Re: Electron-positron annihilation

From: John Kennaugh (JKNG_at_kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 06/03/04 

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:30:44 +0100

Franz Heymann writes

>> Accept the theory without raising questions?
>
>Accept that it has been subjected to most intense testing by thousands
>of physicists over a period of nearly a century. Accept that every
>one of its predictions which have been put to the test has passed with
>flying colours.

OTOH it predicts that a clock, or rather time, goes slower at the
equator than at the poles while I understand that this in fact is not
the case. It was claimed that this was because the earth is flatter at
the poles, that the SR term is conveniently cancelled by the GR term.
Then someone pointed out that mean sea level is a surface of constant
gravity potential by definition and there is no GR effect for two points
an equal distance above MSL leaving an experimental result which
contradicts SR.

Maybe you would like to comment. A little tweak to the theory perhaps.

>> and the other that velocity
>> of light is constant for all frames,
>
>That is one of the postulates of SR.
>>From it and the other one, namely that the laws of physics obey the
>principle of relativity,
>The theory is produced. The theory has so far made only predictions
>which, when tests have been possible, have been vindicated
>I recommend you to read the definitive paper of Alvager, Farley,
>Kjellman & Wallin, PRL 12, 260, (1964)
>Since you probably won't, I will give you a thumbnail sketch of the
>experiment:

>
>The neutral pion decays into two photons.
>The experimenters observed these decay photons in the case of pions
>decaying whilst travelling at speeds in the vicinity of 0.995 c.
>They concentrated on measuring the speed of those photons which were
>emitted into the lab in the directly forward and backward directions.
>Guess what? They were identical to within a percent or so, with both
>equalling c to within the experimental resolution.

I should first point out that modern authors don't think De Sitters
double stars stand up to close scrutiny and that the first 'convincing
proof', by Alvager et al, did not appear until the 1960s nearly 60 years
after a theory based upon an absurd postulate had been accepted.

Superficially the experiment fires high energy protons at a fixed target
and photons are produced which have a speed of c relative to the target
as would be expected by both relativity and ballistic theory.

The belief that the experiment supports the second postulate is based on
a predicted by science, based itself on relativity, that a neutral pion
(pi-meson) is first produced, that this is moving at 0.999c and it is
this which decays. Unless it has been shown theoretically that if the
ballistic theory were correct the neutral pion would still be predicted
as being involved it hasn't really proved anything.

Even if one accepts the existence of the neutral pion it has a lifetime
of about 10^-15s so it will only travel 0.003mm before decaying so
unless it is a very thin target the decay will still take place within
the target and no matter how thin, within the near field of the target
making the stationary target the affective source. There are other
things which could influence the result like a strong magnetic field.
Very convincing for those already convinced but no one defined the
theory it was supposed to disprove to see whether it does actually
disprove it.

The second postulate, which basically says the speed of light is
constant w.r.t the observer observing it, is absurd from both a
causality point of view and from the obvious fact that light will leave
the source whether there is an observer or not. This does not worry the
mathematician. No one is going to ask him to write an equation for light
which isn't observed but it should worry a scientist. I appreciate that
in physics scientists are heavily outnumbered by mathematicians.

It is even more absurd if one tries to deny the existence of the ether.
If a source is surrounded by nothing which can effect the speed of light
(no ether) there is nothing c can be referenced to other than the
source. If the speed of light does not depend upon the source it must
depend on something else and that something else must control the speed
from the moment light leaves the source.

If I was forced to teach relativity and to hide the absurdities I would
derive the transforms and then get the students to apply them, or better
still use 4 dimensional space time mathematics as that is no doubt even
better at concealing what is going on. If you apply the postulate
directly:

                 A S
                 B-->v

Then light leaves the source at c to go to A and leaves the source at
c-v to go to B (because that is c relative to B)#. If it arrives just as
A and B coincide it means that it set out at different speeds arrived at
the same time so must have set out at different times (I'm ignoring the
second order effect that B sees distance A-S as slightly less than A
does, because it does not affect the argument). So what the second
postulate says is that the same light *appears* to leave the source at
two different times setting out at two different speeds.

SR and LET are very similar but if you insist SR is not LET, and most
relativists do, then I have to amend my statement to say 'What the
second postulate says is that the same light *actually* leaves the
source at two different times setting out at two different speeds'. LET
allows you to have two distortions of a single reality. Without it you
are left with two different realities. It is as if A and B are in
different parallel universes each stationary w.r.t the ether in his own
universe.

# Note if a wave passes both A and B going at c relative to each then
the only way you can explain Doppler shift is if the light left the
source at a different speeds for A and B.

Suppose you were in a balloon over a large still lake. It is misty so
you cannot see the shore. How could you tell if you were moving relative
to the lake? If you drop something in and observe the wave produced then
if you are stationary you will remain at the centre of the circle of
waves. The speed at which the waves travel will be constant and the same
in all directions. This is what the second postulate says happens with
light for every observer. The speed relative to you the observer is
always c. Every observer is stationary w.r.t his own pond or ether.
Relativists don't like to use the word 'ether' they refer to it as 'the
observers frame of reference' as if that semantic fiddle legitimises it.

There is absolutely nothing even slightly reasonable about the idea the
speed of light is constant in every frame of reference no matter how
confidently or how often it is asserted.

Back to basics - Light (whatever it is) leaves the source, travels to
the observer, via the space in between.

Theory One is that light is made up of particles shot out by the source.
The space contains nothing which impedes their progress or alters their
speed so the speed they travel at is c relative to the source. Therefore
c is the speed at which the source ejects them. Called 'source
dependent' or a ballistic theory.

Theory Two is that Light is some sort of disturbance like a sound wave
is, or the ripple on a pond is. This requires that the 'space in
between' has something in it, in which these waves travel. What is
termed a propagating medium. In this case the speed is not effected by
(dependent on) the source but is constant w.r.t the propagating medium.
Traditionally that propagating medium was called 'the ether'.

MMX was an experiment with predictable different results for the two
theories. If theory 1 was correct a null result would be predicted. If
theory 2 was correct then a none null result is predicted. There was a
null result. Some time later it was discovered that light is indeed made
up of particles. Theory 1 is at that point in history looking pretty
damn good and Walter Ritz started work on his emission theory.

At roughly the same time Einstein got his second postulate by combining
source independence from ether theory with the result of MMX showing
that the speed of light did not change with motion of the observer. He
actually spells this out later in "Evolution of Physics" when it could
no longer damage him. Not what the average relativist wants to hear. It
not only depends upon the ether it combines theory 'A' with theory 'B'
when theory 'B' has 'disproved' theory 'A'. Dodgy thinking in my book.

OK here is my problem. At that point in history everything seemed to
favour Ritz's theory. It fits the facts and it doesn't predict weird
things like time dilation. It only requires Euclidean geometry and
Newton's mechanics. Einstein OTOH came up with a postulate the
justification for which is dodgy, is absurd on the grounds of causality,
produces all sorts of weird results, time dilation, lack of
simultaneity, etc. yet the theory is accepted. Why? The only reason I
can come up with is this:

You have a source an observer and the space in between. Light speed
constant w.r.t the source, Ritz's theory, was not a politically
acceptable option. Theory 1 had been ruled out 200 years previously.
Reputations and many life's works were at stake.

The speed of light did not appear to be constant w.r.t the space in
between (ether) ref MMX.

Along comes Albert E with his theory that the speed of light is constant
w.r.t the observer. A face saver.

Nothing in any text book about Ritz's theory. Too hard for an author to
explain why it had been ruled out.

If you can suggest an alternative justification for the second postulate
or a reason why relativity was accepted rather than emission theory I
would be interested in it but as far as I can see one has an apparently
absurd theory, based on a postulate with dodgy provenance accepted for
political reasons.

I am concentrating my researches into what everything is built upon,
rather than what has been built. Something about which most physicists
seem woefully ignorant. You for instance have never heard of Ritz's
emission theory. Maybe it would interest you as to why Einstein rejected
it.

Einstein wrote:

   "[Ritz emission theory] requires that everywhere and in
    each fixed direction light waves of a different
    velocity of propagation should be possible. It may
    well be impossible to set up an electromagnetic theory
    that is in any way reasonable and accomplishes such a
    feat. This is the principle reason why, even before the
    special theory of relativity, I rejected this way out,
    which is intrinsically conceivable."

Note his inherent belief in the ether and the irony that his own theory
requires light to travel through the same bit of space at c and c+v.

Robert Shankland interviewed Einstein. February 1950.

   "... he had thought of, and abandoned the (Ritz)
    emission theory before 1905. He gave up this approach
    because he could think of no form of differential
    equation which could have solutions representing waves
    whose velocity depended on the motion of the source. In
    this case, the emission theory would lead to phase
    relations such that the propagated light would be all
    badly "mixed up' and might even 'back up on itself.' He
    asked me, 'Do you understand that ?' I said no and he
    carefully repeated it all. When he came again to the
    'mixed up' part he waved his hands before his face and
    laughed, an open hearty laugh at the idea!"

I don't see his problem. Maxwell assumed his equations showed light
travelling in the ether. He assumed that the speed relative to each
observer and each source would depend upon each's speed relative to the
ether. If post MMX you want to use his equations you can either assume
the ether is stationary w.r.t each and every observer as per relativity
or stationary w.r.t each and every source as per ballistic theory.

 AE again shows his underlying belief in the ether and appears to be
trying to envisage light being affected by the source *as well as* being
propagated in the ether and the two 'fighting' each other. 

-- 
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... as would be expected by both relativity and ballistic theory. ... the source whether there is an observer or not. ... It is even more absurd if one tries to deny the existence of the ether. ... A and B coincide it means that it set out at different speeds arrived at ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
    ... Maxwell believed that he had discovered wave equations describing waves in the ether. ... Lorentz's theory said that light travelled in the ether at c but because of the transforms it appeared to every observer that he is stationary w.r.t the ether. ... Despite getting a Nobel prize for discovering the photon Einstein makes no mention of photons in relativity. ... Basically in his mind Light consists of waves propagating IN something and you cannot have waves propagating at different speeds in the same 'something'. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
    ... > motion, of course!] ... It is THAT force that must propagate through the observer and his clock ... >> In special relativity, the speed of light is postulated to be constant ... >> speeds distances and time intervals. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
    ... it but the speed of the observer would. ... with relativity it supports relativity while in fact the simplest ... "3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources". ... to say "they travel in all possible directions at all possible speeds, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... >> believed that his equations represented light travelling in the ether. ... You have been working with relativity too ... MMX was a cross roads of physics or more like a T junction. ... >ultimately use relative speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading