Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: bz <bz+nanae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:06:05 +0000 (UTC)
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Uv1njHCEbIxFFwHd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:zkCeRCTnt3uFFwK$@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk:
bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:9Go95wBPPRuFFwoT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
[snip] - doing a bit of trimming getting rather long
My problem is that with hindsight everything points to the fact that
if you accept "no aether" the decision to go with Einstein makes
absolutely no logical sense although an enormous amount of rhetoric
has been expended trying to present it in a way which makes it seem
sensible. It all comes down to trying to reconcile Maxwell with the
MMX rather than accept that Maxwell is a useful predictive model whose
application has serious limitations. Without aether Maxwell does not
represent a physical theory because Maxwell's waves cannot be real
physical waves while light is, or carries with it real physical energy
and would requires physical waves. The only model of light which can
explain the transportation of real physical energy from one point to
another is the photon model.
Conclusion - the odds are that light is particulate
So, how does one handle an 80 meter 'particle' or one that is millions
of meters in extent (for ELF frequencies)? I have a hard time
visualizing a particle that approaches the size of the universe but I
can visualize a wave at a fundamental frequency with a period equal to
twice the time since the big bang.
I understand your point. Certainly 'light' especially at RF gives an
absolutely impeccable impression of being waves. It does not alter the
fact that to transport real physical energy you would need real physical
waves. I don't know who it was, IMO it wasn't Einstein, who decided
there is no aether but that is nevertheless current doctrine. Physics
cannot have it both ways. Either space contains Aether and the energy
is in the form of stress in the aether or it is empty space and some
physical entities (photon) are in transit through it. I don't know of
any other suggested alternatives.
Our failure to imagine does not limit nature.
Have you worked out what say 1mW at 80m represents in terms of number of
photons?
1 photon is 2.3e-27 Joules, so 1 mW is about 0.7 moles of photons. Not a
huge number. Yet people have talked (half way) around the world using less
than 1 mW of RF output from their transmitter.
My assumption is that a photon at 80m is incredibly small and
totally undetectable.
'small' in energy, large in physical extent (it takes a rather large
antenna to efficiently intercept/emit them). Long in time extent (0.28 uS
for 1 wave length, perhaps 0.14 uS for the actual photon which may [in my
imagination] require 1/2 wavelength of time for emission[I know some
published articles claim thousands of cycles are required to emit some
photons but I believe those articles erroniously confuse the 'decay time
delay' {half life of the excited state} of the excited atom with the time
it actually takes to emit the photon]).
If anything is 80m wide it is not the size of the
individual photon but of the photons on mass.
Each photon, of a particular energy/wavelength MUST[explain how they could
be different!] be the same physical size. I don't think there is any
justification for saying that a 400 nm photon has any different kind of
relationship to its 'physical size' than an 80 meter photon has to its
physical size.
It is a hell of a job trying to imagine how a mass of particles can
mimic a wave but I think there is a better chance of doing so than vice
versa. A load of pixels on my screen can after all give a very good
impression of an analogue picture.
But it seems like the photon is neither 'a wave' nor 'a particle' but has
characteristics analogous to each(just as a mule is neither a horse nor a
donkey and the bonds between carbon atoms in benzine are neither single nor
double bonds).
There are many things in life that do NOT fit into the 'either a or b'.
What makes you think a photon must conform to YOUR idea that it must be
either a particle or a wave?
.....
If none of the data allows you to eliminate either of two theories,
Occam's Razor gives you a way to decide which one to spend your time
testing.
Historically Occams Razor would have come firmly down on the side of
Ritz.
If it were, it would have. It hasn't.
It was by far the simplest explanation of the MMX. It fitted
better with the PoR. It did not require any change to our
understanding of space, mass, and time. It is the logical way to get
rid of the aether i.e. if the speed of light is not constant w.r.t the
aether as previously thought the only thing left it could sensibly be
constant with is the source.
The logical way was to assert that it IS constant wrt to every possible
observer, including those moving with the source and those NOT so
moving.
Why? I have provided you with my arguments where is your logic?
It was logical to assert that the speed of light IS constant wrt to
every possible observer, including those moving with the source and
those NOT so moving because ........
Logical in hindsight. Because it works.
It is a simpler assumption than the assumption that light moves at c ONLY
with respect to its source and must move at c+v with respect to all other
observers because we have zero zip nil nunca nada reproducable evidence of
any superluminal photons despite thousands of seekers of Nobel prizes
looking for such evidence for over 100 years.
If it makes sense to you then enlighten me. I can't see any conceivable
argument which does not include the aether.
i.e. using Einstein's 1938 argument
Light is a wave in the aether ... therefore its speed cannot be effected
by the speed of the source. The MMX showed that it was not effected by
the speed of the observer either.
There is no question that he 'likes' the idea of some kind of media that
carries em radiation, but the 'aether' he refers to in 1938 is NOT the
'aether' that was envisioned by MM and others. I 'like' the idea of a
medium too but don't see any support for it.
If we assume an aether, we must propose properties for it. Those properties
MUST be consistent with all observations.
It turns out that an aether with properties consistent with all
observations would be difficult to formulate. It would be inconsistant with
our idea of 'how a medium should work'.
Since it is unnecessary, why not dispense with it entirely?
Why carry a crutch when you can run better without it?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7055e125264052b
People have decided to focus most of their energy on testing
Einsteins idea that photons travel at c wrt source and observer. Of
course this means that much effort is spent trying to find an
experiment showing c'=c+v. But none have been found and c'=c+k*v tests
continue to reduce the possible values of k.
If you can point me to an experiment more convincing than Alvaeger et
al then please do.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
has a pretty good summary.
I have been through that with a fine tooth comb and there is nothing in
there which I find particularly convincing. The web site is written as
if the choice was between old fashioned aether theory (pre MMX) and SR.
As pre MMX aether theory is dead in the water it is not surprising SR
comes out top. See my detailed analysis.
2
Particularly note that it says:
"In SR there is a non-zero Doppler effect for transverse motion,
due to the relative time dilation of the source as seen by the detector.
Measurements of Doppler shifts for sources moving with velocities
approaching c can test the validity of SR's prediction for such
observations, which differs significantly from classical predictions;
the experiments support SR and are in complete disagreement with
non-relativistic predictions".
This is bollocks. In my reply I show that if light is ballistic (c
relative to the source) it produces EXACTLY the same prediction of
transverse Doppler shift as SR.
Not exactly. SR has some higher order effects that Newtonian physics do not
include.
However, since the normally quoted transverse doppler shift equation just
shows the RELATIVE motion of the sorce wrt the observer, it is not
surprising that the results would be similar to those seen in Newtonian
physics (absent the fact that newtonian physics does NOT allow using time
as a 'dimension', it assuming time is univerally absolute).
Whereas in SR it is caused by a
relativistic effect, Time Dilation the non-relativistic prediction is
simply a Newtonian velocity triangle. I am neither a physicist nor a
mathematician. So
1/ Am a a genius?
Maybe[I have no idea of your IQ]. Even genius can be wrong, however.
or
2/ Did no one bother to check?.
In your dreams. Einstein's work has been checked almost as much as the work
of Newton.
or
3/ Did someone check and decide that they were happy to give the false
impression that the evidence for relativity is stronger than it actually
is?
4/ Those at least as intellegent as you or I have checked and double
checked and tripple checked. They have checked things we have not even
imagined. They have decided, much to their disappointment, that they can
find no flaws.
Did you consider the possiblity that YOU have made a mistake?
I assume that I am not a genius. I might add that I did the maths
confident that it would give the same result as SR. In my admittedly
limited experience it always does. Relativists assume that if SR gives
the right answer that rules out the ballistic option and that there is
therefore overwhelming evidence in favour of SR.
As to why two apparently different theories give the same result I
suggest the following.
Let me define an experiment.
A B
two inertial points in space A and B whether they are moving or not does
not effect the argument. Light is travelling between the
two. I further specify that the speed of light is always c relative to
A. Is this describing SR or Ballistic theory? It could be either because
I have not specified which direction the light is travelling in.
I will even accept that light is always c relative to A AND to B regardless
of their velocities.
A B
D
The light moves at c wrt A, B and D HOWEVER from D's viewpoint A and B
could be approaching (or receeding from) each other at relative velocities
greater than c.
D will still know that as far as A and B can tell, the light is moving at C
AND from A's viewpoint, B will be at a relative velocity of less than c,
and vice versa.
Now if light is travelling from B to A then what is being illustrated is
relativity in that the speed of light is c relative to the observer and
is not effected by the source.
If OTOH light is travelling from A to B then what is being illustrated
is ballistic theory, light being c relative to the source not the
observer.
Here we disagree in both cases you have lights velocity being different
from c wrt an observer either at A or at B, and that means that your first
example is NOT relativity!
Relativity says that A (a distant observer) always measures light from B as
moving at c regardless of the velocity of the B WRT A.
Under relativity it is also true that an observer at B will always measure
the velocity of light emitted at B as moving at C. Of course, to the
observer at B, the source at B will always be moving at zero velocity WRT
B, so this is no problem.
You can convert either to the other by reversing the direction of time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
Feynman diagrams do exactly this. The only problem (from the perspective of
your arguments) is that they (feynman's diagrams) require that the speed be
c wrt to A, no matter whether A is absorbing or emitting the photon,
irrespective of the velocity of A [as long as A is moving at less than c].
and as the maths does not care which direction time is going, the maths
for both scenarios is the same.
You argue very persuasively for Einstein's view, you just need to recognize
that absorbtion is just like emission and the SAME arguments must apply at
that end of the trajectory. The photon must be moving at c wrt the absorber
(or in inverted time, the emitter), no matter what the velocity at the
other end.
Take a more complex scenario
A X
B->v
Relativity - light leaves the source at different speeds relative to the
source in the different FoR of A and B arriving at A at c relative to A
and arriving at B at c relative to B.
NO NO NO. In relativity, light NEVER leaves the source at different speeds
relative to the source FoR and it never arrives at the destination at a
speed different from c in the destinations FoR. This makes absorbtion and
emission symetrical in Feynman diagrams. ANYTHING else would break the
symetry.
It leaves X at different times
such that travelling away from X at different speeds it reaches A and B
as they are collocated.
Now reverse time run it backwards and provide a Ballistic description.
A X
v<-B
Light emitted by A at c relative to A and by B at c relative to B as
they are collocated arrives at X at different times arriving at
different speeds relative to X.
You forget that A and B measure time differently since they are in motion
wrt each other. It is this that ensures that they both clock the passing
photons as moving at exactly c.
That is where you went wrong in your Newtonian calculations. Newtononian
clocks all read the universal absolute time.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node75.html
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node74.html
If newton were correct, there would be no sagonac effect. Laser gyros would
not work.
However Newton DID know that light took time to travel from the sun to the
earth. http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html
So there is really not much excuse for his belief in absolute time.
Write the equations and they are identical.
Better show your work here.
Once you fail to insist on.....
the physical reality of the physical world i.e. to think in terms of
physical processes you have no idea of the direction of time in the
maths.
-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-
--.- .-. --.. ..--.. --.- .-. .- ..--..
-. --- - .- -.-. - .. ...- . ..-. --- .-. -.. . -.-. .- -.. . ...
-. . .. - .... . .-. .-- .- ... .. ..- - .. .-.. .-. . -.-. . -. -
..-.. -.--
... ... - .. .-.. .... .- -.. .- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. ... .. --. -.
-.. . -. ..... -... --.. -.-
I am not sure EITHER of us understands what is meant by 'speed of
interaction'.
Perhaps some analogy with resonance but not exact. In the same way an
electrical signal of the natural frequency will pass through a tuned
circuit. Or a bolt of the right thread will pass through a nut.
??? further elucidation, please.
The idea is a modification to theory in response to experiment -
something you accept is sometimes necessary. The speed of light from a
source is c relative to the source as a whole not c relative to the
atoms which produce the photons. Thermal agitation would give noticeable
effects.
Thermal agitation DOES give noticable effects. Doppler broadening of the
emission lines. There should ALSO be broadening in arrival times due to
velocity broadening IF Ritz was correct. There isn't. He wasn't.
How big does 'the whole' have to be? A mote of dust, a planet, a solar
system, a galaxy, a local cluster, a galaxy or a universe?
Therefore there must be a near field effect as the photon
leaves the surface which gives the photon its final speed relative to
the average field. In other words 'normalisation' takes place even
before the photons leave the source.
Mechanism for such effect? Math to describe the mechanism?
....
If these photons were to pass through a transparent window they
would both emerge as identical photons both travelling at c relative
to the window both now rotating at red rate. They both have the same
energy as they had when they went in but the photon from the moving
source has increased its forward speed at the expense of its
rotational speed in the process I have described as speed
normalisation.
In physics, most phenomina have inverse phenomina that can be
observed.
A prism spits white light into colors.
A prism will combine colored light beams into a white light beam.
If in your FoR you could make a window travel at v in the opposite
direction to that which the light is travelling then the light leaving
it would be c relative to the window or c-v relative to you in your
FoR. The reverse effect.
That is NOT the reverse effect, but it would be a test(for a reflected
beam) of c'=c-v.
These are also tests:
Make an ultracentrifuge disk out of fused silica and spin it at a very
high velocity.
Or look at the surface velocity of a transparent solid that has a
gigahertz sound wave traveling through it.
Or look at a laser beam that bounces multiple times between two parallel
mirrors, one of which is moving at a high velocity.
But the phenomina you proposed is that c-v (wrt the observer) photons
enter one side and leave the other side a c(wrt the observer, at c+v wrt
the source![and there is the problem!!]).
I see no problem. Explain!
We lack a mechanism for getting energy from nothing. It must come from
somewhere. The above example requires speeding up a photon(which takes
energy) but fails to provide a source of energy for such acceleration.
If you think it will work, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
This similar to the problem of 'unifying speeds' from orbiting stars. I can
see how c+v photons can get 'tired' and slow down to c. I can not see how
c-v photons can get 'energized' and speed up to c.
In any case, they should arrive from different directions as they take
different travel times and [at least some of the sources] are moving with
significant proper motions wrt the earth. Aberation should also be
different from what is observed.
The reverse would require photons to arrive AT c wrt the window and
LEAVE at a slower speed and a higher frequency wrt the source.
No. Once photons have left the source the source plays no further part.
Feynman diagrams are reversable.
How can it? They travel at c relative to the source only so long as they
don't encounter anything which will tend to normalise their speed to a
local reference. If they reach a window at c relative to the window they
are already normalised to the local reference so no change occurs.
Most processes have a reverse process, as I said.
My source does not have magical powers to influence the speed of its
photons at distance.
But your 'local reference' does. It has enough effect to slow down fast
photons, speed up slow ones AND NOT blur the image of the emitter. Pretty
amazing.
Unlike SR where the observer has magical powers to
influence the speed at which light leaves the source - that influence
being not only over considerable distance but back through time "[and
there is the problem!!]".
On the contrary. There is not problem as long as emission and absorption
always takes place at 'local c'[c with respect to the emitter or absorber].
If passing through glass would allow transfering rotational energy
into translational energy in the case of 'slow light', a way of
'stealing' translational energy and increasing rotational energy would
also exist and we could produce high frequency 'slow photons' at will.
I doubt that either phenomina exist but it was a good try.
Thank you. As I am not a physicist I do not expect to come up with
anything better than a 'good try'. My hope is that someone might try
some maths and work out what energy could be transferred by rotating
charges travelling at c.
I am sure many have done so already. Learn some math and do it yourself.
I would assume that someone would have checked whether transverse
Doppler did indeed show time dilation or whether there was a very much
simpler explanation. Apparently not.
You are incorrect. If Ritz were correct there would be no Sagnac effect.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm
Of course, Sagnac thought his data supported an aether, in addition to
ruling out c=c+v.
Do you accept my point that there must be a link between charge and
photons because of the success of Maxwell's equations?
Unfortunately maxwells equations do not address photons.
Why not answer the question rather than side stepping it.
Maxwell's equations can hardly point to a link between charge and photons
because they don't address photons.
"Unfortunately Maxwell's equations do not address photons" is a very
good reason why they should not be elevated to the position of 'absolute
truth' or 'a mathematical description of nature' - as seems necessary to
defend relativity.
Are they anything more than a useful engineering tool? The point is they
describe charge in one form or another and they model light very well.
Light and EM radiation at all frequencies.
Light is also made up of photons. Therefore there must be a link between
photons and charge otherwise its a hell of a coincidence that Maxwell's
equations - based on relationships relating to charge - work as well as
they do.
Perhaps the problem is in thinking of photons as anything other than a way
of describing BOTH the wave and particle natures of EM radiation.
Maxwell only describes the wave / field portion of that nature. It does not
address the 'particle like' nature so it is incomplete.
One of my criticisms of physics is that despite the fact that I can
sit and watch my multi channel, digital, interactive colour TV,
physicists have no better idea now than they had a century ago as to
what it is which travels from the transmitter to my aerial.
Then do the work. Learn the basics and work at adding to the knowledge.
It does not seemed to
have advanced as quickly as other sciences - perhaps something is
holding it back.
Perhaps your perception is wrong. When we look at how long it took to
move from the first cave man harnessing fire to a good understanding of
the chemistry of fire, perhaps you should not be so hard on those who
work in physics.
Not a realistic comparison. The last 100 years is like no other century
in history.
It only took 65 years between the first flight of an aircraft and
landing on the moon.
If 'something is holding us back', then perhaps it is a good thing.
Machines need some kind of governor to prevent self destructing.
But I don't think anything, aside from human nature, is holding us back.
And it is NOT Einstinia holding us back (nor is it the anti Einstinian
fringe), it is the fact that nature is more complex than we have been able
to imagine.
The average mobile phone now has more computing power than on board
computer of the Apollo space craft and must be edging towards matching
that in mission control itself - They were still working things out with
slide rules for the moon missions.
The time between discovering the double helix and working out the gene
sequence was a couple of decades.
The whole science of plate tectonics developed since the 60s.
You echo my points.
Photons were discovered 100 years ago and we have no clearer idea as to
how they relate to charge, how they relate to Maxwell's equations, how
they cause interference effects. How they come to have properties which
give frequency and wavelength.
Perhaps these problems are NOT as simple as you think they are.
I have suggested a model for a photon.
To make it a serious model, you need to support it with math AND show it to
be as good, or better, than the models currently 'accepted'.
At least as good or BETTER.
I
don't claim it is right but where is the 'official' one. All you can
come up with is "I'm sure someone has thought of your idea and rejected
it for good reason".
Perhaps it backed the wrong horse a century ago.
As I said, the race gets run every day. The horse has to keep winning to
be backed.
Dream on.
Science does not work the way you imagine it does.
Science does not work the way you imagine it does. There are too many
egos at stake.
That is exactly why if there were an easy way to show SR and GR wrong, I
think it would have been done no matter how many 'big guns' were 'opposed
to it'.
This is similar in some ways to extinction except that it no longer
requires that a photon collide with an atom and be re-emitted. It
only has to come sufficiently near to matter to be effected by its
em field to have some effect.
But, if these photons were to be reflected from the surface of a
diffraction grating, they would be diffracted at different angles
because the angle is ONLY dependent upon the wavelength,
NOT the velocity, whereas
if they passed THROUGH the grating, they would experience a DIFFERENT
angle of refraction because their frequency and wavelength would have
been 'transformed'.
Having established that light is not really waves can you explain how
a diffraction grating works anyway?
I could show you how it works using a wave tank.
No point. Light isn't waves. It has no aether to be waves in or so I am
told. Show me how a diffraction grating works using a wave tank with no
liquid in it.
Photons ARE wave and particle like.
Sorry, but you make a mistake when you try to ignore the wavelike nature of
light. There are experiments where the results can ONLY be explained by
looking at the wave nature of light[or equations that include those
properties]. Gratings are part of that set. Gratings don't work with point
particles.
Where would you get photons who's
speed has not already been normalised?
You would have to make them. Perhaps by spinning a light source at a
very high rpm.
One of the problems is that a moving source will be Doppler shifted.
Doppler shifting does NOT change the time of flight. Use a time of flight
detection system. So the doppler shift is unimportant for this experiment.
You
cannot use any experiment using fringe shift as a means of detection
because fringes would be constantly moving.
I never wanted to use fringe shift. Time of flight is what I want to use.
The math show that it could be done, using state of the art
equipment. It would NOT be cheap, however.
You would then have to contend with the One way light speed vs Two way
light speed arguments.
I have never understood that argument anyway.
I am with you on that point. I am satisfied with 'one way' measurements
that take care to minimize inaccuracies due the clock signal propagation.
Besides, you can always move the 'far end' detector until it is right next
to the near end detector and look at the time of flight vs distance for all
those points in between. Your cable lengths will not change as you move the
detector, NOR will the delay due to the cable length. [that can be checked
by having an oscillator sending signals down the same cable continuously
from the detector end]
If you are looking for an
aether then that may be detected by one way light speed. I'm not. The
one way light speed would be the same over a fixed distance whether the
speed of light is constant w.r.t the destination as per relativity or
w.r.t the source as per Ballistic theory.
Then put a laser diode at the center of an ultra centrifuge. Use fiber
optics to run the output to the edge of the rotator and point the beam at a
pair of detectors. One close by and one several km distant (or bounce off a
distant mirror. Use an evacuated tunnel. See how long it takes for the
photons to travel down the tunnel and back(or just down the tunnel to that
moveable detector). Rotate your rotor in opposite directions and at
different speeds.
If the photons are c'=c+v, the travel times will vary with rotor speed (and
direction).
Pulse modulate your laser to improve s/n ratio and to make sure that the
detectors are really detecting the photons from the laser.
Make sure that your first 'beam splitter' is a screen with lots of holes in
it so that no one can say that the photons were forced to shift velocity at
that point. (later, substitute a half silvered mirror, just to see if there
is an extinction effect in passing through the glass[assuming you actually
find c'=c+v photons]).
It can be done and would show the maximum possible k for c'=c+kv.
....
Even without my photon model one only has to assume that the energy
of a photon is a combination of frequency and forward speed to
realise that a photon can speed up provided its total energy is
retained.
That remains to be seen. Maxwell's equations only allow one speed in a
vacuum.
The reason Maxwell's equations are given such status is because they
are an essential part in the rhetoric used to try and make out that
the decision to go the Lorentz/Einstein route makes sense.
Have your read the model that Maxwell had in mind when he developed his
equations? It was wrong. But the equations don't care about his
motivation.
Likewise they don't care about our model.
By deciding there is no aether physics has decided that the only
physical model of light - one capable of transporting energy is the
photon model.
"Unfortunately Maxwell's equations do not address photons."
The photon model is not just a particle, it is a wavicle. Maxwells
equations describe part of its behaviour.
Having decided
that the aether is a bad idea one is forced to promote Maxwell's
equations as being some sort of 'absolute truth' which transcends the
idea of waves in aether and are universally true despite the fact that
they were based on relationships worked out by Faraday involving no
extreme circumstances - speed for example.
This is silly. Maxwell cannot be a mathematical model of nature.
It can if it predicts what we observe and what we observe complies with
the equations.
As Beckman and Mandics so aptly put it. "Albert Einstein was one of the
few people who realised explicitly that his theory rests on the
*assumption* that our present Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamic theory,
experimentally verified only for low velocities of charged matter will
also hold for velocities commensurate with the velocity of light"
Maxwell's equations were formulated on relationships produced by Faraday
who's experiments did not involve anything moving faster than say 20mph.
and "Unfortunately Maxwell's equations do not address photons."
I agree. So we have three choices:
1) throw out all partial theories. Insist we will do nothing until the
theory is pefect.
2) use what we can and try to improve our theories.
3) insist on using old, outdated theories and that anyone who does
otherwise is part of a vast conspiracy.
If
there is no aether Maxwell's waves cannot be physical waves and cannot
be responsible for the physical transfer of energy. Maxwell's theory
failed anyway with the ultra violet catastrophe i.e. it doesn't
explain the particulate nature of light.
That is right. It doesn't.
Maxwell's equations should now be
considered as a mere predictive model useful to engineers and an
indication of the link between charge and photons.
What makes you think that they have more weight than that?
History shows that 3 axioms of physics were thrown overboard on the
assumption of the absolute truth of Maxwell's equations.
They were thown overboard on the FACT that all DATA agreed with
formulations of physics BASED upon the assumption of Maxwell's equations.
Absent the agreement between the data and the formulations of physics,
there would have been no 'overthrow'.
Come up with a set of equations that reduce to Maxwells in one extreme
and to photons (and all their properties) in the other and you will
displace Maxwell (and earn a Nobel).
FAIL and you are just wasting everyone's time unless you make a
significate step in the direction of such equations.
I would start by chucking out the absurd assumption that the speed at
which photons leave the source is in some mystical way determined by an
observer who at some future date may observe them
Since you are basing your arguments on assuming 'light leaves the source at
speeds different than c wrt the source' is part of Einsteins theory, you
are destined to fail because there is no such assumption being made.
, which is after all an
assumption which has persisted despite general rejection of the reason
for that assumption - namely that the speed of light is controlled by
the aether so not effected by the speed of the source.
If you assume an aether, there should be some effects which are absent.
Therefore the aether you are assuming is NOT the aether of pre 1905. Nor
can it be the aether of pre 1923. You must formulate some NEW kind of
aether that shows zero MMX AND forces all measurments of the speed of
photons to yield c.
In other words, you must formulate the same equations that have been
formulated and are being used in SR and GR.
Having got rid of that historical bias and returned to an insistence on
the physical reality of the physical world I would assume that the
undoubted success of Maxwell's equations indicates a link between
photons and charge and come up with a model of a photon - as I have
done. I would then look for a match between the field produced by
rotating charges
Try spinning a magnet (without an accompanying electric field) and see how
well it radiates.
Try spinning an electric dipole(without an accompanying magnetic field) and
see how well it radiates.
to see how that relates to Maxwell's undulating field
equations. It could be that Maxwell's equations are simply a two
dimensional projection of a rotating field.
I think you need to look at his equations more carefully.
The alternative is to accept that photons are mystical. Label them
'quantum particles' which bars anyone form asking sensible questions
about say their relation with charge and add to the mysticism with
statements such as
"Photons to not "travel" in any normal sense of the word, because they
are QUANTUM PARTICLES and not the "tiny bullets" of a simplistic
extrapolation of our everyday experience.
Rather than saying they "travel in straight lines", it is perhaps less
violence to the language to say "they travel in all possible directions
at all possible speeds, and interfere in important ways with themselves
and each other". But even that is overly simplistic." Tom Roberts.
We should concentrate
on the theory which does explain how energy gets from A to B.
The other essential part of the rhetoric is of course to avoid like
the plague mentioning Ritz or ever suggesting to a student that there
was an alternative, otherwise you have to explain why that much
simpler explanation was rejected and you really would be in trouble
:o)
All the science courses I have taken teach about the failed theories as
well as the currently accepted ones. The failed theories help in
understanding the accepted ones AND in understanding how science works.
Find me a text book which mentions Ritz. Failed theories are included
for the reason you state but Ritz's theory never failed. It was rejected
because of historical bias and because Ritz died in 1909.
If Ritz had survived until Sagnac's experiment, that experiment would have
killed him.
What should
have happened is that both Ritz and SR should have been accepted and
their supporters should have continued to slog it out for several
decades. The result would have been better science whatever the outcome.
You assume that they didn't slug it out until the match was decided.
Which would you chose:
Ritz died and Einstein didn't.
People had believed in the aether for so long it was part of the mind
set that light was source independent. Anything else was unthinkable.
Science doesn't work that way. The public's view of science might. But
it is wrong.
They didn't really want to have anything to do with the idea of light
being particles because they had rejected that more than two centuries
earlier so they didn't allow the discovery of photons to influence
them.
I would prefer to do away with such fairy tales and to have the public
UNDERSTAND how science works.
Explain then. You keep dodging the issues.
If there is no aether and light is particulate why was it reasonable for
Einstein to assume source independence?
First, he assumes that emission is at c wrt an observer riding with the
source. He ALSO assumes it is c wrt any other observer moving at any other
velocity wrt the source.
Second, he shows that these assumptions, along with the assumption that the
laws of physics[including maxwells equations and newtons laws] (as measured
by any observer at any constant velocity) will be the same, lead to a set
of equations that are 'interesting'.
Later, others found data was in accord with the equations he found.
It was not at all 'reasonable' for him to make the assumptions he made. It
was 'brilliant' because it was not reasonable except in hindsight.
Show he is wrong and you too will be considered brilliant, but you must
predict somewhere that his equations will give the wrong result and yours
give the correct one AND find examples of that phenomina.
.....
Physicists are ALWAYS looking for ways to tear DOWN the current
theories and build a better theory upon its ruins.
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way
by gradually winning over and converting its opponents�
What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out,
and that the growing generation is familiarized with the
ideas from the beginning." - Max Planck
The first phrase is important. Important innovations rarely GRADUALLY
win over and convert opponents. IMPORTANT innovations rapidly win over
the open minded (those working on the forefronts of science).
You really believe that don't you!
Of course. I have watched scientists working for many years now. Even
helped in small ways at times.
I have watched 'bad science'(poor thinking, lazy researchers, etc) and seen
'good science'(critical thinking) push it out.
In practice you only throw away an established theory after all
attempts to come up with a 'fix' have failed and even then you can
only throw away a theory if there is an alternative theory to change
to.
True. And that is the way it should work.
If a seriously wrong theory was accepted then the longer it has been
established the more extreme will be what is acceptable in terms of a
fix rather than accept it is seriously wrong.
That is just flat wrong. The terracentric belief system did not require a
more extreme system to supplant it, it just required a better system.
Continental drift did not require a more extreme remedy, nor was lack
therof the cause of its slow acceptance.
One could look upon Lorentz in that way. The wave aether theory, given a
massive boost by Maxwell could not be abandoned just because an
experiment failed to detect the aether and light was found to be made of
corpuscles (oops sorry photons). Thus he comes up with a fix which in
essence says that the aether has just the right properties such that it
conspires to hide itself from us, so instead of scrapping a seriously
flawed theory it is patched up and physics divides in two with one
branch following the traditional Wave-aether - Maxwells-aether -
Lorentz's-aether -Einsteins mobile aether - lets stick with Einstein but
pretend there is no aether - route.
While another branch of physics ignores Maxwell and produces its own
mysticism based on photons. Now a third branch is trying to unify the
two with string theory and according to Hawking have a chance of
succeeding provided we assume the universe has 10 or possibly 26
dimensions and then only if the infinities cancel. That is one of a hell
of an extreme fix.
Unfortunately reality does not take a pole to see which theories it should
support. We have to find theories that match with it, not the other way
around.
Nowhere, in the guide book that we are given when we are born, does it say:
all laws will be simple and easy to discover.
I am sorry. But Sr. Wm of Ockham just gives us a rule to help us figure out
which formulations to test first. He did NOT say that the final result must
be the simplest that we can think of.
According
to Dr Scott Murray some theories in physics have been retained despite
having been disproved on the grounds that a disproved theory is better
than no theory at all.
I would like to see which disproven theories have been retained.
I can email you his series of articles if you wish. It might give you a
more balanced perspective.
The e-mail address at the bottom of this post will work, once you remove
the 'ch100-5.' from it.
If the only alternative theory was one which had
been rejected a century ago the reluctance to consider it is
overwhelming.
Not when the evidence for it is overwhelming.
Newton suggested light was made of particles. It is found that it is.
But not the kind of particle that Newton was familiar with.
He would not understand a particle that was 80 meters in size.
That effects the thinking which lead to SR not one jot.
[snip]
....
is that if a photon is emitted by a process which
is at least partially understood that its speed must naturally be
the result of that process. If one further assumes that nothing
physical exists around the source (no aether) which can take part in
a physical process then there can be no other physical process other
than that taking place at the source. i.e. source dependency.
Word soup.
No. Absolutely not.
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."
Dr Scott Murray
I insist on the physical reality of the physical world. If a photon is
ejected from a source it is because of some physical process. If it
appears to be ejected at c relative to that source, which it does, I
say it is because the source ejects it at c i.e. that c is the natural
result of the physical process. If you are saying something different
then it is down to you to suggest what other physical process is
responsible for making things the way you say they are.
You are saying 'physical process' like it was a magic talisman. It
isn't.
No I have a clear idea of what I mean by physical process. Things don't
happen because of equations.
If you can't describe it with math, it is because it is not reproduceable
or is poorly understood.
They happen because some physical process
takes place which the equations model. We might not understand that
physical process but there must be one unless we are living in virtual
reality rather than a physical universe.
Magic is where you say that there is a source an observer and nothing in
between and yet the speed at which light leaves the source is determined
by the observer no matter how far he is from the source and no matter
how far in the future the light reaches him. Magic.
Since I don't believe that the speed at which it leaves the source (as
measured in the sources frame) is ever different from c then I must not
believe in the magic you describe.
I also don't believe that the photon can be measured by any observer
(including one co-moving with the source) as moving at any velocity (in
vacuum) other than c, no matter what the velocity of the source.
Equations can describe physical processes, they can equally model magic.
The equations of magic require
that 1 = anyvalue
Not a valid equation.
Modern physics does not make a distinction.
The idea of source independence came from the assumption of a physical
process, namely that light is a wave, an electrical stress,
propagating through the aether and classically the speed of
propagation of such a stress is solely dependent on the propagating
medium. Now no one believes in the propagating medium, light is made
up of particles so why should anyone continue to believe in this relic
of discredited theory? Quite simply if there is no aether then a
source is surrounded by nothing which can take part in a physical
process. The only process is therefore that taking part in the source.
Why should the speed at which photons leave the source not be effected
by the source when there is absolutely nothing else which can
physically effect them?
"A fool can ask more questions than 10 wise men can answer". Not that I
intend to imply that you are a fool. I ask the same question myself. But
no one knows the answers.
OK we are perhaps getting somewhere. If no one knows any reason why the
speed at which photons leave the source is not effected by the source
then why do you thing it was perfectly reasonable for Einstein to
*assume* that they aren't? I would assume that they were until such time
as it was shown to be otherwise.
Perhaps, if you study physics and math so you can do
it yourself, you can answer some of the questions.
But you make a mistake if you expect others to chew your food for you
and get angry at them for not chewing the food like you would like to
have it chewed.
If you think that is word soup you have been brainwashed.
Name a living human that hasn't been brainwashed from birth.
I had a very good education in that I studied Electronics at a time when
things were changing rapidly and those lecturing me hadn't got to grips
with the new stuff (transistors). I learned very little useful
electronics but I did learn not to take as correct *anything* I was told
by those paid to tell me. I suggest that every scientific university
course should include a few lectures where the lecturer talks absolute
bollocks to ensure students actually think for themselves.
And what makes you think they don't?
The students put on seminars and their fellow students and the professors
critque them.
OTOH In physics how would anyone tell :o)
Not by watching spr.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Prev by Date: Re: THE GUILTY CONSCIENCE OF RUDOLF CLAUSIUS
- Next by Date: Re: LIGO.
- Previous by thread: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Next by thread: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
