Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiation Pressure.
in [Physics]
|
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 20 Jun 2010 09:50 On Jun 19, 3:13 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 19, 7:41 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 17, 4:44 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 12:53 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > The question of how the light is heating > > > > is quite relevant, and rather than looking the other way we should try > > > > to get to the bottom of it. > > > > Already mentioned the classical picture of the heating by light as > > > essentially Ohm's law; augment with a microscopic picture of the > > > conduction electrons in thermal motion if you wish (their mean thermal > > > speed, btw, vastly exceeds their mean drift speed due to an applied > > > field). > > > > As for absorption of light by atoms, one of the simplest, clearest, > > > and available treatments is Henderson et al., "How a Photon Is Created > > > or Absorbed", J. Chem. Ed.: > > > >http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html > > > > This looks at the dynamics that are usually ignored. While this is one > > > of the simplest and clearest, I don't think it's very simple or clear, > > > just more so than alternatives. > > > > This is only half of the story, as it still doesn't explain how the > > > energy ends up as heat. The answer to that is collisional de- > > > excitation. That is, the excited atom (with extra energy after > > > absorbing a photon) loses that energy, or at least some of it, in a > > > collision with another atom. After the collision, a good part of this > > > energy ends up as the overall KE of the atoms involved, rather than as > > > the energy of the original excited electron, so isn't available for > > > emission of a photon (of the original energy). > > > > I think that focussing on the heating by light, especially in detail, > > > just distracts from the original issue of radiation momentum and > > > pressure. In particular, the fundamental point is that moving energy > > > means that you have momentum, even if the energy is being moved by a > > > wave with no transfer of mass. E.g., by an EM wave, or in quantum > > > terms, photons of zero rest mass, but also by water waves, acoustic > > > waves etc, where the material in which the wave propagates doesn't > > > move from point A to point B. > > > OK Timo. I accept this argument. I'm too tired to argue the finer > > points. You have done a fine job of upholding the existing theory. > > > While I do see ambiguities in the interpretation, without a clean > > replacement there is little I can do other than throw pebbles at it. > > > Thanks for your persistence on this thread. I've learned some things > > from you. > > > - Tim > > Hi Tim, > Have you read any of links or the 2010 experiment on > this page? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham-Minkowski_controversy > > Some recent experiments may decide the issue and It seems related > to how light's momentum was handled (or mishandled) in this thread. > > Sue... Hey Sue. Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a reference to http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_1197_07.pdf Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another paper I linked to somewhere in this thread. I don't know what to believe. If propulsion takes place, then the perfect reflector does not exist within that situation, since work was done on the reflector. Characterizing how this transfer works is troubling, and I would just as soon deny that propulsion takes place. Still, the radiometer experiments turned radiation pressure experiments(e.g. Nichols in strong vacuum) are supposedly upheld, though I have not gotten decent access to some of these. I can see how to an etherist the odor would be strong here. This topic is very interesting, especially for the many interpretations that can be offered up, starting within the imperfect vacuum and the gas effects, but then supposedly eliminating those on into the fundamentals. I accept that parallel theories can exist, but these should be cleanly isolated, almost as a curricular activity, so that within one of these theories the fundamentals are clearly stated, and then the parallels can be identified, rather than mashing them up homogeneously and calling it one consistent theory. I believe that I have accurately identified this as a mechanism of confusion, where radiation pressure is an EM wave concept whose parallel within the photon theory is momentum. We already accept the electromagnetic basis when discussing light. In that these are physical forces then we already have multiple force fields imposed in an isotropic space, since electricity and magnetism are treated as unique, and thus allowing the characterization. Beyond here things get murky, and the original expressions presumed that raw charges exist free of magnetism, which has been disproven by the observance of electron spin. We might call this Maxwell's Snake; eating its own tail in the ultimate Maxwellian feedback. The claim that these forces(E&M) exist uniquely, though interrelated, is consistent with isotropic theories of spacetime. Still, it is easy to see that spacetime itself is not isotropic, particularly under any unification implementing unidirectional time. This is the great hope that I have- to reconstruct electromagnetism within a structured spacetime basis. This then will have room for the uniquities and will allow their homogenization at a later time, rather than from the get-go within an isotropic space. Already with electron spin we have a preferential reference frame for the particle. This is inherently a structured(not isotropic) concept. These per particle reference frames then can meet up on an even playing field(relatively) and hopefully resolve quite alot of disparate physics. This places the human as a conglomerate and within our conglomerate state we can still accept the isotropic stance, though modified. - Tim > > > > > > This is a key advantage of looking at it in terms of conservation of > > > energy and momentum, rather than the details of the interaction > > > between a specific type of wave and a specific type of matter. The > > > conservation principles are general, and useful whether the moving > > > energy is wave energy as above, KE of moving matter, thermal energy, > > > or whatever, and also whether we're talking Newtonian physics or > > > relativistic physics, or classical or quantum. > > > > The downside is that it doesn't tell you about those details, even if > > > you're interested in them. > > > > -- > > > Timo
