Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Come on creative minds solve this fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico if ?you can
Next: Dark Energy: The problem with Einstein's Cosmological Constant is that there's no physics behind it
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jun 2010 16:58 On Jun 5, 6:29 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Tim: In my invalidation of the M-M experiment, I chose to look at light in S L O W motion. I realized that the easiest way to understand what was happening with the light was to consider just a SINGLE photon racing along each of the two light courses. That is so much simpler than trying to say, as Timo does, that the light red shifts or blue shifts. Einstein declared that light never blue shifts, because that would require the photons to exceed 'c'. Using simple 9th grade algebra, I have proved, conclusively, that light velocity is: V = 'c' plus or minus v (or the velocity of the light source). Each time Timo talks about... a reflector, he could just as well be talking about the mirrors in the M-M experiment. Below are the links which explain these things. Also, I have determined that there is always a slight "Friction of Reflection" which red-shifts all reflected light. Some of the energy imparted to the reflector converts to heat that isn't instantaneously re emitted with the reflected light. That necessitates that reflected light will be red shifted, otherwise the Law of the Conservation of Energy is violated. NoEinstein > > On Jun 4, 5:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 9:59 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 5:59 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 7:09 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Here is another link in support of the challenge to radiation > > > > > pressure's validity: > > > > > "It is therefore much more likely that in a given case the apparent > > > > > 'radiation pressure' is caused either by thermal surface effects or > > > > > electrons which are released from the surface by the radiation." > > > > > -http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#radpress > > > > > That is a _really_ bad webpage! Just consider its claim: "Even if one > > > > assumes a momentum, a radiation pressure force could only be caused by > > > > a momentum change dp/dt, but this is not possible because the speed of > > > > light c has to be constant" (1) Direction of motion matters when it > > > > comes to momentum, (2) refractive index. > > > > Yes, and this is very similar to the arguments that I have provided. > > > ! I haven't seen you directly arguing such complete nonsense. That web > > page was saying that the direction of motion doesn't affect momentum, > > that if an object changes direction and goes, e.g., in the exact > > opposite direction, there is no change in momentum. Before you claim > > that the argument given there is very similar to yours, you should > > understand just how completely defective that argument is. > > > > The conservation of momentum is a strict principle, one that you have > > > already cast aside in your argument about changing momenta as media > > > change in dielectric quality > > > ?? Conservation of momentum is why, if the momentum flux of the beam > > changes, there must be a matching force on the surface, or, if there > > is a force on the surface of the liquid (as we observe > > experimentally), then the momentum flux of the beam must change? > > > Why do you say this "casts aside" conservation of momentum? It's > > directly based on the conservation of momentum. > > > > You already accepted once the farce of > > > the reflector as a doubling agent of radition pressure effects, and > > > then go back to supporting it. What do you have to say about > > > conservation of momentum? > > To support my claim above I quote from your own words > > "If the reflector is moving, there will be a Doppler shift, > and energy in will be different from energy out. > If the reflector is stationary, then you could have, e.g., > 1300W in and 1300W out. But no work would be done." > > -http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f064666482b7c3b5 > > I don't mean to be crass but I do mean to use this medium with > accountability, which is one of its strong points. I would like you to > find such falsifications in my own writing. > > The radiation pressure effect is claimed to be operant even with no > initial relative velocity between the source and reflector. Further, > as far as I can tell none of the existing work on radiation pressure > relies upon any red shift argument as the balance of energy. Simply > put, if the perfect reflector reflects all of the beams light back > toward the source then it cannot have absorbed any energy and hence it > will not accelerate. > > Next, if we do take the accepted photon momentum derived from > e = h f > then we would witness the entire 1300 watts of power on a square meter > of mirror, which should do quite some work according to this accepted > momentum equation, particularly for those fond of a doubling effect. > Clearly this is not the source of radiation pressure. Even if we go to > a black body which absorbs the energy, we must admit that there is no > effect; The energy is converted into heat, to be reradiated, and if we > assume that this reradiation is isotropic then we need not bother with > any directed effect from it within the already corrupted concept of > photon momentum. All the while you stand by the photon momentum > equation, even while it fails to provide any momentum. This argument > on momentum does not necessarily have anything to do with the claimed > existence of radiation pressure. > > The heating effect is nearby to the redshift concept, but again, we > are not necessarily talking about radiation pressure here. This is an > altogether different effect as far as I can tell. Wouldn't we have to > get into thermodyamics more and Planck's energy distribution to > discuss this effect? You see, it is a bit crazy how many sidelines > there are, and so long as we wish to discuss the radiometer as a means > of measuring radiation pressure, well, we are not really discussing a > radiometer any more. These fine points you seem not to have > acknowledged though I've stated them several times. You have pretty > much accepted (I believe) that there will be no effect in the best > vacuum labs available. Isn't this enough to admit that you do not > believe that radiation pressure exists? > > As I see it the problem of human as scientist is embedded within this > discussion. Upon an 'accepted' theory being posited, for one to break > away from that norm places one as a potential quack. And yet, without > this freedom of thought, the quality of science will suffer. Such a > person has relinquished their freedom to falsify, and in doing so has > guaranteed their success within a system where mimicry is a merit. I > respect your rights, particularly here on this free medium, but I > would point out to you that as a partially accurate sounding board to > existing theory you are in some regards helping to disprove that > theory. > > As you argue for the radiation pressure on a perfect reflector in > outer space why would you deny that it can be provided in a lab at > 10E-11 torrs with a 10kW laser? Should this be enough to turn the > spindle of a Crooks style radiometer, or is the friction too great? > Really, I must admit that I am growing cynical here, if for no other > reason than the fact that your response to this question will be > miserable to read. > > You are a strong poster Timo and I don't mean you any harm. I can't > have this discussion without you. I find it poor that people who claim > to be scientific will not apply themselves at this level. I ask that I > be falsified, and you are the only one who steps forward. I am still > open to such falsification, and it could turn on some minor point or > discrepancy that we are overlooking. Still, could it be the other way > around too? One must give ones self enough credit to declare something > false if one is to give one's self enough credit to declare something > to be true. Otherwise mimicry ensues, and this is a transparent human > factor inculcated within the schooling. I give you as much credit as I > can but attempt to hold you accountable. Thanks, Timo, for hanging in > there. I half take back my prediction on your response. > > - Tim > > > > > > > You don't think the momentum of an object that reverses direction > > changes? You don't think that a force (i.e., a change in momentum as > > per Newton) is needed to change the direction of an object? > > > If one instead, at least provisionally, accepts Newton's laws of > > motion as correct, if an object with momentum p reverses direction, > > while maintaining the same speed, the final momentum is -p, for a > > change in momentum of -2p, with an average force of -2p/t where t is > > the time over which the force that causes the change in direction is > > applied. If instead, the object is "absorbed", has a sticky collision, > > then the change in momentum is -p, only half of the "reflection" > > change in momentum. What's so mysterious about radiation pressure on a > > reflector being double?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jun 2010 17:04 On Jun 5, 8:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: Where did you get the notion that circular orbits have no gravity? If that were so, then, how are those telecommunications satellites held in orbit? I've got gravity nailed as: Flowing ether, replenished by photon exchange. Nothing that you've ever said changes those facts. NE > > On Jun 5, 4:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 5, 3:25 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Dear Tim: A Sun-Moon alignment would reduce the much greater "sun" > > gravity. But there is a built-in inertia to there being instantaneous > > changes in Earth's orbit. Here's why: The mass of the Earth is huge > > compared to the solar energy portion which could be received during a > > solar eclipse. Gravity forces are due to the ether density near the > > Earth. That reserve of ether would cause orbit changes to occur > > slowly. Though I haven't thought out the particulars, it's likely > > that the solar energy of the Sun on the exact back-side of the moon > > would momentarily increase the Earth-moon gravity so that there would > > be no... fly-away Earth. And there is the possibility that if Earth > > did move outward, that Earth would get back in the correct orbit once > > the full Sun-Earth gravity returned. > > > Interestingly, I've figured that "shading" could be a means of > > diverting asteroids or comets on collision courses with the Earth. > > Explode an aluminum foil bomb(s) along the object's path to shade from > > the sun, and the object will move out on its tangent, and miss the > > Earth. > > > An exceedingly low friction bearing is to stick two double-edge razor > > blades into a soft cork, parallel. Place a sewing needle through two > > large soda straw, perpendicular. You can use the device as a beam > > balance that is sensitive enough to weigh a hair. NoEinstein > > > > On Jun 5, 12:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 5, 1:19 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > Dear Timo: Have I turned you... religious? "How long wilt (I) speak > > > > these things? And how long will the words of (my) mouth be like a > > > > strong wind?" Answers: I'll keep speaking the truth until the > > > > largely dull 'scientific' community wises up. Since my New Science > > > > fits the observations of the entire Universe, I can speak, with > > > > authority, that no "detail" of my science will change the whole of my > > > > discoveries. Note: Throughout the Universe, "the wind" is most often > > > > ether flow caused by pressure differentials. The maximum pressure is > > > > always closest to where the mass(es) is most concentrated. Photon > > > > emission (including infrared) depletes part of the ether INSIDE > > > > matter. That causes a vacuum that keeps drawing in new ether from > > > > outside. Matter that receives photons from other matter isn't as > > > > 'deficient' in ether on the facing sides. So, the net 'replacement' > > > > energy will flow in on the opposing sides. It is the DRAG of the > > > > flowing ether on the matter on the opposing sides of the masses that > > > > PUSHES the masses together. I. e.: the moon and the Earth are > > > > orbitally bound in this way. Thats how gravity works! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 1:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Timo: You had said, earlier: "This isn't true. The force on the > > > > > > vanes has been measured in vacuum, and the force is in the opposite > > > > > > direction to the usual Crookes radiometer thermal force. If not for > > > > > > friction, the radiometer in vacuum would rotate "backwards"." Since > > > > > > my New Science has the direction of rotation identical to the Crookes > > > > > > (black squares trailing), your statement seemed to be saying that my > > > > > > New Science is wrongwhich it of course, isn't. The wrongly assumed > > > > > > 'forward' rotation is for the white squares to trail. Friction can > > > > > > STOP or prevent a rotation, but never change its direction. If you > > > > > > are wishing to change the subject to "momentum", you are way over your > > > > > > head. I wrote the book on momentum and KE. PD has fought on those > > > > > > subjects for three years, and has lost (to me). The world doesn't > > > > > > need any more PDs! NoEinstein > > > > > > Job 8:2 > > > > Hi NoEinstein. I honestly haven't carefully considered your argument, > > > but I do believe that it will be consistent with gravitational > > > shadowing, and perhaps a means of describing some of what modern jibe > > > calls 'dark matter'. > > > > This is a bit of a scary subject, for it would bring huge interest > > > from astrologers who concern themselves with the dynamics of such > > > situations. Will we be forced to admit under this theory that when the > > > moon passes between the sun and the earth that some of the > > > gravitational force has disappeared? This is what I mean by > > > gravitational shadowing. It is an interesting concept, especially when > > > tied into electromagnetic radiation. I don't feel it is a complete > > > theory, and feel spread pretty thin trying to consider it within the > > > radiation pressure claim. Still, they are nearby to each other. > > > > There are so many possible variations on the Crooks and Nichols > > > radiometers. There is not necessarily any need to expose more than one > > > vane of the Crooks device to light in order to experiment, so that the > > > black/silver conundrum could be deleted. Further I have not found any > > > analysis on a spinning bearing versus a quartz fiber's friction, but I > > > presume that a fine enough pin style bearing on a hard jewel concavity > > > could have a very slight amount of friction relative to the torque of > > > a fairly distant vane, not to mention more advanced options such as a > > > magnetic bearing. I've attempted some research on this but found > > > nothing yet. Any links on this bearing friction analysis are welcome. > > > I have made some simple bearing out of copper arms resting on a nail > > > and it is such a nice simple thing that a child can do it. Even wood > > > on wood bearings are nicely behaved, and can make pretty windvanes, a > > > few of which I have around my garden. > > > > - Tim- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Sun Moon depending on which side; the moon close to the sun or on the > other side will both add to gravity and cancel it. > > Note that a circular orbit has no strength of gravity. This means > angles of enregy flow through space determine a partial strength of > gravity. > > Only partial strength applies in all orbits. For light which is > parabola path the space flow strength of gravity is always at maximum. > > Nobody in physics can explain where the strength of gravity goes in a > circular orbit. But it is proof of partial gravity at angles > approaching it. And that is all there is to it. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jun 2010 17:07 On Jun 5, 8:01 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: When you've said that the energy in (to the reflector) doesn't = the energy out, isn't THAT a violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy? NE > > On Jun 6, 8:29 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > To support my claim above I quote from your own words > > > "If the reflector is moving, there will be a Doppler shift, > > and energy in will be different from energy out. > > If the reflector is stationary, then you could have, e.g., > > 1300W in and 1300W out. But no work would be done." > > > -http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f064666482b7c3b5 > > > I don't mean to be crass but I do mean to use this medium with > > accountability, which is one of its strong points. I would like you to > > find such falsifications in my own writing. > > > The radiation pressure effect is claimed to be operant even with no > > initial relative velocity between the source and reflector. Further, > > as far as I can tell none of the existing work on radiation pressure > > relies upon any red shift argument as the balance of energy. Simply > > put, if the perfect reflector reflects all of the beams light back > > toward the source then it cannot have absorbed any energy and hence it > > will not accelerate. > > Yes, it will work with no relative velocity between source and > reflector. Don't handwave! Say specifically where my redshift/ > blueshift derivation is wrong. If it isn't wrong, it's right. > > > Next, if we do take the accepted photon momentum derived from > > e = h f > > then we would witness the entire 1300 watts of power on a square meter > > of mirror, which should do quite some work according to this accepted > > momentum equation, particularly for those fond of a doubling effect. > > Why? 1300W gives you 4 micronewtons (9 micronewtons if reflected). > This gives you "quite some work"? That's a tiny force, expecially > considering it's acting on something 1m^2 in area. > > > You have pretty > > much accepted (I believe) that there will be no effect in the best > > vacuum labs available. Isn't this enough to admit that you do not > > believe that radiation pressure exists? > > Absolutely not. Go back and read what I wrote! > > > As you argue for the radiation pressure on a perfect reflector in > > outer space why would you deny that it can be provided in a lab at > > 10E-11 torrs with a 10kW laser? Should this be enough to turn the > > spindle of a Crooks style radiometer, or is the friction too great? > > Really, I must admit that I am growing cynical here, if for no other > > reason than the fact that your response to this question will be > > miserable to read. > > I don't deny it at all that it would work in a lab at ultra-high > vacuum. I said that it does work in the lab at UHV, as seen by the > various atom trapping/cooling and BEC experiments. > > Would it be enough to turn a Crookes radiometer? Depends on the power. > Levitate the rotor magnetically, avoid friction. Nichols and Hull > avoided friction. > > > You are a strong poster Timo and I don't mean you any harm. I can't > > have this discussion without you. I find it poor that people who claim > > to be scientific will not apply themselves at this level. I ask that I > > be falsified, and you are the only one who steps forward. I am still > > open to such falsification, > > Are you? I say that UHV experiments have been done, on atoms. I say > that radiation pressure forces have been observed on macroscopic > objects, between collisions with atoms in the low-pressure gas, so > equivalent to UHV in principle. I say that radiation pressure forces > would be observable in an UHV experiment. Your response: "why would > you deny that it can be provided in a lab at 10E-11 torrs with a 10kW > laser?" Apart from the fact that I didn't mention a 10kW laser, nor > did you until now, what you are claiming I said is the opposite of > what I said. So, is there any point discussing the various experiments > if you don't read what I write? > > Don't avoid the redshift/blueshift derivation then. It's simple, and > follows only from the energy of light and conservation of energy. You > don't need to assume that light carries momentum; this follows as a > consequence.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Tim BandTech.com on 6 Jun 2010 19:49 On Jun 6, 4:44 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Jun 6, 11:05 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Well, I have gone back to check what I remember pretty well that you > > wrote, and you state that it will not be observed in perfect vacuum: > > "Perfect vacuum, no. Very good vacuums, yes, especially with atom > > trapping. I've seen classical experiments done in vacuum (can't recall > > how good), where absorbing particles were blasted by short pulses of > > light, to measure their radiation pressure cross-sections." > > > in response to my statement: > > "I'm sorry but the effect in a perfect vacuum has not been clearly > > demonstrated. [...] > > No, I said the experiment hasn't been *done* in a perfect vacuum. > Because we can't achieve a perfect vacuum in the lab. Technically, you > were correct. > > We also haven't done an experimental test of Newton's 1st law, because > we don't have a friction free, viscous drag free, force free > laboratory. This doesn't mean that I think that Newton's 1st law > doesn't work in perfect vacuum. > > It's an important point. How do we know when we can extrapolate a good > vacuum result (or poor vacuum, or atomospheric result) to perfect > vacuum? It's important to know (by measuring) the effect of what is > there, e.g., damping due to viscous drag, drag due to convective flow, > the radiometer force, the effect of the gas on the temperature > difference between the two sides of the vane, etc. > > > I have been avoiding your references to optical tweezers and light > > traps, partially because I have only limited familiarity with those. > > They're the main modern application of radiation pressure. *Thousands* > of experiments have been done. Early experiments to show that the > method works, and to explore the theoretical principles, experiments > to use the force e.g. for restraining or moving live cells, > experiments to quantitatively measure forces between biomolecules. > > > Anyway, we are in agreement that radiation pressure should be > > measurable at 10E-11 torrs using a solid plate device. > > In principle. Whether the force is too small to measure in practice is > the question, and this depends on the particular setup. > > > ... and > > possibly freed electrons as one of the links in support of my position > > mentions. When we start thinking of those electrons then the tweezers > > and traps start to make more sense I think, but I cannot argue on > > these devices without doing some research. > > Freed electrons are not responsible for the force in general. The atom > trapping experiments are quite conclusive on this (since freeing an > electron would result in ionisation, which would result in the ion not > being trapped). (Perhaps in some specific experiment? In the modern > laser experiments, there isn't enough photon energy for (significant) > photoejection of electrons. Given 1/2 of the photon energy used to > eject the electron, the rest becoming its KE, electron ejection would > give about 400 times as much force per photon. If this was significant > in the various tweezers experiments, it would be observed, as it would > thoroughly overcome the trapping force. It would also give an > interesting wavelength dependence.) > > > If this experiment has been done why can't we find it? If it has not > > been done then why not? > > If Nichols work were falsifiable then we should see a next gen, no > > different than Nichols followed Crooks. > > > Ahah! I just found one! > > http://iopscience.iop.org/0959-5309/45/2/315 > > Reads pretty much like some of this discussion, but in 1933. > > He calls Nichols and Hull's work a 'paper dagger'. > > He gets down to 10E-6 torr. > > I can't access the whole paper, but the intro reads easy. > > So, a later and better repeat of Nichols and Hull. N&H (or the > widespread quoting of their result as "definitive") are criticised > since the discrepancy between theory and experiment was 10% (due to > the effect of the gas). Hull had a paper a few years after N&%, 1905 > iirc, on the elimination of gas action, or similar title. This might > give some idea of what N&H thought at the time. Bell (and Green) had > another paper the next year, with Hull as 1st author. (I briefly read > the paper you link above some years ago, but not the others). > > > The > > doubling claim still troubles me. > > > I guess if you want to argue the doubling effect some more I can try, > > The doubling is no more, no less, than you have with similar doubling > in the reflection of ping pong balls, billiard balls, etc. The impulse > needed to reverse the momentum of an object is double that needed to > stop the momentum of an object (straight from Newton 2). Acting in the > same time, the reflection force must be double the stopping force. No. This is not a clean analogy. In order for a receiver to return a billiard ball to a sender at the same energy the receiver must not accelerate. No work can be done on the receiver, and this is why I claim this portion of this subject farcical. If momentum is imparted upon the receiver, then in order to return the ball with the same energy to the sender the receiver will have to expend energy. There is no free lunch, though I'm getting awfully close to it. > > > but I'd rather go over to the black body stuff and try to understand > > just how literally the photon momentum is taken. If it's all in e=hf > > then it is a lie, because the 1300 watts per square meter of sun would > > be observed as a mechanical force. > > Why would it be observed? 4 (or 9) micronewtons per square meter? > Compare this with the gravitational force on a practical plate of the > same area. (Perhaps also compare this with forces due to Brownian > motion?) > > > This is likely a matter of > > interpretation. As I approach this as an open problem, then it seems > > blatantly apparent that what we just claimed as an isolational > > experiment on radiation pressure can actually be taken as a claim to > > have isolated photon momentum as much more miniscule than the e=hf > > derivation. This then could be twisted into photon mass, and as it is > > such a slight figure, then all the better. > > You keep saying that this is problem, but I don't see why. Why is it a > problem? E=hf gives a very, very, small force. No. 1300 watts on a square meter is nearly two horsepower. This is not a trivial amount of power. This is the energy in e=hf that I am discussing. In one second of time we have 1.3 kiloJoules of energy on a square meter, if all that energy is absorbed. Obviously this is not momentum, so any blackbody interpretation which treats it as such is a fraud. > > E = hf, energy of photon, momentum = E/c = E/(f*lambda) = h/lambda, > the standard QM result. h is small; this isn't much momentum. It's 1300 watts of power per square meter from the sun at the earth's surface. h doesn't matter. It's a large quantity of photons. "A person having a mass of 100 kilograms who climbs a 3 meter high ladder in 5 seconds is doing work at a rate of about 600 watts." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt And so we should be getting quite a push when we hold a mirror up to the sun under the standard photon momentum argument. It is clearly a misinterpretation and disambiguating this failure is not happening on this thread. > > This is small enough so it isn't casually observable. Observed by > Nichols and Hull (to about 10%, according to Bell and Green), and > others since. Observed in special circumstances before and since > (e.g., as contributor to comet tails). > > > The radiation pressure is not unlike electron spin, in that it is a > > small effect that is difficult to notice and for me, difficult to > > understand. Incidentally, the p=u/3 that I see in other sources is not > > the equation you rely upon. > > The 1/3 is for omni-directional radiation, such as blackbody > radiation. What is done experimentally usually uses a beam of some > kind. For a plane wave, or a parallel (i.e., collimated) beam, p=P/c > (or p=nP/c=P/v in a medium). For a focussed beam, it is a little less > (and this difference is seen, and is essential to 3D trapping in > optical tweezers). > > And of course, u=P/c. > > > and for me, difficult to > > understand. > > You're not the first. Until Maxwell's calculation of electromagnetic > radiation pressure, it was generally assuming that there was no > radiation pressure, that no wave would exert a non-zero time-averaged > force (since it has no mass). In the 1800s, the lack of observabed > wave pressure was used as an argument for the wave theory of light and > against corpuscular theories. One of the last works of the late Thomas > Gold was a short note on solar sails and why they don't work. You are > not alone. > > Maxwell's result (and Poynting's and Heaviside's) was specifically > electromagnetic, so N. A. Umov's general result (not given the > attention it deserves in the West) in 1874 was also a significant > advance. Then Einstein in 1905 with E=mc^2. While you bring it up I had better just run my own simple thinking on photon momentum against this e=mcc. A photon has energy e = h f where f is the frequency, not worrying about any 2pi factor. The velocity of the photon is v = c and so using e = m c c we have h f = m c c and so the photon's equivalent mechanical momentum p = m v can be expressed as p = m c = e / c = h f / c. This also leads to a mass expression for the photon, or at least an equivalent mass for the photon. This expression takes what I believe to be the entire energy of the photon and expresses a mechanical momentum. Thus the 1300 watts of solar power should provide quite some motive force if the translation is accurate. Thus far we do not see any such mechanical force, and instead see the ability to absorb a large amount of this as heat or with less efficiency to turn it into eletricity with special diodes, called solar cells. The last two phenomena are acceptable from AC principles, whereas the mechanical momentum claim is not. All that we can hope for in an AC situation is to shake the matter about quite alot, which it traditionally thought of as heat. Well, this is a loose, but consistent logic with observed systems. Photon momentum is wrongly addressed as a mechanical vector of a static variety, and would be better expressed in an AC form. Yes, it propagates in a direction (though often from omnidirectional sources), but this does not inherently imply a force vector ala Newton. This vector marks a passage of energy that is obviously not at all to do with physical momentum. Therefor the equations in use are too loosely presented, as a high school student will easily get a photon mass out of the product relationships. We are doing little better than this sort of derivation; we merely abide by 'photons don't have mass' ruling, and that ruling is all that keeps us from going over the edge on that side. We have instead barreled over the edge on the other side. This is the current state. The creature called a lemming comes to mind, and we are perhaps little better than them at some base level. In fact, we provably are designing our own cliff and it's collapse on a very grand scale. To presume that physicists are somehow better than this overlooks a fundamental problem of human existence. Likewise for mathematicians. We come from a blind state of a blank slate and without the mimicry we would have nothing, but with it we are likewise stuck. - Tim
From: Tim BandTech.com on 6 Jun 2010 19:55
On Jun 6, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 5, 3:25 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Dear Tim: Since I replied to this same reply of yours, earlier, I've > realized that the Moon is being held in orbit about the Sun; and being > held in orbit about the Earth, by the radiations exchanged among those > three. Lunar eclipses don't send the moon flying out on its tangent, > probably because the ether pressure "reserve" is greater than the > ether pressure lost due to being in the shadow. The shadow must be > maintained long enough so the ether pressure reserve gets used up. > > The following might be considered science 'fiction', now, but one day > mankind may be able to maneuver, say, the planet Mars completely out > of the solar system. This will require having an artificial > satellite, with a huge reserve of FUSION power, to provide the "solar" > energy to maintain life on the revolving planet. The destination > would be a star young enough to sustain human life for a few billion > years. And... it might be possible, by controlling solar flares and > sunspots, to turn the Sun into a propulsion system to carry the entire > solar system close enough to another 'younger' star, to facilitate the > relocation. Forgive my "imagined" science. Real physics would have > to apply there, too! NoEinstein Yowser ! The sun propulsion thing sounds fascinating. - Tim |