Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity

PD wrote:
On Oct 18, 3:02 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PD wrote:
>On Oct 17, 4:18 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:

>> 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.

>No, this is incorrect. An interference pattern does not demand a
>continuous intensity distribution.

How do you define 'interference pattern' other than a pattern which
results from the process of interference. The process of interference
requires that two things 'interfere' i.e. two things partially
cancel/reinforce each other. What is produced in this instance may mimic
interference but it is not the result of interference.  What it is in
this case is directional modulation not interference.

Sorry, no. An interference pattern is an observational phenomenon. It
is a series of maxima and minima. It *suggests* the presence of things
interfering, because the same pattern is found in other cases where
there is something clearly interfering, but you do NOT need to
establish the existence of things interfering to call the
observational phenomenon an interference pattern.

In this case one has established the *absence* of things interfering.
It may look like an interference pattern it may statistically conform to what an interference pattern *would* be *if* waves were interfering with each other - but they are not. A photocopy of a banknote looks like a banknote but would you accept that it is? A banknote is only a banknote if it has been produced by the correct procedure. An interference pattern is only an interference pattern if it is caused by two things *interfering* with each other.

In the case of particles fired one at a time through a grating or a
dual-slit screen, what is observed on the other side is clearly an
interference pattern, regardless whether you can lay your fingers on
the things that are interfering. The presence of this pattern then
*leads* you to surmise that there are things interfering.

But you know they are not. Whole photons arrive at the detector.


>I don't know where you would have
>ever gotten this idea. Yes, the interference pattern is "lumpy" at the
>level of individual photon energy deposits. This indicates that the
>particle nature of light is indispensable.

Light is made of particles.

No, I disagree. Light exhibits particle properties. This does not
allow you to conclude that light is made of particles.

> However, the fact that
>there is an interference pattern *at all* when the photons are emitted
>one at a time is also remarkable.

Agreed.

> This indicates that the wave nature
>of light is indispensable.

Not at all. The physical process called interference requires that two
things interfere (partially cancel or reinforce each other). This isn't
happening. What you have is the directional probability being described
by a wave function. If I am travelling along an undulating track
shooting a machine gun at a wall the position traced by the bullets will
form a wave. That doesn't mean the bullets must be considered as waves.
It is the process determining the direction they travel which causes the
wave phenomena.

The question is 'when a photon goes through a slit what determines the
direction it will take and how does the presence of the other slit
change that'.

Add to that another very important question:
'if a single photon's direction is modulated in such a way as to produce
a facsimile of an interference pattern how is it that on mass photons do
not produce a pattern if they are not coherent?'. Clearly there is a
process which can be disrupted.

>This is precisely the lesson afforded by
>this real experiment -- that light exhibits *both* the qualities of
>categories that up until 75 years ago, we thought were mutually
>exclusive. This mutual exclusivity, it appears, was the result of
>*our* categorizing phenomena known up to that point into distinct and
>nonoverlapping camps, from which we concluded that things could be
>waves or particles but not both. Then light revealed itself to be
>something unlike anything else we had seen before and resisted this
>categorization. It takes a stubborn mind to refuse to admit that light
>can be something completely unlike what we had encountered up until
>that point and to insist that it MUST fit into one category or the
>other.

Many months ago Tom Roberts informed me that photons were point
particles with no internal structure.

Actually, we don't firmly know that either, at least not
experimentally. They may be treated that way in some models -- that
is, the object in the *model* may be treated as a point particle with
no internal structure. I think he'd be the first to agree with that
statement.

"This is not "me", this is the common and well-established meaning of "photon": In the standard model, photons are elementary particles with no internal structure." Tom Roberts - who at the time was claiming that Henri had no right to use the word 'photon' for anything different to what physics had defined it to be - as above.

I have just read that QED says
they are standing spherical waves. That at least is a move in the right
direction - photons must be dynamic to produce wavelike phenomena -
although it does involve reinventing the aether for them to be waves in
(not of course that anyone will call it aether and not of course that
physics ever really got rid of it in the first place).

Waldron suggests that a photon contains opposite charges and that it
rotates. Whatever else Maxwell's equations show, they show there is a
link between charge and light, between charge and photons. Maxwell's
equations relate to relationships which relate to charge and nothing
else.

When such a photon passes through a slit then one variable is the
position of it w.r.t the slit middle, near one side, near the other.
Another is its orientation w.r.t the slit (it has a positive side and a
negative side). We have the field caused by the rotating charge which
can potentially affect both slits. We have the much higher numbers of
photons which do not pass through the slits which may 'prime' the slits
in some way, a process which can be disrupted if photons are randomly
orientated as in non coherent light. It falls way short of an
'explanation' but it shows that there are a number of variables to work
with.

As I say it is impossible to explain the photo electric effect using
waves but no one has proved you cannot explain wavelike phenomena with a
suitable particle model.

And you are welcome to try. Until then, there is nothing intrinsically
wrong with identifying light as something that resists categorization
into *either* a particle or a wave nature but not both.

Physics has accepted that fudge for a century. I repeat it is *impossible* to explain the photo electric effect using waves but no one has proved you cannot explain wavelike phenomena with a suitable particle model. After all the picture on your screen is made up of pixels. I suspect attempts are hampered by the acceptance and entrenchment of a theory which says the speed of light particles cannot be the result of the physical process generating them because Maxwell's wave model said that the speed of light is controlled by the aether and cannot be affected by the speed of the source.

Its your life to waste anyway you please but if I were you I would examine what it is all built upon. - if you assume that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable the MMX shows every observer is stationary w.r.t aether = 2nd postulate which describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience.

Maxwell's wave in aether theory is not impeccable - light is particulate - and you don't believe in the aether anyway so why do you think Einstein/Lorentz's interpretation of the MMX is a valid basis on which to build a century of physics?

As a relativist you must believe in "Garbage in" "Gold dust out".

--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To AC -- on electrons
    ... First, if a wave needs a medium in which to travel, how do photons ... interference pattern. ... The Copenhagen interpretation says that until the particle is detected ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Wave Properties of Buckyballs from Experiment
    ... The quantum nature of a bowling ball, unfortunately, is not manifest since its equivalent quantum wavelength is so tiny that interference effects cannot be detected in a practical experiment. ... However, the wave properties of some composite entities, such as atoms and even small molecules, have previously been demonstrated. ... One of the more fascinating predictions made regarding quantum entanglement was the suggestion that the de Broglie wavelength for an ensemble consisting of N entangled photons would be L/N. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Light in Phase and then Out of Phase.....
    ... various energy levels wavelengths attained by photons ... wave to valley. ... interference pattern will be on the scale of the wavelength. ... What is entanglement for photons, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Has FTL communication really never been tested in this way?
    ... photons cannot cause their interference pattern on ... interference pattern on the screen because left and right linearly ... If you chose to measure circular polarization on the idler photon ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Wave as wave, particle as particle
    ... >>>counted and assumed to equal the number of photons. ... >>>experiments that intend to measure interference effects, ... This will indeed be the hit rate as seen on ... interference is a wave phenomenon. ...
    (sci.physics)