The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 14 Sep 2009 23:21 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> I think he means wrong by experiment that wavelength is invariant. > >> Experiment shows wavelength and frequency vary in accord with > >> relativistic Doppler. > > > > That sounds interesting. Do you have a link? > > see http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm "Ironically, although the results of their experiment brilliantly confirmed Einstein?s prediction based on the special theory of relativity, Ives and Stillwell were not advocates of relativity, and in fact gave a completely different theoretical model to account for their experimental results and the deviation from the classical prediction" This would be a good thing to try out for emission theory since it's forward and back with none of the sideways motion that Androcles and I disagree on. They got about half the difference between forward and backward doppler as classical results would expect. > see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Experimental_verification This claims experimental evidence for a doppler effect at 90 degrees. But I might likely have that for an emission theory. If so, it is not experimental verification for relativistic doppler unless they turn out quantitatively different. But Androcles appears to argue that emission theory does not give any doppler effect at 90 degrees, so if he's right that would be evidence that emission theories are wrong and relativity is right. > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_time_dilation > > * Kaivola et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 no. 4 (1985), pg 255. McGowan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 no. 3 (1993), pg 251. They compared the frequency of two lasers, one locked to fast-beam neon and one locked to the same transition in thermal neon. Kaivola found agreement with SR's Doppler formula is to within 4?10?5; McGowan within 2.3?10?6. * Hay et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960), pg 165. A M?ssbauer absorber on a rotor. * Kuendig, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 6 (1963), pg 2371. A M?ssbauer absorber on a rotor was used to verify the transverse Doppler effect of SR to 1.1%. * Olin et al., Phys. Rev. D8 no. 6 (1973), pg 1633. A nuclear measurement at 0.05 c, in very good agreement with the prediction of SR. * Mandelberg and Witten, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. 52, pg 529 (1962). Measured the exponent of the quadratic Doppler shift to be 0.498?0.025, in agreement with SR's value of ?. This looks promising. Some indirect measurements come out very very close, and some more direct ones within 1% or so. A competitive emission theory ideally would get similar results.
From: Jonah Thomas on 14 Sep 2009 23:24 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > Wavelengths are measured with a diffraction grating which is only > sensitive to wavelength. How did you find out that diffraction gratings are only sensitive to wavelength? I've been looking for information on that and have not found anything yet.
From: Jonah Thomas on 15 Sep 2009 00:29 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >I still don't get it. Why do you say they were oscillating at > >> >> >different frequencies? > >> >> > >> >> Oh for christ's sake, if a thing moves through a torus faster > >than> >> another it should be obvious that it will spin through more > >turns> >than> the other in the same time. Have you no idea about > >anything> >physical? > >> > > >> >You have the torus stationary on the cylinder and not sliding > >along> >the cylinder. Why is that? > >> > >> Because it is the model that works. > > > >I don't understand. Well, maybe I do. You set it up that way so that it would give the answer you wanted. A strategy worthy of Einstein! > >> You are emulating inertial in trying to explain the behavior of > >light> by using classical wave thepory....when it has been shown > >conclusively> that light is not like that. > > >What should be used instead? > > That's the big question. One that says 'wavelength' is absolute and > invariant. All you need to do is define what determies this thing we > are calling wavelength. I was excited about this at first. Traditionally people thought of frequency and wavelength and wavespeed in terms of concentric circles from a stationary source. Just like sound. A moving source would give you a compression, you'd get eccentric circles instead. But you could use that eccentricity to tell who was moving. If there aren't preferred frames then everybody ought to calculate those things as concentric circles. And that's one of the things SR gives you. I found it exciting that emission theories give you that same result without having to fudge the lengths or times, or, well, anything. But you and Androcles both steadfastly maintain that the concentric circles are just some sort of useless illusion, and the reality is something unrelated. At precisely the time that you'd think the light was coming from straight overhead from a star that's moving sideways, you have to instead point