Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!


<surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1131885209.460785.85080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> harry wrote:
> > surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Harry wrote:
> > > > <surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> ...
> > > >
> > > > > Einstein made it very clear in his essays, even if SR books do
not. To
> > > > > Einstein, such an absolute space (i.e., inertial frame) would
imply
> > > > > that Nature has arbitrarily selected one inertial frame out of an
> > > > > infinite number of them to be special (i.e., the laws of
> > > > > electrodynamics are "true" in that frame only because measuring
rods
> > > > > and clocks are undistorted in that frame). Einstein regarded such
a
> > > > > possibility as a violation of his philosophic notion of the
harmony of
> > > > > nature and the egalitarianism of inertial frames (PoR). He also
claimed
> > > > > that nature does not seem to reveal any such frame in practice:
Neither
> > > > > the mechanics of Newton nor any experiment in electrodynamics
seems to
> > > > > reveal that any inertial frame is any different for the invention
of
> > > > > the laws of physics from any other inertial frame. So, to
Einstein, at
> > > > > heart Nature acts to rigorously maintain the PoR and the Light
> > > > > Principle (locally), but not the dependence of light speed on the
> > > > > source's motion. I emphasize that when I say "speed," I mean
actual
> > > > > measured speed, not some hypothetical, unmeasurable speed.
> > > >
> > > > I also read all that. But what I meant, can you clarify the physical
light
> > > > propagation model that Einstein had in mind?
> > >
> > > I can't. And I don't think it can be done, for reasons I gave above.
> > > Einstein referred to SR as a principle (as opposed to a constructive)
> > > theory because it lacked any attempt whatsoever to provide a
> > > hypothetical model of propagation of E&M effects.
> >
> > There is a difference between not doing something, claiming that it
> > can't be done, and the fact if something may be possible or not, in
> > principle.
>
> I am referring to inventing a model of a "true" photon path with the
> photon modeled as a point particle.

Experiments described in the following link will be able to determine the
true photon path. I don't understand your point about the photon being a
point particle....what about frequency and wavelength?? What is the
relationship between this point particle and frequency and wave length???

Ken Seto
>



.

Loading