Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
From: Pax (pax1_at_whitesweb.com)
Date: 10/04/04
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Gravity, Curvature vs Force"
- Previous message: John Denker: "Re: Gravity, Curvature vs Force"
- In reply to: Mich: "Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Next in thread: Mich: "Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Reply: Mich: "Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:31:57 GMT
"Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:10m01ui2pvrj3e7@corp.supernews.com...
>
> 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...
> > 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.
Why are you arguing about this in the same breath as redshift?
What exactly do you think they share in common? Redshift is not
the photoelectric effect, neither are the mechanisms through
which stars produce light equal to the photoelectric effect.
> > 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.
If you want to understand oranges, then why talk about apples?
Where are you leading?
> > 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.
> > [Close quote]
> Exactly! Also, the Young's double-slit experiment was redone,
releasing one photon at a time which still resulted in leaving an
interference pattern.
Interesting. Was not aware of such an experiment.
> 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.
That could be one interpretation. You find what you look for, and
justify what you believe.
It could also be said that a wave is capable of being broken down
into even smaller waves, and that this breaking down is limited
only by the actual size of the basic elements which comprise the
medium through which the wave propagates.
> > 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 within 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.
Your connections are too random for me to capture logically.
Frequency is *only* a time measurement.
> > 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.
No, observations do not "clearly" support Androcles' theory,
otherwise tired light would be the accepted theory and universal
expansion would be in the dust, and neither is the case.
Lord! What a thought problem you've initiated! I have cut it
almost in its entirety and left only the following:
We have proof only through the application of laws:
1) The law of conservation of momentum
2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of
energy
How can light become "tired" when it's massless?
"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired
http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/01_6now/010628a.html
Type Ia supernovae provide direct evidence for an expanding
universe
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/1-7-1999.html
> > 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 kinetic 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.
Why are you so intent on "gas"? This can only be if you consider
space to be filled with a form of gas. A gas is not massless,
gaseousness is a state for substances which have mass.
> > 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?
They think photons move?
> > > 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 analogous to the light's
frequency.
> > No, not frequency... did you mean intensity?
> no, frequency.
If you think this, then explain.
> > > 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 kinetic energies of the
individual atoms whenever there's a change in volume.
I was wrong, the energy is not in the photons, it's in the waves.
Photons are incapable of storing energy (since that would give
them mass), they can only allow transmission of energy.
Define the properties of the gaseous substance filling space.
> > 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 substantial reasoning behind why the frequency altered when
the observer's velocity is altered. This is exactly what I'm
trying to look for in this thread.
That is debatable. :) However, you ask the right questions, and
allude in interesting directions.
> > > > > 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 separated 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.
Yes it is... according to Relativity. Are you at odds with
Relativity?
> I'm speaking about the classical doppler effect.
So was I.
> > 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 relativistic red shift effect (never blue shift) leaving
the classical doppler effect to be explained.
No. There is also a blue-shift. It's not a matter of "Is there?",
it's a matter of "There has to be." Again, this is according to
Lorentz and Relativity... but it's also according to the
detectable propagation speed of light in vacuo, which has yet to
be taken down.
Can you please argue from a position which nullifies any of the
above? I am interested in your logic as to why Lorentz and
Relativity are in error.
> > > > 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.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results." - Albert Einstein
Reread my previous two posts, your answers are there. :)
Now, you answer me: Why are you so set on refusing the accepted
explanation?
> > 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.
As long as you keep pushing in the right directions, there's no
hope these posts will get shorter. :)
State your case, not Androcles'. If you have stated it in toto
previously elsewhere, then please give me a link. Why are you so
insistent in comparing/correlating the photoelectric effect with
the nuclear reactions responsible for the light from stars? Why
do you think there is any relation between the two?
> Andre
Be well - Pax
.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational
mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society
that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel
with their own hearts. - Albert Einstein
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Gravity, Curvature vs Force"
- Previous message: John Denker: "Re: Gravity, Curvature vs Force"
- In reply to: Mich: "Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Next in thread: Mich: "Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Reply: Mich: "Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
