Re: Einstein's Doppler equation wrong?

From: John Kennaugh (JKNG_at_kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:30:20 +0100

sal writes
>Mega snips; sorry. I read it all but there's too much to respond to
>all of it.
>
>
>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:28:34 +0100, John Kennaugh wrote:
>
>> sal writes
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:34:37 +0100, John Kennaugh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am interested in Ritz's theory because Ritz was no lightweight
>>>> and it was based on the idea of source dependence which seemed to
>>>> be the obvious explanation of MMX. If you accept that MMX showed
>>>> there is no ether then you accept that a source is surrounded by
>>>> nothing which can have any affect on the speed of light so the
>>>> only thing which can is the source. As far as I can see the
>>>> discovery of the photon should have clinched it. Light isn't a
>>>> wave, doesn't need an ether so it is OK that MMX didn't find one.
>>>
>>> Trouble is the electromagnetic spectrum seems very homogeneous.
>>> The only difference appears to be frequency. Radio obviously _is_
>>> a wave. It would be most unappealing for there to be a breakpoint
>>> in there somewhere,
>>
>> Let me throw that back at you. Are you saying that radio energy is
>> not quantized?
>
>No, of course not. I'm saying it is continuous, and at all energies
>there is both a particle and wave nature. You can't say it's all one
>or all the other. X-rays diffract.

>> If so where is the break point? How can there be a break point
>> if the spectrum is homogeneous? Are you saying that a gamma photon
>> obviously _is_ a wave?
>
>Yes, and a particle.
>
>> I would say that it _is_ obviously a particle but a
>> particle which still has a property we describe as 'frequency'.
>
>And wavelength -- otherwise it wouldn't diffract.

I have never accepted wave particle duality as a permanent solution and
always assumed that eventually one has to resolve everything in terms of
particles. It has to be that way around because the model must work for
a single particle. One might suggest that the wavelength of a particle
is the distance it travels when completing one revolution of spin.

>
>[ ... ]
>
>>>
>>>Have you studied quantum mechanics? Wave + particle dual nature is
>>>all around us.
>
>Still wondering.

I touched on it at university 40 years ago, or at least DeBroglie waves
and Schrodinger's equation. Does anyone still take matter waves
seriously? Quote:

"Schrodinger's great work did not survive in the form of de Broglie's
wave theory of matter, but in the form of the mathematical technique of
the statistical quantum mechanics, which is something altogether
different. Although its conventional name, "wave mechanics", and some
aspects of its internal mathematics reveal its original source - a most
fortunate triggering of Schrodinger's thinking by de Broglie's
matter-waves speculation - the modern statistical quantum mechanics has
nothing to do with waves and never, but never, refers to them in its
working. It is an empirical set of rules for handling a particular class
of problems in statistics and probability theory: a calculus, and not
really a physical theory at all in the ordinary sense. Its two key
equations, the Schrodinger equations, have been derived in 1966 by
Edward Nelson on purely statistical reasoning without any reference to
matter-waves. And finally, Schrodinger himself would have nothing to do
with the latter excesses of the Copenhagen School. Even de Broglie drew
the line at that!"

Separate quote

"Thus the wave theory of matter, which asserted that its non-physical
'waves' could exert physical control over particle motion, had been well
and truly disproved by the year 1930; but then the most unexpected and
amazing thing happened. Instead of being rejected as wrong, as it should
have been, the matter-waves' concept was retained and kept alive as a
kind of philosophical toy or pet. It was such a pretty idea! I do not
know exactly why it was retained or by whom, although I have my
suspicions. However, no precautions were taken to keep the disproved
wave theory separate and to distinguish it from the workable and
justifiable quantum mechanics, so that confusion between the two was
allowed to develop unhindered. A typical example of this confusion today
is the common belief that matter-waves exist, and that they are waves of
probability. They don't, and they aren't."

Scott Murray "A Heretics guide to modern Physics"

>> Einstein wrote:
>>
>> "Moreover this 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."
>>
>> He seems to have missed the point that if light is not traveling in
>> the ether there is no reason at all why light should not travel at
>> different speeds through the same space.
>
>Are you familiar with Maxwell's equations? They describe the behavior
>of electromagnetic radiation very well, _including_ its velocity.
>
>If you want to allow EMR in vacuum to travel at different velocities
>at the same point you're going to need some very big band-aids for
>the theory of electrodynamics.