From: Sue... on 20 Jun 2010 15:36 On Jun 20, 9:50 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 3:13 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 7:41 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 4:44 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 17, 12:53 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The question of how the light is heating > > > > > is quite relevant, and rather than looking the other way we > should try > > > > > to get to the bottom of it. > > > > > > Already mentioned the classical picture of the heating by light as > > > > essentially Ohm's law; augment with a microscopic picture of the > > > > conduction electrons in thermal motion if you wish (their mean > thermal > > > > speed, btw, vastly exceeds their mean drift speed due to an applied > > > > field). > > > > > > As for absorption of light by atoms, one of the simplest, clearest, > > > > and available treatments is Henderson et al., "How a Photon Is > Created > > > > or Absorbed", J. Chem. Ed.: > > > > > >http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html > > > > > > This looks at the dynamics that are usually ignored. While this > is one > > > > of the simplest and clearest, I don't think it's very simple or > clear, > > > > just more so than alternatives. > > > > > > This is only half of the story, as it still doesn't explain how the > > > > energy ends up as heat. The answer to that is collisional de- > > > > excitation. That is, the excited atom (with extra energy after > > > > absorbing a photon) loses that energy, or at least some of it, in a > > > > collision with another atom. After the collision, a good part of this > > > > energy ends up as the overall KE of the atoms involved, rather > than as > > > > the energy of the original excited electron, so isn't available for > > > > emission of a photon (of the original energy). > > > > > > I think that focussing on the heating by light, especially in detail, > > > > just distracts from the original issue of radiation momentum and > > > > pressure. In particular, the fundamental point is that moving energy > > > > means that you have momentum, even if the energy is being moved by a > > > > wave with no transfer of mass. E.g., by an EM wave, or in quantum > > > > terms, photons of zero rest mass, but also by water waves, acoustic > > > > waves etc, where the material in which the wave propagates doesn't > > > > move from point A to point B. > > > > > OK Timo. I accept this argument. I'm too tired to argue the finer > > > points. You have done a fine job of upholding the existing theory. > > > > > While I do see ambiguities in the interpretation, without a clean > > > replacement there is little I can do other than throw pebbles at it. > > > > > Thanks for your persistence on this thread. I've learned some things > > > from you. > > > > > - Tim > > > > Hi Tim, > > Have you read any of links or the 2010 experiment on > > this page? > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham-Minkowski_controversy > > > > Some recent experiments may decide the issue and It seems related > > to how light's momentum was handled (or mishandled) in this thread. > > > > Sue... > > Hey Sue. > > Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a reference to > > http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_119... > > Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another paper I linked > to somewhere in this thread. I don't know what to believe. If propulsion > takes place, then the perfect reflector does not exist within that > situation, since work was done on the reflector. Characterizing how this > transfer works is troubling, and I would just as soon deny that > propulsion takes place. Still, the radiometer experiments turned > radiation pressure experiments(e.g. Nichols in strong vacuum) are > supposedly upheld, though I have not gotten decent access to some of > these. I can see how to an etherist the odor would be strong here. This paper also claims both are correct. http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i7/e070401 ~a matter of preference~ > > This topic is very interesting, especially for the many interpretations > that can be offered up, starting within the imperfect vacuum and the gas > effects, but then supposedly eliminating those on into the fundamentals. > I accept that parallel theories can exist, but these should be cleanly > isolated, almost as a curricular activity, so that within one of these > theories the fundamentals are clearly stated, and then the parallels can > be identified, rather than mashing them up homogeneously and calling it > one consistent theory. > I believe that I have accurately identified this as a mechanism of > confusion, where radiation pressure is an EM wave concept whose parallel > within the photon theory is momentum. If the supply of one and one half child's trousers per family keeps all the children clothed, do we know all there is to know about trousers and anatomy? Probably not. I expect there is more to learn about momentum in dielectrics from from faster better simulations. Tweezers and trousers are both useful so their implementation need not wait while we debate if and where to divide them. > > We already accept the electromagnetic basis when discussing light. In > that these are physical forces then we already have multiple force > fields imposed in an isotropic space, since electricity and magnetism > are treated as unique, and thus allowing the characterization. Beyond > here things get murky, and the original expressions presumed that raw > charges exist free of magnetism, which has been disproven by the > observance of electron spin. We might call this Maxwell's Snake; eating > its own tail in the ultimate Maxwellian feedback. > There is probably something like magnetic force that allows the e+ e- to exist separately so tail eating might be expected behavior. > The claim that these forces(E&M) exist uniquely, though interrelated, is > consistent with isotropic theories of spacetime. Still, it is easy to > see that spacetime itself is not isotropic, particularly under any > unification implementing unidirectional time. Ohhh... Don't get too hung up on that. All Porsches don't move at the same speed. That is sufficient to consider an anisotropic space-time. > This is the great hope > that I have- to reconstruct electromagnetism within a structured > spacetime basis. This then will have room for the uniquities and will > allow their homogenization at a later time, rather than from the get-go > within an isotropic space. Already with electron spin we have a > preferential reference frame for the particle. Or particle pair... Rose is to thorn as electron is to positron. :-)) > This is inherently a > structured(not isotropic) concept. These per particle reference frames > then can meet up on an even playing field(relatively) and hopefully > resolve quite alot of disparate physics. This places the human as a > conglomerate and within our conglomerate state we can still accept the > isotropic stance, though modified. If you put too many possums in one sack you end up with no possums. Actually induced gravity is a step away form that dilemma. If gravity and inertia are not fundamental, there is much to unlearn where they were treated as such. QED may owe much of its success to ignoring both gravity and inertia. Sue... > > - Tim > > > > > > > > > > > This is a key advantage of looking at it in terms of conservation of > > > > energy and momentum, rather than the details of the interaction > > > > between a specific type of wave and a specific type of matter. The > > > > conservation principles are general, and useful whether the moving > > > > energy is wave energy as above, KE of moving matter, thermal energy, > > > > or whatever, and also whether we're talking Newtonian physics or > > > > relativistic physics, or classical or quantum. > > > > > > The downside is that it doesn't tell you about those details, even if > > > > you're interested in them. > > > > > > -- > > > > Timo
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 20 Jun 2010 20:34 On Jun 20, 3:36 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 20, 9:50 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 3:13 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 7:41 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 4:44 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 12:53 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The question of how the light is heating > > > > > > is quite relevant, and rather than looking the other way we > > should try > > > > > > to get to the bottom of it. > > > > > > > > Already mentioned the classical picture of the heating by light as > > > > > essentially Ohm's law; augment with a microscopic picture of the > > > > > conduction electrons in thermal motion if you wish (their mean > > thermal > > > > > speed, btw, vastly exceeds their mean drift speed due to an applied > > > > > field). > > > > > > > > As for absorption of light by atoms, one of the simplest, clearest, > > > > > and available treatments is Henderson et al., "How a Photon Is > > Created > > > > > or Absorbed", J. Chem. Ed.: > > > > > > > >http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html > > > > > > > > This looks at the dynamics that are usually ignored. While this > > is one > > > > > of the simplest and clearest, I don't think it's very simple or > > clear, > > > > > just more so than alternatives. > > > > > > > > This is only half of the story, as it still doesn't explain how the > > > > > energy ends up as heat. The answer to that is collisional de- > > > > > excitation. That is, the excited atom (with extra energy after > > > > > absorbing a photon) loses that energy, or at least some of it, in a > > > > > collision with another atom. After the collision, a good part of this > > > > > energy ends up as the overall KE of the atoms involved, rather > > than as > > > > > the energy of the original excited electron, so isn't available for > > > > > emission of a photon (of the original energy). > > > > > > > > I think that focussing on the heating by light, especially in detail, > > > > > just distracts from the original issue of radiation momentum and > > > > > pressure. In particular, the fundamental point is that moving energy > > > > > means that you have momentum, even if the energy is being moved by a > > > > > wave with no transfer of mass. E.g., by an EM wave, or in quantum > > > > > terms, photons of zero rest mass, but also by water waves, acoustic > > > > > waves etc, where the material in which the wave propagates doesn't > > > > > move from point A to point B. > > > > > > > OK Timo. I accept this argument. I'm too tired to argue the finer > > > > points. You have done a fine job of upholding the existing theory. > > > > > > > While I do see ambiguities in the interpretation, without a clean > > > > replacement there is little I can do other than throw pebbles at it. > > > > > > > Thanks for your persistence on this thread. I've learned some things > > > > from you. > > > > > > > - Tim > > > > > > Hi Tim, > > > Have you read any of links or the 2010 experiment on > > > this page? > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham-Minkowski_controversy > > > > > > Some recent experiments may decide the issue and It seems related > > > to how light's momentum was handled (or mishandled) in this thread. > > > > > > Sue... > > > Hey Sue. > > > Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a reference to > > >http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_119... > > > Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another paper I linked > > to somewhere in this thread. I don't know what to believe. If propulsion > > takes place, then the perfect reflector does not exist within that > > situation, since work was done on the reflector. Characterizing how this > > transfer works is troubling, and I would just as soon deny that > > propulsion takes place. Still, the radiometer experiments turned > > radiation pressure experiments(e.g. Nichols in strong vacuum) are > > supposedly upheld, though I have not gotten decent access to some of > > these. I can see how to an etherist the odor would be strong here. > > This paper also claims both are correct.http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i7/e070401 > ~a matter of preference~ > Too bad I can't access it. As you suggest, or at least your crypic way makes me think, that like the trousers with an extra leg this informational problem does suggest that a collapsed form could exist, so that these two theories would not be able to arise. > > > > This topic is very interesting, especially for the many interpretations > > that can be offered up, starting within the imperfect vacuum and the gas > > effects, but then supposedly eliminating those on into the fundamentals. > > I accept that parallel theories can exist, but these should be cleanly > > isolated, almost as a curricular activity, so that within one of these > > theories the fundamentals are clearly stated, and then the parallels can > > be identified, rather than mashing them up homogeneously and calling it > > one consistent theory. > > I believe that I have accurately identified this as a mechanism of > > confusion, where radiation pressure is an EM wave concept whose parallel > > within the photon theory is momentum. > > If the supply of one and one half child's trousers per family keeps > all the children clothed, do we know all there is to know about > trousers and anatomy? Probably not. > > I expect there is more to learn about momentum in dielectrics > from from faster better simulations. Tweezers and trousers are > both useful so their implementation need not wait while we > debate if and where to divide them. > > > > > We already accept the electromagnetic basis when discussing light. In > > that these are physical forces then we already have multiple force > > fields imposed in an isotropic space, since electricity and magnetism > > are treated as unique, and thus allowing the characterization. Beyond > > here things get murky, and the original expressions presumed that raw > > charges exist free of magnetism, which has been disproven by the > > observance of electron spin. We might call this Maxwell's Snake; eating > > its own tail in the ultimate Maxwellian feedback. > > There is probably something like magnetic force that allows > the e+ e- to exist separately so tail eating might be expected > behavior. > > > The claim that these forces(E&M) exist uniquely, though interrelated, is > > consistent with isotropic theories of spacetime. Still, it is easy to > > see that spacetime itself is not isotropic, particularly under any > > unification implementing unidirectional time. > > Ohhh... Don't get too hung up on that. All Porsches don't > move at the same speed. That is sufficient to consider an > anisotropic space-time. I am willing to go so simple as looking left and seeing a boot, looking right I see a tree, and so space is not the same in all directions. This may sound naive, but the space devoid of all objects is the only isotropic space that there is, and it is not at all what we study. This simplistic challenge to isotropic space only comes to me after seeing a structured spacetime basis and how much sense it makes. Still, this naive form can stand freely on its own. - Tim > > > This is the great hope > > that I have- to reconstruct electromagnetism within a structured > > spacetime basis. This then will have room for the uniquities and will > > allow their homogenization at a later time, rather than from the get-go > > within an isotropic space. Already with electron spin we have a > > preferential reference frame for the particle. > > Or particle pair... > > Rose is to thorn as electron is to positron. :-)) > > > This is inherently a > > structured(not isotropic) concept. These per particle reference frames > > then can meet up on an even playing field(relatively) and hopefully > > resolve quite alot of disparate physics. This places the human as a > > conglomerate and within our conglomerate state we can still accept the > > isotropic stance, though modified. > > If you put too many possums in one sack you end up with > no possums. Actually induced gravity is a step away form > that dilemma. If gravity and inertia are not fundamental, > there is much to unlearn where they were treated as such. > > QED may owe much of its success to ignoring both > gravity and inertia. > > Sue... > > > > > - Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a key advantage of looking at it in terms of conservation of > > > > > energy and momentum, rather than the details of the interaction > > > > > between a specific type of wave and a specific type of matter. The > > > > > conservation principles are general, and useful whether the moving > > > > > energy is wave energy as above, KE of moving matter, thermal energy, > > > > > or whatever, and also whether we're talking Newtonian physics or > > > > > relativistic physics, or classical or quantum. > > > > > > > > The downside is that it doesn't tell you about those details, even if > > > > > you're interested in them. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Timo
From: Sue... on 20 Jun 2010 21:54 On Jun 20, 8:34 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" [...] > > > > > Hey Sue. > > > > > Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a reference to > > > > >http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_119... > > > > > Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another paper I > linked > > > to somewhere in this thread. I don't know what to believe. If > propulsion > > > takes place, then the perfect reflector does not exist within that > > > situation, since work was done on the reflector. Characterizing how > this > > > transfer works is troubling, and I would just as soon deny that > > > propulsion takes place. Still, the radiometer experiments turned > > > radiation pressure experiments(e.g. Nichols in strong vacuum) are > > > supposedly upheld, though I have not gotten decent access to some of > > > these. I can see how to an etherist the odor would be strong here. > > > > This paper also claims both are > correct. http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i7/e070401 > > ~a matter of preference~ > > > > Too bad I can't access it. As you suggest, or at least your crypic way > makes me think, that like the trousers with an extra leg this > informational problem does suggest that a collapsed form could exist, so > that these two theories would not be able to arise. Nature always has the ultimate collapsed version. It would be easier to see her cards if we had experiments that could distinguish changes of less than 10^40. Consider the U.S. census. A statistical method would far more accurate than present counting methods. Physics is not that different. Obberknockey tunes but once and Avogadro counts but once. > > > > > > > > This topic is very interesting, especially for the many interpretations > > > that can be offered up, starting within the imperfect vacuum and > the gas > > > effects, but then supposedly eliminating those on into the > fundamentals. > > > I accept that parallel theories can exist, but these should be cleanly > > > isolated, almost as a curricular activity, so that within one of these > > > theories the fundamentals are clearly stated, and then the > parallels can > > > be identified, rather than mashing them up homogeneously and calling it > > > one consistent theory. > > > I believe that I have accurately identified this as a mechanism of > > > confusion, where radiation pressure is an EM wave concept whose > parallel > > > within the photon theory is momentum. > > > > If the supply of one and one half child's trousers per family keeps > > all the children clothed, do we know all there is to know about > > trousers and anatomy? Probably not. > > > > I expect there is more to learn about momentum in dielectrics > > from from faster better simulations. Tweezers and trousers are > > both useful so their implementation need not wait while we > > debate if and where to divide them. > > > > > > > > > We already accept the electromagnetic basis when discussing light. In > > > that these are physical forces then we already have multiple force > > > fields imposed in an isotropic space, since electricity and magnetism > > > are treated as unique, and thus allowing the characterization. Beyond > > > here things get murky, and the original expressions presumed that raw > > > charges exist free of magnetism, which has been disproven by the > > > observance of electron spin. We might call this Maxwell's Snake; eating > > > its own tail in the ultimate Maxwellian feedback. > > > > There is probably something like magnetic force that allows > > the e+ e- to exist separately so tail eating might be expected > > behavior. > > > > > The claim that these forces(E&M) exist uniquely, though > interrelated, is > > > consistent with isotropic theories of spacetime. Still, it is easy to > > > see that spacetime itself is not isotropic, particularly under any > > > unification implementing unidirectional time. > > > > Ohhh... Don't get too hung up on that. All Porsches don't > > move at the same speed. That is sufficient to consider an > > anisotropic space-time. > > I am willing to go so simple as looking left and seeing a boot, looking > right I see a tree, and so space is not the same in all directions. This > may sound naive, but the space devoid of all objects is the only > isotropic space that there is, and it is not at all what we study. This > simplistic challenge to isotropic space only comes to me after seeing a > structured spacetime basis and how much sense it makes. If your rocket obeys: K.E. = 1/2 mv^2 then space is isotropic. If not the a boot or tree too close to the path. Also, if the best vacuum is 1 atom per cc, then we really don't have any experiments in *space*. They usually involve ensembles that are not as controllable as we would like. > Still, this > naive form can stand freely on its own. Pi stands on its own and explains the inverse square law. What are you going to explain or clarify with a different space-time? General relativity approximates gravity and inertia with a volume of space-time. But that is a useful formalism to extrapolate from measurements. Does a space-time explain Pauli exclusion, or is it the other way round? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle#Stability_of_matter Sue... > > - Tim [...]
From: Timo Nieminen on 21 Jun 2010 04:30 On Jun 20, 11:50 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 3:13 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > Some recent experiments may decide the issue and It seems related > > to how light's momentum was handled (or mishandled) in this thread. > > > Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a reference to > > http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_119... > > Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another paper I linked > to somewhere in this thread. FWIW, we don't resolve the issue, or claim to resolve it. As far as an issue exists in this, it was resolved in the '60s (we cited de Groot and Suttorp 1972 and Penfield and Haus 1967). Since then, it hasn't been (or shouldn't have been considered as) a question of physics, but a question of nomenclature. -- Timo
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: The Black Knight Satelite Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete |