Re: 1c+1c Light and matter

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_aurigae.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 08/16/04 

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:00:49 GMT

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
 wrote
on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:48:35 GMT
<na1Uc.1183$p53.14288992@news-text.cableinet.net>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:t8r5v1-7i.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
> | <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
> | wrote
> | on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:52:09 GMT
> | <J9PTc.800$L94.10619081@news-text.cableinet.net>:
> | >
> | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> | > message news:dtj4v1-ofq.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
> | > | <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
> | > | wrote
> | > | on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 10:47:04 GMT
> | > | <IaHTc.522$LX7.7665812@news-text.cableinet.net>:
> | > | >
> | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net>
> wrote in
> | > | > message news:kf32v1-0ao.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> | > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Mitchell
> | > | > | <macromitch@internetCDS.com>
> | > | > | wrote
> | > | > | on 13 Aug 2004 16:55:46 -0700
> | > | > | <9c3da975.0408131555.16ca21ff@posting.google.com>:
> | > | > | > If you shoot light in opposite directions it would be traveling
> | > | > | > at 2 c relative to itself.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Erm, no. Not to itself, just as computed by a stationary observer
> | > | > | next to the doublelaser unit. Not that light would be traveling
> | > | > | at c relative to itself anyway, since everything travels at 0 m/s
> | > | > | relative to itself -- though one can quibble here when parts of
> | > | > | itself are in fact rotating.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | > I realize that light as a reference frame doesn't make sense.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | It does; it merely takes 0 seconds to traverse the width of
> | > | > | the Universe (which is conveniently shrunk down to a disc of
> | > | > | width about 30 billion light years :-) ). It's not all that
> | > | > | useful but light doesn't degrade by spreading out, even
> | > | > | from distant galaxies.
> | > | >
> | > | > It shifts to the red, as Hubble observed. Of course it 'degrades'.
> | > | > Androcles
> | > |
> | > | I suspect a slight misunderstanding here, though I've not the
> | > | machinery to analyze it properly, mathematically speaking.
> | > | Basically, the Hubble finding is that the farther away
> | > | a galaxy is, the more red-shifted its light spectrum
> | > | (based on Fraunhofer lines and such). One can draw one
> | > | of three conclusions:
> | > |
> | > | [1] The farther away a galaxy, the faster it's moving from us
> | > | (or vice versa).
> | >
> | > This suffers from the observation that nearer galaxies do not exhibit
> | > red shift, and the implication that the further away the galaxy becomes
> | > the greater its recessional velocity. It would therefore seem to be
> | > accelerating without cause.
> |
> | This is a statistical problem. Andromeda in particular is moving
> | *towards* us. Other nearby galaxies may have random vectors which
> | wipe out the generalized redshift.
> |
> | >
> | > | [2] The farther away a light source, the more "tired" its
> | > | light becomes.
> | >
> | > The red shift is measured by refraction and by diffraction.
> |
> | That it is -- and the Fraunhoefer lines serve as very
> | convenient marking posts.
> |
> | > Light is radiated spherically, and the quantity in any given
> | > shell forming the surface of a sphere is finite. The energy per
> | > unit area is 4 times greater at twice the distance and we have
> | > the inverse square law. From E = h.nu, we have E/4 = h. nu/4
> | > and 1/4 the emitted frequency. We must then conclude that
> | > either the frequency has changed with distance, leaving the velocity
> | > unchanged, w = c/(f * 0.25), or the velocity has reduced leaving the
> | > frequency unchanged, w = c/4 * 1/f.
> |
> | The problem with this analysis is that it also occurs with a
> | standard incandescent light bulb, in theory.
> |
> | Move 1m away therefrom. Note the general light color.
> |
> | Now move 2m away.
> |
> | I suspect a rework of your theory may be required here... :-)
>
> Nah. Rework Planck's E = h(nu) instead. The conservation of energy is
> inviolate, I'm not reworking that. :-)

That part I'm not all that worried about.

> Note that I said "OR the velocity has reduced leaving the frequency
> unchanged, w = c/4 * 1/f."

So light is slowing down as it radiates outward?

Better tell NIST; they might have a different opinion. :-)

>
>
>
> | Certainly some sort of clarification is necessary.
> |
> | Other computations may include the Cassini mission observations.
> | Saturn's still a nice golden color up close, apparently.
>
> Of course. The frequency is unchanged. Saturn is reflecting sunlight, it has
> no light of its own.

It should still show some sort of anomaly. The total lightpath,
after all, is different:

from Cassini: Sun->Saturn->short distance
from Earth: Sun->Saturn->(Saturn-Earth=longer distance)

> |
> | > No recessional velocity of the galaxy is required to explain
> | > the empirical data, which is simply that red shift is function
> | > of distance. Doppler shift ignores the inverse square law and
> | > conservation of energy per unit area.
> | >
> | > | [3] The farther away a light source, the more dust scatters
> | > | the higher wavelengths, resulting in a redder observation.
> | >
> | > If dust were indeed present, as it is in Earth atmosphere, the view
> would be
> | > as through a fog. Distant galaxies would not be seen. You cannot both
> | > scatter light and also see through the scattering medium clearly, and
> | > certainly not for several billion light years.
> |
> | One of the reasons why it was rejected, I suspect.
>
> You'd be surprised how many relativists still claim dust or single atoms,
> one per cubic metre or some such density, is a very thin medium through
> which light has to travel.
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cheating_with_stars.htm
>
> |
> | > |
> | > | I suspect that one can tell the diff using mathematical
> | > | skullwork and detailed Fraunhofer line observations from
> | > | distant galaxies, but my understanding is that [1] is the
> | > | generally accepted conclusion.
> | >
> | > Yes, and once the generally accepted conclusion was the Earth
> | > was once at the centre of the universe. Too readily the general
> | > masses leap upon the conclusion offered without giving the
> | > matter due consideration.
> | >
> | > |
> | > | [3] was discarded long ago: too much dust is required.
> | >
> | > Agreed as to [3]. Not agreed as to [1].
> | > Conclusion: [2].
> |
> | Your conclusion. Can you suggest an experiment that would validate it?
> |
> The empirical data is there already. It simply needs to be correctly
> interpreted.
> A galaxy at 12 million light years will have 1/4 the energy of a similar
> galaxy at 6 million light years.

Actually, 1/4 the energy per unit solid angle.

> You raised the point that an incandescent
> bulb at one metre will be 4 times brighter than a similar bulb at 2 metres.

That is correct. The question is regarding frequency dependence.

> The energy density in photons per square cm is still in the gazillions,

Actually, one can compute it given certain criteria.
Assume a special lightbulb radiating all of its energy in
the 500 nm (blue-green) or 600 THz light range. (This is
easier to compute for me than Stephen-Boltzmann radiation
issues in the normal incandescent affair; I'd have to do
some research on the latter -- though AFAICT it's perfectly
doable.)

Each photon is 6*10^14 /sec * (6.626 * 10^-34 J sec) = 3.976 * 10^-19 J.
Therefore, they're streaming out at the rate of approximately
2.515 * 10^20 photons per second.

> but
> there must come a distance at which this falls to 1 photon per sq
> centimeter, and at twice that distance it will be 1/4 photon per square
> centimeter.

For the above 100W light bulb one gets 1 photon/cm^2 when the shell
is 2.515*10^16 m^2. The radius for such is 4.474 * 10^7 m.
This is a little more than 1/10th the distance from Earth to Moon.

At twice that radius, one gets 1 photon every 4 square centimeters.

If one wants a slightly more interesting calculation, one can
take the Sun's power output (3.94 * 10^26 W). The main problem
is the aforementioned one, though; it's not all 500 nm. :-)

> You can't have a 1/4 of a photon, and the photon will spread
> itself over the entire area, diffracting as it passes through the slits.
> This is how we measure the wavelength.

If one is using a diffraction grating, perhaps.

> How would we be able to tell if we
> were measuring a reduced velocity instead, since c is the measure emission
> velocity, not the received velocity?

A good question. The best answer I have would be to
do the following.

[1] Frequency measurements can be done using an interferometer using
    a known lightsource.
[2] Energy measurements can be done presumably with a modified version
    of Einstein's experiment, where the photoelectric effect is
    harnessed to advantage.

[rest snipped] 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Frame dependent distances in relativity?
    ... light velocity relative a specific cordinate x,y,z in space ... | of the photon relative the emitter to be a constant, does that sound ... Energy is also relative. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Ballistic photon theory
    ... the thermal agitation velocity of the atom. ... Thus, when energy is released by an atom, the velocity ... energy package transmitted by the photon. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: 1c+1c Light and matter
    ... 1/4 the energy per unit solid angle. ... and at twice that distance it will be 1/4 photon per square ... > were measuring a reduced velocity instead, since c is the measure emission ... Energy measurements can be done presumably with a modified version ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How can photons be massless
    ... >} Group Velocity ... *different* from hv when the photon is not traveling at lightspeed ... the frequency or the energy -- I'm not entirely sure which -- ... edge of the spinning disc, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Since the electrons traveling at near "c" then whats its inertial mass?
    ... The term "relativistic mass" is an older name given to the ... That is not the same as kinetic energy ... that is independent of velocity. ... Because measurements of length are affected by relative ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading