Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity

doug wrote:


John Kennaugh wrote:

doug wrote:



John Kennaugh wrote:

doug wrote:



John Kennaugh wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Oct 10, 4:49 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

Henri doesn't believe that the angle of incidence is equal to the
angle of reflection?


Why should he?
Hint - The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist.


There is no aether required. Why do you think this?

I don't. Why should none existent waves require aether?
By the time Einstein came on the scene the MMX was not the only failure of Maxwell's theory.
A second failure came in the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' where Maxwell's electrodynamics did not accurately predict black body radiation.
Planck found the reason - light is generated in quantized lumps.
Finally the photoelectric effect shows that light arrives at its destination in the same quantized lumps it is generated in and anyone other than a relativist would conclude that promising as Maxwell's theory was, the waves of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist.


And anyone who looked at a diffreaction pattern or used an antenna
would immediately conclude that the particles did not exist. So
what?
Only an idiot would conclude that. The photoelectric effect *cannot* be explained in terms of continuous fields of Maxwell's waves.

You are clearly in the idiot category. It is clear that diffraction
cannot be explained by particles. Thus you particle theory is wrong.
You want to selectively pick one experiment to believe supports you
and ignore the one that does not.

The photoelectric effect *cannot* be explained by continuous wave theory because continuous wave theory says that the energy spreads out evenly. If it spreads out evenly then there is no possibility of it arriving at a point with sufficient energy to knock an electron out of an atom. Wave theory fails. Now Take an experiment which you would claim shows it cannot be particles. The double slit experiment.

If the light level is reduced such that photons arrive singly at a double slit, interference fringes are detected, it is claimed that 'interference' still takes place. I beg to differ. Not as I understand
interference at any rate. If two sine waves each amplitude unity are
interfering with each other then depending on the phase, the result is
anything from an amplitude of 2 to 0 and *any amplitude in between* e.g.
an amplitude of say 0.333 is perfectly possible.

In the case of photons you cannot have 0.333 of a photon. Although the
result might be mathematically similar to interference, either a
whole photon arrives at a point on the detector, or doesn't. A maximum
may indeed be a build up of photons each adding to the intensity but a
minimum is not where two things have cancelled, where two things have 'interfered' with each other. Whatever physical process takes place at the slits it somehow determine the direction that a photon will travel, the probability of travelling in some directions is clearly much higher than in others.

Thus a fringe pattern is built up over time. A minimum represents a
direction with a very low probability where very few photons have
arrived. Explaining this behaviour is a difficult matter but at least
let us be clear about what it is we are trying to explain and not go
into fantasy land and suggest that a photon becomes a wave and passes
through both slits and interferes with itself as I have seen suggested.
If it did you could get 0.333 of a photon with the appropriate phase.

This experiment is direct evidence of the futility of trying to maintain the wave particle duality. The waves of Maxwell just do not physically exist. The equations are a statistical description. They do not describe what is happening they merely predict the statistical result.


That is
ruled out so the only option is to try and look at the evidence objectively and try and work out what is the nature of the light particles such that on mass they produce diffraction patterns and excite the electrons in an antenna. It is silly to simply ignore the evidence and run two contradictory belief systems in parallel.

Your comments shows that you understand very little of physics.


The

theory was dead. It is an ex-theory. The theory has ceased to be. As Dr Scott Murray so aptly put it:
"The great Electromagnetic Theory appears as an analogy of Nature, sometimes as a very useful and accurate analogy, sometimes as a definite failure, but at no time does it seem to afford us a sound conceptual model of the working of the real, physical world."
The fact is that Einstein stubbornly refused to accept that, nailed the theory back onto its perch and based SR on the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable and that the MMX had shown that an observer's speed w.r.t the aether is zero.
His second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. 15 years on Einstein was still arguing in favour of the aether and is trying to hint that nature must provide an aether which every observer is naturally stationary w.r.t. His "aether without the immobility of Lorentz's".
Today of course SR is only a mathematical model which has nothing to say on the subject of whether there is or there isn't an aether. Instead of physical waves travelling in a physical aether which happens to be magically always stationary w.r.t the observer, we now have mathematical waves propagating in a mathematical abstraction - which has the same properties as a magical stationary aether. in that in the "observers FoR" light travels every which way at c just as waves would travel every which way at c in an aether stationary w.r.t


There is no aether for them to be waves in. Light does not behave

in accordance with Huygen's wavelets (law of reflection) because it is made up of little particles which obey Newton's laws of motion not waves propagating in a medium.
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj6p.pdf
"7. To treat the Sagnac effect according to the Emission Theory, the Stewart-Thomson law of reflection is required. It states that in the reference frame of the laboratory, light is always reflected
from a moving reflecting surface with the resultant velocity of its relative velocity with respect to the reflecting surface and the velocity of the reflecting surface relative to the laboratory, [Ref. #3]. This important law is a generalization of the Law of Reflection. And it occupies a central position in the treatment of optical phenomena on the basis of the Emission Theory. In its precise mathematical form, the Stewart-Thomson law can be derived and formulated by treating reflection of light as a special case of elastic collision and applying the conservation laws of linear momentum and kinetic energy, for moving bodies, to the incident light and the reflecting surface. significantly simplified by assuming that the ratio between the mass of the incident light and the mass of the reflecting surface is vanishingly small and practically equal to zero. And therefore, the recoil caused by the incident light on the reflecting surface can be neglected without affecting the precision of the quantitative treatment."
This appears to be the approach used by Waldron. Quite simply photons have mass (as calculated from radiation pressure)



Quite simply, photons do not have mass. The experiments have shown
that. A crank like Waldron cannot change the results of the experiments.

He doesn't need to. Numerous people have determined the relationship for light intensity and radiation pressure. Light has momentum and therefore mass.


This is an unsupported assumption.
It is a long established assumption from Newton. It is SR which has to change that assumption, to a different unsupported assumption in order to work, just as it has to invent elastic rulers and flexible clocks with no physical explanation.

Just because you either do not like or understand relativity does
not mean it is not valid. Your assumption is still an assumption.


This is like the coffe ad where
the coffee is "darker and richer". We see the darker part and are
supposed to just accept the richer part.

Maxwell's wave in aether theory is an analogy of nature not

something one should build upon. SR is built on it and sacrifices 3 long established and perfectly sensible axioms of physics to 'rescue' Maxwell's aether and then physics decided it didn't like the aether and rewrote history to try and play down its role. It doesn't work for anyone looking at it objectively but that isn't a problem for relativists is it.

these reflect

elastically off mirrors and if you apply Newton's laws of conservation of energy and momentum, and if you assume m/M = zero i.e. the mass of the photons is negligible compared to the mass of the mirror you can calculate the angles the photons bounce off at.
It is hardly an achievement to disprove a theory you have made up yourself. Anyone who wants to disprove Ballistic theory need to study it first so that he know what it says.



Ballistic theory was disproven long ago. Get over it.

SR is based on a 'dead parrot'. One needs to look for something better. A theory which was dismissed without proper consideration.


Except of course that there have been no experiments that show problems
with relativity over the last century.
There was nothing mathematically wrong with the geocentric theory of the solar system either.

You can beat your head against
the wall and read cranks but relativity is alive and well. Any
competing theory has to give the same predictions in the well studied
areas so must be equivalent to relativity there.
I believe that Ballistic theory does or with a little tweaking could easily be made to and as it would be a much simpler and more intuitive theory it would be 'better' in the same sense as we think of the sun centred theory of the solar system as being the right theory rather than the convoluted geocentric theory. I believe, Lorentz transforms transform a wrongly based theory to give the *same answer* as a developed Ballistic theory would by distorting time and space it is surely better to make bloody sure that a theory which doesn't require such distortions isn't viable. That has not been done. On the contrary it has been simply ignored.

There is a century of experiments that have been successfully
explained by relativity. That very much constrains any alternate
theory and it has to give the same results as relativity in it
field of validity. Thus there is no particular need for a new
theory in that region. Predict something that relativity fails
at.

I repeat that Maxwell's theory is not a sound conceptual basis on which to build theory. It is an analogy, an approximation. You need to find out what it is an approximation *of* and build on that. Einstein and his contemporaries, brought up on Maxwell saw the MMX as showing that an observer is for some reason always stationary w.r.t the aether. That is what the second postulate is describing. Pure and simple.
I know that you would prefer a more sophisticated origin to your belief system like "Einstein was a genius who had an insight into nature beyond that of mere mortals" and presumably condensed the second postulate from the light shining out of his arse but he didn't. He never managed to explain how every observer can be stationary w.r.t the aether.

He explained the experiments. How is not of interest.
In order to accept his theory Physics decided to stop trying to explain anything, stopped trying to understand nature and stopped insisting that things had to make sense - sorry "decided that it was OK for a theory to be counter intuitive". If they hadn't done, then by the standards of the day Einstein hadn't come up with a theory at all, certainly not a different theory to Lorentz's.

Not making sense for you is not a problem of science. It is your
belief system at work.
With that as the daft basis of modern physics it has got to be worth asking "did we miss something?".
It seems that if enough people believe something no matter how daft that they take comfort from each others belief and carry on believing. Why else would the worlds bankers think it was a good idea to lend lots of money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back? I bet the banking industry ignored a few cranks who suggested it was a bad idea when everyone else was happy with it.

There were two competing theories. One said that you could give away
lots of money and the other said maybe you should be careful. It is
clear which one was correct but that will not stop the politicians
from trying it again. That is what happens when you let opinions
try to determine facts. You are having the same problem.

--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Hint - The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist. ... If the light level is reduced such that photons arrive singly at a double slit, interference fringes are detected, it is claimed that 'interference' still takes place. ... Just because you either do not like or understand relativity does ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Hint - The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist. ... from a moving reflecting surface with the resultant velocity of its relative velocity with respect to the reflecting surface and the velocity of the reflecting surface relative to the laboratory, ... the wall and read cranks but relativity is alive and well. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Hint - The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist. ... from a moving reflecting surface with the resultant velocity of its relative velocity with respect to the reflecting surface and the velocity of the reflecting surface relative to the laboratory, ... long established and perfectly sensible axioms of physics to 'rescue' Maxwell's aether and then physics decided it didn't like the aether and rewrote history to try and play down its role. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Hint - The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist. ... from a moving reflecting surface with the resultant velocity of its relative velocity with respect to the reflecting surface and the velocity of the reflecting surface relative to the laboratory, ... long established and perfectly sensible axioms of physics to 'rescue' Maxwell's aether and then physics decided it didn't like the aether and rewrote history to try and play down its role. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Hint - The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist. ... Finally the photoelectric effect shows that light arrives at its destination in the same quantized lumps it is generated in and anyone other than a relativist would conclude that promising as Maxwell's theory was, the waves of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist. ... from a moving reflecting surface with the resultant velocity of its relative velocity with respect to the reflecting surface and the velocity of the reflecting surface relative to the laboratory, ... the wall and read cranks but relativity is alive and well. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast