Re: Light speed invariance
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 06/29/04
- Next message: Pmb: "Re: A rotating disk PARADOX??"
- Previous message: Pmb: "Re: A rotating disk PARADOX??"
- In reply to: xxein: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Next in thread: xxein: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Reply: xxein: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:54:53 GMT
"xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cce403e3.0406281711.6e64c9f7@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<z_GCc.1911$7t4.18635887@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "sal" <SpamMeHere@foobox.com> wrote in message
| > news:d657f887.0406231301.6292680@posting.google.com...
| > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:<ma1Cc.122$nd6.1449214@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > | > "sal" <believer@nospam.org> wrote in message
| > | > news:pan.2004.06.22.17.26.12.751887@nospam.org...
| > | > | On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:53:21 +0000, Androcles wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Pmb" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:5tednbsa_Peu1UvdRVn-uA@comcast.com...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "Pmb" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:_NWdnRRxha0G2UvdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:v7rBc.46938$sj4.10081@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| > | > | > | > >
| > [ snip ]
| > | > | > | > >
| > | > | > | > > Then that would violate the POR
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Perhaps you're right. Let me get back to you
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I don't know what was on Einstein's mind but we do need a
| > constancy of
| > | > | > | light postulate today since the photon proper mass may
conceivably
| > be
| > | > | > | different than zero and thus the correct Lagrangian for EM
would
| > be
| > | > | > | the Proca Lagrangian. The speed of light would then not be
| > invariant.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Pmb
| >
| > | > | > Good grief... Is it beginning to dawn that there is a
contradiction
| > in
| > | > | > that?
| >
| > | > | :-) Ever hopeful...
| > | > |
| > | > | No, nothing of the sort. This is a notion that's been kicking
around
| > for
| > | > | quite a long time: Special relativity is, to put it crudely, a
theory
| > of
| > | > | mechanics (how _stuff_ behaves when it moves) and it in no way
depends
| > on
| > | > | magical features of light.
| > | >
| > | > E = mc^2, buddy. Now you want photons to have mass?
| > | > Egads, that makes 'em neutrinos.
| > |
| > | Yes, exactly, in more ways than one. Neutrinos were believed to have
| > | no mass, but that's changed, and now they can oscillate, too, which
| > | photons can't do.
| > How odd that they arrived from SN1987 BEFORE the light :-)
| >
| > | By the way, before we sling any more rocks here let me point out that
| > | you asked if relativists were starting to believe there is a
| > | contradiction in the assumption that C is constant. I'm answering
| > | that question, in the negative: the "mainstream" position is that it
| > | doesn't really matter to the "correctness" of relativity if light
| > | moves slower than C, even though that would imply that the "speed of
| > | light" is not actually invariant.
| > |
| > | In other words, my actual _assertion_ is a meta-claim: I'm saying
| > | that the claim that 'slow light' wouldn't cause a big problem for
| > | relativity is the current dogma.
| > |
| > | You may feel that 'slow light' would be a problem for relativity, but
| > | that doesn't really affect my meta-claim, which is that the claim of
| > | independence of relativity from a fixed speed for light reflects
| > | current mainstream thinking.
| > |
| > | Make sense? No? Oh, well.
| >
| > Who goes along with the mainstream is called "ewe". It IS a huge problem
for
| > relativity, because relativity claims V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c, and also
| > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which
| > is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".
| >
| > BTW, I now have a copy of Fox's Jan '65 AMJ paper. It came by snail mail
and
| > I had a friend type it up, but I haven't proof-read it yet so there may
be
| > typos. I can't write greek her either, so b = beta, u = nu in the
equations.
| > Fox writes:
| > ==========================================
| > The essence and the proven utility of the photon model consists in its
| > simple representation of the energy and momentum of radiation. It is
more
| > than likely that any optical phenomenon which can be explained by making
use
| > of the momentum of a photon can also be explained rigorously with an
| > lectromagnetic theory which properly accounts for this property. For
the
| > rest of this discussion it is assumed that the Ritz theory an indeed
take
| > proper account of the energy and momentum of light and that what can be
| > proved with the photon model could also be proved rigorously with that
| > theory.
| >
| > It may be objected that the photon is a very relativistic particle,
i.e., it
| > is very closely related to special relativity, and therefore it cannot
be
| > used to obtain results in support of a theory which denies special
| > relativity. In reply, it can be remarked that it was discovered or
invented
| > before and independently of special relativity and that the ratio of its
| > energy and momentum prescribed by electromagnetic theory.
| >
| > The idea of the inertia of radiant energy, while generally attributed to
| > special relativity, also has a certain independence of its own.
Hasenohrl
| > derived it for blackbody radiation in a moving cavity entirely on the
basis
| > of electrodynamics before the advent of special relativity.
Furthermore, it
| > is proved for the familiar photon-in-a-box on the basis of the
conservation
| > of momentum for the system.
| >
| > Another proof, more closely related to the present discussion, may be
made
| > by the following modification of a demonstration due to Langevin.
Consider
| > a source which is at rest with respect to an observer O and which
radiates a
| > simultaneous, oppositely directed pair of equal quanta, hv, e.g.,
| > annihilation radiation. While the total energy radiated is E = 2hu, the
| > total momentum radiated is zero, so the source remains at rest with
respect
| > to O.
| >
| > Now, consider this phenomenon from the point of view of an observer O'
who
| > moves with respect to O with the constant velocity v = beta c along the
line
| > defined by the radiation. On account of the first-order Doppler effect
O'
| > observes two quanta with the frequencies hu(1 + b) and hu(1 - b). He
thus
| > concludes that a net amount of momentum hu(1 + b )/c - hu(1-b)/c =
2hub/c is
| > emitted in the direction in which the source and O appear to move with
| > respect to him. From the conservation principle for momentum he
concludes
| > that the source loses this same quantity of momentum. Now the velocity
of
| > the source with respect to O' does not change since it remains at rest
with
| > respect to O, as has been seen. Thus O' is forced to conclude that the
mass
| > of the source has decreased by an amount Delta.m, where (Delta.m)u =
2hub/c.
| >
| > Thus, Delta.m = Delta.E/c^2.
| >
| > It thus seems that a sufficient basis for deducting the inertia of
energy is
| > the existence of the momentum of electromagnetic radiation. It would
seem
| > then that the idea of the inertia of energy can be incorporated into a
| > theory which correctly accounts for the momentum of radiation. As we
saw
| > earlier, the latter can probably be incorporated into the Ritz theory of
| > electromagnetism.
| > ==========================================
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | SR requires/predicts that there is _a_ velocity which transforms
into
| > | > | itself when changing to a different inertial frame -- a universal
| > speed
| > | > | limit, if you will.
| > | > Nonsense. Anything that is assumed in the first place cannot be
| > predicted.
| > |
| > | Nonsense, right back. Einstein's "assumption" was a "postulate" in
| > | his theory, but when we step out into the real world it was a
| > | "prediction". It's a statement about reality that can be tested and
| > | used to falsify or support his theory, which surely qualifies it as a
| > | prediction.
| > In the real world, Nature does the predicting, not Einstein. This is
| > Einstein's prediction:
| > "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly,
| > by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one
of
| > the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
| > In the real world, it is nonsense.
| > This is Nature's prediction on light and Nature's result:
| > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
| > Predictions of Einstein are falsifed. Predicting something that doesn't
| > happen doesn't qualify Einstein as a prophet.
| >
| > | Nostradamas's assertions were not derived and hence may have been
| > | "assumptions" or "postulates" but they were also, none the less,
| > | predictions.
| >
| > Predicting generalities in the vaguest terms possible isn't science, it
is
| > hocus pocus. Man landing on the moon was something Nostradamus
completely
| > missed, but many others "predicted" it, including Jules Verne. Obviously
| > they were better prophets than Nostradamus. I predict there will be
another
| > war. Wow... I must be a prophet.
| > |
| > |
| > | > | SR is in no way tied to the assumption that photons
| > | > | must travel at that exact velocity.
| > | > Yes it is, in empty space. Einstein said so. Read his paper.
| > |
| > | No, that's just Einstein, not SR. And I have read his paper (or at
| > | least that much of it). I'm trying to explain the current dogmatic
| > | position, not the dogmatic position from 100 years ago, and the
| > | current position is that SR is independent of the actual propagation
| > | velocity of electromagnetic energy, or at any rate it could be fixed
| > | up with just a few bandaids if light turned out to be "slow".
| > |
| > | If light turned out to be "fast" it would be more of an issue, of
| > | course.
| > Neutrinos are faster than light.
| > |
| > | > | Call the universal speed limit Lsr. Then the famous second
postulate
| > of
| > | > | SR is really:
| > | > |
| > | > | Lsr exists.
| > | > |
| > | > | A secondary assumption which is in no way needed for the theory to
| > work
| > is:
| > | > |
| > | > | Lsr == C
| > | > |
| > | > | If it should turn out that C < Lsr, then there would be a number
of
| > | > | interesting consequences (not least among them being that it would
be
| > | > | possible to catch up with a photon from behind -- what _would_
that
| > look
| > | > | like?).
| > | > Much the same as catching up with a sound wave. For a pure sine
wave,
| > | > and passing the wave at Mach 2 (relative to the air) no difference
would
| > be
| > | > noticed. For a modulate wave, it would sound like playing a vinyl
record
| > | > backwards. No biggy.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | But the collapse of the theory of relativity isn't one of the
| > | > | necessary consequences.
| > | > Assuming (0.75c + 0.25c)/2 = 0.25c is about as assinine as it can
be,
| > yet
| > | > these
| > | > are the times it takes for light to reach a mirror and return to the
| > source
| > | > if
| > | > the mirror and source are in motion relative to an observer at 0.5c
and
| > the
| > | > photon
| > | > moves at 0.25c.
| > |
| > | Huh? Out of context I didn't follow that and I just don't have the
| > | energy to sort it out this afternoon. Why's the photon only moving at
| > | 0.25C? Not enough coffee?
| > Or too much beer :-)
| >
| > |
| > | > BTW, Have you heard the latest?
| > | > "Let x^2 = 5
| > | > then
| > | > x = sqrt(5) or x = -sqrt(5)" -Dinky the Deranged
| > | > "This way sqrt is ALWAYS positive." -Dinky the Deranged.
| > |
| > | I've been glancing at the argument between you ad Dirt frm tmie to
| > | tmie (sorry about all the typos I'm not using a specll checker for
| > | this post 'cause its throu Gougle).
| > |
| > | Frankly, I'm amazed that the two of you have sustained your interest
| > | in the question for as lonng as you have. What _is_ the basic
| > | question, anyway -- whether 5 is positive or negative? Something like
| > | that, right?
| > Nope. Whether there are N roots to the Nth root of a number.
| > |
| > | It certainly carries the tradition of arguing over semantics on s.p.r.
| > | to a new level.
| >
| > Yes, but it gets me more delightful "fumbles" on his page. I've reached
| > mega-mega-fumble now.
| > |
| > | On the other hand, don't you need to assume square roots can be
| > | negative in order to derive the quadratic formula? So if sqrt(foo) >=
| > | 0 for all (foo) then quadratic equations have only one root, and a
| > | parabola can intersect the X axis at most once. Right? Or did I miss
| > | something?
| >
| > Nope :-)
| >
| > | Whatever...
| > Yeah... I need to dump Dinky again, but the real entertainment has been
| > slack lately. Any port in a storm.
| > Androcles
|
| xxein: I not only think --- I know Dirk is wrong, BUT on a scale of
| correctness to this universe, Dirk gets a 7/10 while your labor has a
| good chance of falling from 3/10. You see, Dirk follows along with a
| pretty good theory (not a true understanding, of course (Dirk or
| theory)), whereas you do not (from what I can surmise).
|
| Dirk might think: "Andro really believes this, doesn't he?" (with a
| smirk). But Dirk forgets that Einstein died suspecting his work was
| not nearly (euphemistically) kosher. It wasn't so wrong, but it
| wasn't correct either. It was merely applicable to a far greater
| extent that any preceding work (as a whole). It came as a package,
| not to be disassembled. If it were to be disassembled, it wouldn't
| work as advertised. Therefor, the followers cannot LET (-type with
| pun) it be taken apart. No one deliberately destroys his/her own
| belief system.
|
| 'But we've gone so, so, far with this idea, it can't be wrong!'.
| Wanna make a bet? Read history. 'But this is the 21st century!'. So
| was the 19th(!).
|
| I'll be the one to tell you this: Math does not tell this universe
| how to behave.
Agreed.
Math is usually only an application of principle.
Agreed.
| If
| the principle (the reality of the universe) is wrong, the math may
| remain OK, but the description of the principle will be wrong.
Agreed, but with the reservation that both can be wrong and the
math can be shown to prove it.
| If
| the principle is wrong, it doesn't matter how correct the math is.
If the math is wrong it tells us nothing of the principle, whether it be
right or wrong.
| But logic prevails. It is up to you (or any/everybody) to get a logic
| that corresponds with everything in this universe. Use math, but be
| damned sure it describes more than subjective observation. Try
| objectivity!
Agreed.
|
| To hear Dirk say it, I am confusing CS's. Well, I'll save that
| discussion for Dirk, but I will give you a hint. Dynamic imbedment of
| subjectively made CS's; similar to a fish in a stream that flows wrt
| the bank/shore.
|
| There is much you should contemplate, even in the shallows of your
| mind.
Try it. You can start with
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))"
and
V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c.
Or in words,
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t." -
Einstein
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c." - Einstein.
In the shallows of your mind, of course.
Androcles
- Next message: Pmb: "Re: A rotating disk PARADOX??"
- Previous message: Pmb: "Re: A rotating disk PARADOX??"
- In reply to: xxein: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Next in thread: xxein: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Reply: xxein: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
