in some cases, bonding within molecules. Presumably, >>for instance, one can detect clouds of carbon monoxide, >>water, etc. > > In other words Ghost, you haven't a clue. The energy required to liberate a sodium electron from the 3s shell is about 495.8 kJ/mol, or 5.139 eV, or a frequency of 1.242 * 10^15 Hz. This is somewhere in the soft UV. The energy required for the Fe-57 effect is on the order of 14.4 keV -- almost 3000x more. Does this answer your question? [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 12 Apr 2005 00:02
Dear RP: "RP" <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:JJudnTnplJN4oMbfRVn-gQ(a)centurytel.net... > > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: .... >>>>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. > > Well just have to disagree. OK. David A. Smith |