Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?

From: Mich (mich_at_efni.com)
Date: 10/03/04 

Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:08:28 -0400

Pax <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
news:h_B7d.694$Al3.570@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
> news:10lteknf9831t81@corp.supernews.com...
> > Nevertheless, when physcists conducted experiements with light
> having
> > energies which could knock
> > off electrons from atoms, they had, at that point in time, the
> view that
> > you've just mentioned, which had to be changed.
> > They increased the light amplitude (more energy) thinking that
> the electrons
> > would have been knocked off with a greater force, which wasn't
> the case.
>
> I think you're talking about kinetic energy imparted to the
> electrons. It was intensity, not wavelength that determined
> number of electrons released.

yes; but the kinetic energy would be due to the force the electron was
hit,caused by the higher energy photon; but the number of electrons released
simply corresponds to the number of photons per volume and not the energy of
the photon as such.

> From Encyclopedia Britannica:
> Photoelectric Effect -
> [Open quote]
> [...] It was further discovered that the current (given the name
> photoelectric because it was caused by light rays), made up of
> electrons released from the metal, is *proportional to the
> intensity* of the light causing it for *any fixed wavelength* of
> light that is used. In 1902 it was proved that the maximum
> *kinetic energy* of an electron in the photoelectric effect is
> independent of the intensity of the light ray and depends on its
> frequency.

This is in agreement, I believe, to what I have explained.

> The observations that (1) the number of electrons released in the
> photoelectric effect is proportional to the intensity of the
> light and that (2) the frequency, or wavelength, of light
> determines the maximum kinetic energy of the electrons indicated
> a kind of interaction between light and matter that could not be
> explained in terms of classical physics. The search for an
> explanation led in 1905 to Albert Einstein's fundamental theory
> that light, long thought to be wavelike, can be regarded
> alternatively as composed of discrete particles (now called
> photons), equivalent to energy quanta.

Exactly!, Also, the Young's double-slit experiment was redone, releasing one
photon at a time
which still resulted in leaving an interference pattern. The interference
was now claimed to having been caused by a wave of probability, leaving the
light as having more particle characteristics than
a wave within a medium.

> Temperature is a factor in the photoelectric effect.
>
> No, light's red-shift has nothing to do with diminishing
> frequency over distance, frequency is a time measurement.

I fail to understand what you mean by time measurement though...in a blue
shifted frame, time will "appear"to move faster, and withinb a red shifted
frame, it will appear to move slower. I agree that frequency can be used as
a clock, but not different from any other clocks, such as a pendulum, from
which time will appear to move slower in a lower gravity field, such as the
moon.

> No. Only intensity lessens as a result of distance.

But do we have proof of this,Pax? Observations clearly support Androcle's
theory...yes, as well as the theory of the big bang. Nevertheless, I have
heard of scientists working on a "tired light" theory.

>Consider a
> globe full of tennis balls, explode the globe and assume a
> spherical, equal scattering of the tennis balls in all directions
> away from the globe. Do the tennis balls grow smaller or do they
> merely increase their distance from each other as they fly away
> from the globe? Once it's emitted, a photon is "fixed" as to its
> wavelength wrt its emitter just like those tennis balls because
> it's wavelength was determined at the time of its emission.

I agree that within this example the intensity only is said to change with
distance, because the tennis
balls remain having the same kenetic energy throughout it's journey. But is
this what happens when
the volume of a gas is changed? the atoms kinetic energies are changed
proportionally with the change of volume. It is within this respect,that
Androcle's theory seems to agree with observations.

> You're thinking of waves in water, aren't you? Space isn't water.
> Though there are things in space that can absorb, deflect,
> diffract, reflect, etc. light, it doesn't have to overcome the
> "weight" of the medium itself in order to continue to propagate.
> If space did offer that sort of resistance, Michelson & Morley
> wouldn't have failed in their attempt to discover aether.

...true. so what's wrong with the particle theory?

> > I'm not certain if Androcles would agree to my
> > understanding of it, but it's the way I see his point.
> Nevertheless, I like
> > better the analogy between light and gravity, gravitational
> force being
> > analogeous to the light's frequency.
>
> No, not frequency... did you mean intensity?

no, frequency.

> > thanks for the info, which I believe agrees with the
> explanation I gave you,
>
> No, it really doesn't. :) The total energy of the wave is made up
> of the individual energy of each photon. In order for the total
> energy of the wave to be conserved, the individual energy of each
> photon must be conserved.

Could be, Pax. I'm not saying that Androcle's theory is correct, only that I
believe it is reasonable.
I still believe the model of a gaseous substance is a good model, which
involves a change in kenetic energies of the individual atoms whenever
there's a change in volume.

> Wavelength, which is tied to frequency, is altered by velocity,
> as I described in tedious detail in my previous post.

I will re-read your post, Pax, but I don't believe that I saw any
substancial reasoning
behind why the frequency altered when the observer's velocity is altered.
This is excactly what I'm trying to look for in this thread.

> > > > I don't understand; when a car changes velocity, the sound
> of the
> > > > orn (waves) will be physically altered, will they not?
> > >
> > > A change in velocity of the car producing the sound results
> in an actual
> > change
> > > in the sound produced by the engine due to mechanical
> considerations,
> > however it
> > > also results in a lessening (or intensification, depending on
> the
> > circumstance
> > > of more or less velocity) of the bubble of compression
> surrounding it.
> > >
> > > See below.
> > > >
> > > > But if you agree that the air is motionless relative to
> the observer,
> > in
> > > > order for your example to correspond, the sound waves
> physically need to
> > be
> > > > as such that the waves in the front will be bunched up and
> more
> > seperated in
> > > > the back.
> > >
> > > You can't separate the wave from the medium through which it
> propagates.
> > > If there was no air, there would be no way for sound to
> propagate. Of
> > > course, one must then ask, "What is the medium for light?"
> Good question.
> > > No answer... yet.
> >
> > That's the reason why I mentioned, that within a medium, when
> the source is
> > moving, the wave will not be physically spherical (relative to
> the source),
>
> True.
>
> > and this effect produces a frequency, where, relative to the
> medium,
> > the waves are excentric; while without a medium, it will always
> be spherical
> > relative to the source; meaning that we are dealing with two
> different
> > examples...or maybe I'm not understanding you properly.
>
> For a moving object in space, the "compression bubble" is one
> composed of time, at least for the considerations of Relativity
> (and it's not spherical). That's why the Lorentz Contraction
> happens at higher velocities.

But here you are dealing with a length contractions and time dilations which
is not what I'm looking for. I'm speaking about the classical doppler
effect.

Of course! The Lorentz
> Transformation should be noted for any object moving at
> especially high velocity, even if it's moving toward you... for
> some reason, I had always pictured it only wrt an object moving
> away from me. Duh... stupid of me.

So would you now understand that the transformation involves only the
relativitic red shift effect(never blue shift) leaving the classical doppler
effect to be explained.