your telescope off at an angle. So now I'm not sure what to think. > >I'm willing to throw away all the classical > >wave stuff if you have something else that works. > > It was thrown away when the PE effect was discovered....... ironically > by Einstein himself. I don't see that. The PE effect is perfectly compatible with light as waves, isn't it? > >But what is it? It > >looks to me like you're using stationary waves. > > Go back to the rope model. No matter how fast the rope is moved around > the cylinder and the same number of twists exists between any two > points on the cylinder. The two directions of the rope represent the > numbers of wavelengths in each path. > A photon emitted at one point and moving inside the hollow torus moves > much much faster than the rope and experiences virtually the same > number of cycles as there are twists. > The distance between the two points varies with rope (ring gyro) > rotational speed. > > This is now a pretty clear model. It isn't at all clear to me, but I'm working on it. > >> Let's forget about oscillations and frequencies. They are totally > >> undefined and you two certainly haven't a clue as to what they > >might> imply. Let's just accept the BaTh 'wavelength' explanation. It > >works.> The path lengths are different therefore each path contains a > >> different number of wavelengths and the rays are out of phase when > >> they reunite. End of story. > > > >If we throw out classical interpretations of wave, frequency, and > >wavelength, what do you replace them with? I'm still real unclear on > >the details here. It might work for you to throw out all the old > >concepts and replace them with new concepts where things work out > >right, but I need the concepts. > > Well work on it....I am. It seems to me that you don't have an alternative model, you have a proposal for an alternative model. That's OK, but when you use the words people use for the traditional model people get confused and apply the concepts they have attached to those words and they wind up saying you're crazy, confused, lying, etc. It might be good to come up with entirely new words. Gregory Bateson claimed that he did well to start out with short anglo-saxon words when he was starting out and a bit vague about his concepts, and then he'd replace them with long latin-greek words after it was all firmed up. So I want to suggest that you talk about maybe "turns". A given kind of light does x turns per meter, and by stating it that way we tend to imply that color depends on terms/meter and not turns/second. Lightspeed can vary with the source, and turns/second varies then but turns/meter does not. Am I right so far about what you're saying? > >> >> >No, this is useless. You drew standing waves. You need the > >> >wavecrests> >themselves to move forward at the speed of the wave > >> >while the source> >moves at a slower rate. > >> >> > >> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe > >> >> That's not a standing wave. It is a doppler shifted traveling > >wave.> >> The shift is opposite in the two paths. > >> > > >> >The wave you drew is stationary in the inertial frame. The > >wavecrests> >do not move around the circle, they just sit there while > >something is> >added to the ends. Stationary wave. > >> > >> that's the other demo. THe stationary wave is put there purely so > >you> can see the phase difference. > > > >No, this one too. You drew waves that get extended around a circle. > >At any one spot the wave never changes after it gets drawn. Those > >waves are frozen once they are drawn. > > OK. You have to find a model that requires the emitted light to > experience the same number of cycles per path as there are absolute > wavelengths. So, you measure the pathlength and that gives you the number of turns. OK. > My theory works. It says that 'wavelength' (whatever that is) remains > constant and 'frequency' (whatever THAT is) is doppler shifted in the > nonrotating frame. > > Form that, we have to speculate on models that might fit. > >> At constant rotation speed, the fringes do not move. During any > >speed> change, they move to a new displacement. > > > >That's true. But then your task is to explain why they get a phase > >change at the very beginning. > > During any CHANGE in rotational speed, a change also occurs in the > number of wavelengths in each path. They flow out of one and into the > other. Mmmm. You change the rotational speed. The number of turns from the emitter to the detector is unchanged. What about the time it takes to get from the emitter to the receiver? The time is the distance divided by the speed. So when it isn't moving the time is d/c. When it's moving at v then the time is t=(d+vt)/(c+v) The distance goes up by the amount the detector turns, and speed goes up by the amount the detector turns. t-vt/(c+v) = d/(c+v) t(c+v) -vt = d ct = d t = d/c The time it takes to get to the detector is independent of v. It takes the same time no matter how fast it spins. Why would the number of turns it takes to get to the detector be different when the number of turns in that distance is constant and the time it takes to arrive is constant? It