I have never seen the logic of that argument. You have a source, an
observer and the space in between. Maxwell believed that the space in
between was filled with ether and that his equations represented waves
travelling in that ether and that the constant we now call c represented
the speed relative to that ether. Certainly from that point of view the
idea of waves travelling at different speeds in the same propagating
medium is untenable but that is not where we are at is it? If you
eliminate the ether and you want to continue using the equations because
they are useful you can either assume c is the speed relative to every
source or you can assume it is the speed relative to every observer. The
first represents ballistic and the second SR. If you take SR

         A X
         B-->v

If X gives out a flash of light which reaches A and B as they coincide
then the second postulate requires that for observer A, light leaves the
source at c relative to the source ( c in A's FoR) and that for B it
leaves the source at c-v relative to the source (c in B's FoR). It
requires that light travels at different speeds through the same space.
It also requires that light leave X at two different times.

         A X
     v<--B

If we look at the Ballistic case where A and B are two sources then if
as they coincide they each give out a flash of light, that from A will
travel towards X at c relative to X (c relative to A) and that from B
will travel towards X at c-v relative to X (c relative to B). Light
travels at different speeds through the same space. They will arrive at
X at different times.

The latter is exactly the same as the former with the 'film' running
backwards. i.e. time reversed. How can Maxwell's equations be more
difficult to apply to one more than the other?

You can argue that in SR every observer is mathematically stationary
w.r.t his own ether and that in ballistic theory every source is
mathematically stationary w.r.t its own ether. It is not a problem for
ballistic theory because that simply represents light leaving the source
in all directions at c and one can suggest a suitable causality namely
that whatever light *is* and for whatever reason it appears to be a
propagated wave that in fact it is simply shot out from the source at c.
i.e. c is the result of the physical process taking place in the source.

The problems of SR are insurmountable. Bilge will say that the speed of
light is constant w.r.t the observer because the maths says so. Well of
course they do. They were constructed based on that very assumption.
Others will claim it is axiomatic. Well it isn't a 'self evident truth'
to me it is counter intuitive. Einstein said SR is a principle theory
whose starting points are empirical but there was no experimental
evidence for source independence it was accepted dogma from belief in
the ether.

 One explanation consistent with SR is Lorentz's ether. Bilge will
probably jump in and insist that anyone suggesting it should explain how
it works and how it supports transverse waves. No one insists that
anyone explain how virtual photons work so that is double standards. The
vital point about Lorentz's ether is not as a means of transporting
light, although that is certainly useful, but by providing a fixed
reference giving A and B different absolute speeds. This then gives a
credible causality whereby A and B's perception represents two different
distortions of a single reality. Without that you are left with two
different (genuine) realities. i.e. A and B measure the speed of light
they see as c because it *is* c. They see the light leave the source at
c and c-v because it *does* leave the source at two different speeds and
they determine different times for the light to leave the source because
it *did* leave the source at two different times. Get your Band Aid out.

>> The idea that light is made up of photons (which is something he
>> himself had a lot to do with) seems to have had no impact on his
>> thinking at all.
>
>You seem to have missed the point that you can't just ignore the wave
>nature of EMR, and Maxwell's equations provide one of the primary
>starting points for relativity.

And they do not indicate in any way the particulate nature of light so
cannot be a complete mathematical model of light can they? They can only
be describing the bulk properties of photons. Understanding will come
from understanding more about photons and how they act together to
behave according to Maxwell's equations. To consider Maxwell's equations
as in some way a fundamental truth is not terribly sensible.

[....]

>>>> While I am interested in Ritz's theory I have been unable to find out
>>>> much about it. If you know were I can find out more I would be
>>>> interested.
>>>
>>>Type "ritz" and "fox" and "emission" and "einstein" into Google in
>>>various combinations. You should be able to come up with a fair amount
>>>about it in a few minutes.
>>
>> Unfortunately most of Ritz work was written in German and
>> translations are somewhat few and far between. I haven't come across
>> Fox have you come across Richard A.Waldron?
>
>As I understand it, Fox is the big name in the theory

I thought Waldron was. I haven't come across Fox.

[....] 

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