>
> > > Air is a substance with definite physical properties of
> resistance.
> > > In other words, it has a "tensile strength", and will react
> to an
> > > object moving through it by giving resistance to the passage
> of the
> > > object... it compresses. Remember the wind tunnel? The fine
> smoke
> > > makes it possible to see air resistance which forms a
> compression
> > > bubble around the object, that's why such tunnels are great
> tools to
> > > aid with design in aerodynamics.
> >
> > > A large truck coming up behind a small car can actually cause
> the
> > > car to veer away from the truck by virtue of the compressed
> wave
> > > of air being pushed out in front of the truck. Further, as
> the truck
> > > passes, the small car can then be pulled back toward the side
> of the
> > > truck due to that same bubble of compression, finally the car
> can
> > > actually wind up being pulled along at the rear of the truck
> by the
> > > vacuum at the rear of the bubble of compression the truck's
> > > velocity has created.
> > >
> > > To be received in its true form, perception of the actual,
> natural
> > > wavelength of the wave (sound or light) is dependent upon
> stable
> > > properties (an unchanging relationship between all elements
> > > common to both the observer and the observed, including
> time).
> > > If the medium is distorted (if it undergoes compression due
> to
> > > velocity of either the observed or the observer), then the
> stable
> > > properties required for the unaltered propagation of the wave
> > > are knocked out of balance, and the wave received by the
> > > observer becomes distorted in direct proportion.
> > >
> > > Consider a noise being emitted by a stationary object on the
> side
> > > of the road. You notice in the distance that a car has pulled
> off the
> > > road and is stopped. Approaching it, you hear the noise from
> the
> > > car's horn that has become stuck. As you drive at highway
> speed
> > > toward the car making the noise, the sound undergoes the same
> > > alterations in pitch you would note if you were standing on
> the
> > > side of the road and the car was moving along the highway
> > > toward you. Why? Because you are traveling within an actual,
> > > physical compression bubble of air formed around you due to
> > > your velocity. Further, it can also be said you are traveling
> in a
> > > compression bubble of time because, as you move toward the
> > > stationary car, you are encountering the beginning and end of
> > > each sound wave sooner than you would if you were stationary
> > > wrt that car.
> >
> > And here, Pax, is where the source of all the posts I have
> written
> > within this thread rests upon.
> > Within the first instance, the observer is stationary, relative
> to the
> > "sound medium" (air). The doppler effect, in this case, is
> caused
> > by the "air compression" due to the moving source (car).
> > According to Relativity, there is no medium for light, so the
> > doppler, in this case cannot be due to any compression of
> ether.
>
> Actually, all Einstein asserts is that it is not necessary to
> consider the existence of aether for the purpose of his theory...
> and that's true where a medium is concerned for both light and
> sound, in most instances. A wave is an entity unto itself. Even
> though it is a reaction running through a medium, that reaction
> can still be validly considered separate from its medium.

...but at least it can be explained. :)

> > In the second example, where the observer is moving relative to
> > the medium, the doppler is caused due to a relative velocity
> > existing between the observer and the sound waves. There is
> > also a third example; according to the particle theory, where
> > let's say a gun fires one bullet/time unit; a source moving
> with
> > respect the an observer will create a doppler, (a change in
> > wavelength, or distance between each of the bullets), this
> > being due to a change in relative velocity between the source
> > and observer... the same can be said when the observer moves
> > relative to the source. My question within all these posts is
> > always the same...according to relativity, what causes the
> > doppler shift since there is no medium and the velocity between
> > the light photons and the observer is always c?
>
> Andre, my exceedingly long, exceedingly over-explanatory post
> (that preceded this reply of yours I'm answering) went into great
> detail on that very point. Time dilation.

....but this is not what I'm after, Pax. My question is about the classical
effect of the doppler shift
as explained by relativity.

> Did you know that if the sun exploded it would take over 8
> minutes for us to actually see the explosion? That's because it
> would take over 8 minutes for the sun's light that carried the
> information about the explosion to travel the 93,000,000 miles
> from the sun to us. That's over 8 minutes between a real
> occurrence (the sun exploding) and our observation of that
> occurrence, because light propagates at c (186,000mps) in a
> vacuum and the sun is 500 light seconds away from us.

ok

>
> Shorter sounds great, that last post of mine was a nightmare for
> me. If you want to go into the last part of my last post, just
> cut and paste it into a new post in this thread. :)

I will rather let you repost what you consider to be important in my
understanding of the cause of the classical shift, if you don't mind.

Andre

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is a dimension?
    ... "a medium in which something can exist." ... The medium in which matter and energy exist. ... Some may find faults in Special Relativity and General ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Grid #2 in ultralinear mode
    ... **Assuming constant mass, the final speed of an electron depends ... or collect 200UKP...no energy ... Some electrons will always escape, ... >>> 25KeV would reach relativistic speeds but that is no more a ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Schr=F6dinger=27s_Universe?=
    ... Wolff's brand new book: Schrödinger's Universe. ... all electrons give and receive tiny bits ... But both the positron's scalar and spin frequencies are 180 degrees ... quanta bits, the same as energy. ...
    (sci.edu)
  • Re: Kicking a few ideas around in my head (SF), would like to get feedback
    ... (Energy as currency vs. entropy) ... Energizer stay in business if every battery they sell is at a loss? ... be a necessary reduced efficiency? ... electrons get stored on the clouds. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
    ... electrons flowing in the transmission line at a specified velocity have ... The energy flow is all one way. ... Which directly contradicts "The energy flow is all one way". ... momentum constitutes a certain amount of energy. ...
    (sci.physics)