looks to me like when we assume that the speed of the light in the two directions is c+v and c-v and that speed stays constant at c+v and at c-v the whole distance, we should get no interference. But when the speed of light is the vector sum of cD+vV where V is a unit vector in the direction of the source and v is the speed of the source, and D is the direction that will give us a vector sum in the direction we're interested in, then we get precisely the amount of interference we'd expect by classical or by SR methods, the amount that is experimentally observed. > >> >> >> It wasn't what I am saying but it is something that I have > >> >> >considered> quite seriously. there is another possibility too. > >> >Light> >experiences a> 180 degree phase shift at the splitting > >> >mirror....but> >neither of these> is necessary. My toroidal rope > >> >model is perfectly> >adequate. > >> > > >> >I don't see that a 180 degree shift would help, we need a shift > >that> >is proportional to v. But does the light really get a 180 > >degree> >phase there. That would be interesting. > >> > >> I think so ...but that should be reversed at the detector, where > >there> is a similar reflection. > > > >You could bounce it an even number of times before the detector. > > That's what happens. > > >> It would be even more interesting if the wave phasing reversed > >> direction at the reflection. For example, have you ever played > >squash?> If you put topspin on a ball, it comes back to you with > >backspin on> it, after bouncing off the front wall. I have often > >wondered if this> is another complication in sagnac.. > > > >Yes, that's interesting, though a side topic for Sagnac. > > Well no it isn't. The point is, if the wave phase velocity changes > direction at each mirror, whilst its wave velocity continues on, the > phase shift at the end could explain the whole effect. I'm not sure I understood that. Was it what I said? vV+cD? That change in velocity would do it. > >So here's the simple model, something that's simpler than Sagnac, I > >hope simple enough we can easily get a common understanding. > > > >You start with two stationary emitters that -- somehow -- emit light > >at different speeds. (They could be mirrors reflecting moving > >sources, say.) One of them emits light at 0.9c, the other emits light > >at 1.1c. They are emitting light in parallel. They have the same > >frequency at the source, they each begin ten waves during every > >second, in phase. > > > >There are two detectors lined up side by side. The distance from the > >emitters to the detectors is 0.9 distance units for the emitter whose > >light travels at 0.9, and is 1.1 units for othe emitter whose light > >travels at 1.1. > > > >I say that the light is "in phase" in a sense when it leaves the > >emitters -- they both have wave crests at the same times and wave > >troughs at the same times etc. But they're in two different places > >and a relativist might say that they can't be in phase if they aren't > >at the same place and time. > > > >I say that the light is "in phase" at the moment it reaches the > >detectors. But it will not stay in phase for much time or distance. > >After all they have different wavelengths. > > > >Do you agree, in the case where nothing moves but the light which > >starts out in phase but which travels at different speeds with no > >reflection? > > No it depends on the model. ?? What is it that you think would vary by model in this simple example?
From: Inertial on 15 Sep 2009 00:22 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090914232406.36852709.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > >> Wavelengths are measured with a diffraction grating which is only >> sensitive to wavelength. > > How did you find out that diffraction gratings are only sensitive to > wavelength? I've been looking for information on that and have not found > anything yet. Wikipeida is a good starting point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating and here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/grating.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/gratcal.html
From: Jonah Thomas on 15 Sep 2009 01:13
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > >> Wavelengths are measured with a diffraction grating which is only > >> sensitive to wavelength. > > > > How did you find out that diffraction gratings are only sensitive to > > wavelength? I've been looking for information on that and have not > > found anything yet. > > Wikipeida is a good starting point > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating This one is utterly worthless, they do nothing to distinguish effects of wavelength from those of frequency. > and here > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/grating.html Ditto. > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/gratcal.html Likewise. I haven't seen any analysis at all separating the effects of wavelength from frequency at different lightspeeds. There's no discussion why it's wavelength that matters instead of frequency. Of course, at constant lightspeed one gives you the other and it isn't really possible to separate them. |