Wavelength & Frequency experiments for SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 30 Dec 2007 19:42 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:25:02 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >>>> Consider the operation of a standard lab He-Ne laser. [...] > > By having to refer to something as obscure and uncertain as this, I can only > assume you are becoming quite desperate. This is neither obscure nor uncertain. Optical spectroscopy is one of the few places where 9-significant-digit measurements are commonplace. That's what it takes to measure relativistic effects for speeds possible in a lab. > Note, my BaTh Sagnac analysis [...] So you have nothing to say about this refutation of your "BaTh". All you have is irrelevant nonsense. > can use either the doppler shifted frequencies in > the non-R frame OR constant wavelength.... and get the same result. That in > itself proves wavelength is indeed absolute and invariant. That's nonsense -- it's like saying "the fact that 2+2=4 proves the sun will shine tomorrow". The ONLY way to demonstrate that wavelength is "absolute and invariant" is to perform AN EXPERIMENT. The experiments and observations that have been performed show QUITE CLEARLY that wavelength is neither absolute nor invariant. Tom Roberts
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 31 Dec 2007 16:47 On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:42:10 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:25:02 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >>>>> Consider the operation of a standard lab He-Ne laser. [...] >> >> By having to refer to something as obscure and uncertain as this, I can only >> assume you are becoming quite desperate. > >This is neither obscure nor uncertain. Optical spectroscopy is one of >the few places where 9-significant-digit measurements are commonplace. >That's what it takes to measure relativistic effects for speeds possible >in a lab. > > >> Note, my BaTh Sagnac analysis [...] > >So you have nothing to say about this refutation of your "BaTh". All you >have is irrelevant nonsense. My analysis does not require the wavelength to be constant. The same result is achieved using the intrinsic frequencies of emitted photons. The math is straightforward and simple. There can be no argument. Here it is again: 'f' is source frequency in the source frame. In the NONROTATING frame (using the diagram at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm) According to BaTh: for ray 1, (c+v)t = 2piR + vt or.... t = 2piR/c.........(t = travel time) for ray 2, (c-v)t = 2piR - vt or.... t = 2piR/c .......(travel times are equal) Path length of ray 1 is 2piR(c+v)/c ........................of ray 2 is 2piR(c-v)/c The source frequency is doppler shifted in the non-rotating frame: Frequency of ray 1 is f(c+v)/c....(rate of wavecrests passing a point at rest) Frequency of ray 2 is f(c-v)/c..... The number of cycles in each ray is calculated as (travel time/frequency) Number of cycles (wavelengths) in ray 1 = [2piR/c].[f(c+v)/c] = 2piRf(c+v)/c^2 Number of cycles (wavelengths) in ray 2 = [2piR/c].[f(c-v)/c] = 2piRf(c-v)/c^2 ....................................................... Fringe displacement = difference in numbers of wavelengths in each ray = 4piRvf/c^2 = 4Aw/cL. ..........(where, w = angular velocity, A = area of ring, L = wavelength) If you can find anything wrong with this please let us know..... >> can use either the doppler shifted frequencies in >> the non-R frame OR constant wavelength.... and get the same result. That in >> itself proves wavelength is indeed absolute and invariant. > >That's nonsense -- it's like saying "the fact that 2+2=4 proves the sun >will shine tomorrow". > >The ONLY way to demonstrate that wavelength is "absolute and invariant" >is to perform AN EXPERIMENT. The experiments and observations that have >been performed show QUITE CLEARLY that wavelength is neither absolute >nor invariant. You need not worry about wavelength any more....use frequency to get the same result.... >Tom Roberts Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 31 Dec 2007 17:00 On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:05:44 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics_b> wrote: > >"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:9wQdj.2153$pr6.1499(a)nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com... >: Of course everyone except Henri already knows that >: the emitted wavelength varies with source motion. Sources don't have 'motion'. An intrinsic oscillator such as s spinning wheel does not posses a 'wavelength'. It has an absolute 'period'. If a spinning wheel is fired from a gun, one could assign to it a 'wavelength' defined as 'the absolute spatial interval moved during one period IN THE GUN FRAME'. Obviously, that interval cannot be physically affected by moving observers. >: Tom Roberts > >I never imagined finding myself in agreement with you, Roberts, > but yes, Wilson is a dork. You have fallen into the same trap as Tom. Have fun together... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Jeckyl on 31 Dec 2007 17:19 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:pckin3lfg5mj01c5hc3csnfgome9dd8t32(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:42:10 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > >>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:25:02 -0600, Tom Roberts >>> <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >>> wrote: >>>>>> Consider the operation of a standard lab He-Ne laser. [...] >>> >>> By having to refer to something as obscure and uncertain as this, I can >>> only >>> assume you are becoming quite desperate. >> >>This is neither obscure nor uncertain. Optical spectroscopy is one of >>the few places where 9-significant-digit measurements are commonplace. >>That's what it takes to measure relativistic effects for speeds possible >>in a lab. >> >> >>> Note, my BaTh Sagnac analysis [...] >> >>So you have nothing to say about this refutation of your "BaTh". All you >>have is irrelevant nonsense. > > My analysis does not require the wavelength to be constant. > > The same result is achieved using the intrinsic frequencies of emitted > photons. > The math is straightforward and simple. There can be no argument. > > Here it is again: > > 'f' is source frequency in the source frame. > > In the NONROTATING frame > > (using the diagram at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm) > According to BaTh: > > for ray 1, (c+v)t = 2piR + vt or.... t = 2piR/c.........(t = travel time) > for ray 2, (c-v)t = 2piR - vt or.... t = 2piR/c .......(travel times are > equal) > > Path length of ray 1 is 2piR(c+v)/c > .......................of ray 2 is 2piR(c-v)/c > > The source frequency is doppler shifted in the non-rotating frame: > Frequency of ray 1 is f(c+v)/c....(rate of wavecrests passing a point at > rest) > Frequency of ray 2 is f(c-v)/c..... > > The number of cycles in each ray is calculated as (travel time/frequency) > Number of cycles (wavelengths) in ray 1 = [2piR/c].[f(c+v)/c] = > 2piRf(c+v)/c^2 > Number of cycles (wavelengths) in ray 2 = [2piR/c].[f(c-v)/c] = > 2piRf(c-v)/c^2 > ...................................................... > > Fringe displacement = difference in numbers of wavelengths in each ray No .. that assumes that the waves are still in sync at the original source position in the non-rotating frame. As they have been oscillating there for the same time at different frequencies, you cannot assume that. > = 4piRvf/c^2 > = 4Aw/cL. > .........(where, w = angular velocity, A = area of ring, L = wavelength) > > If you can find anything wrong with this please let us know..... I just did (and have before)
From: Jeckyl on 31 Dec 2007 17:24
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:1toin3d91huqrbrusunhklb0n27ha9up33(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:05:44 GMT, "Androcles" > <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics_b> > wrote: > >> >>"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:9wQdj.2153$pr6.1499(a)nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com... >>: Of course everyone except Henri already knows that >>: the emitted wavelength varies with source motion. > > Sources don't have 'motion'. > An intrinsic oscillator such as s spinning wheel does not posses a > 'wavelength'. It has an absolute 'period'. > If a spinning wheel is fired from a gun, one could assign to it a > 'wavelength' > defined as 'the absolute spatial interval moved during one period IN THE > GUN > FRAME'. > Obviously, that interval cannot be physically affected by moving > observers. While it was sitting in the barrel of the gun waiting to be fired, its wavelength (as defined by you) was zero .. when it moves relative to the gun the wavelength changes changes. So it depends on the speed of the wheel relative to the gun. In that case, the wavelength and speed vary, but the frequency (the rate of spin of the wheel) is fixed. How is this example related to how you think light works? |