Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles

"Inertial" <relatively@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
"Inertial" <relatively@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

OK, this might not apply to your model, but I have pictures that
show what the problem is if it does apply.

http://yfrog.com/0xwavecg
http://yfrog.com/10wavedg

So I want to suggest that you talk about maybe "turns". A given
kind> >of light does x turns per meter, and by stating it that way
we> >tend> >to imply that color depends on terms/meter and not
turns/second.> >Lightspeed can vary with the source, and
turns/second> >varies then but> >turns/meter does not. Am I right so
far about what> >you're saying?>
You're getting close.
My definition of wavelength is something like "In the source
frame, a> photon moves a certain distance in one 'cycle' of its
intrinsic> oscillation (whatever that may be)". That distance is
an> >absolute and> invariant spatial interval....just like the
distance> >between the ends> of a rigid rod..

So, with the model that Inertial and I were using, the photon
moves> > forward but doesn't turn. The front of the wave is always
the front> > of the wave, and it is in phase with any other
front-of-waves it> > happens to meet up with. For it to get out of
phase it has to match> > up with something that is not the front of a
wave.>
Yeup

But with your model, the front of the wave changes phase as it
travels. it isn't enough for it to meet another front-of-wave,
they> > have to have both traveled the same distance.

That's what I've been saying .. something must be happening in
Henry's> model to make the phase of the two waves change different
over the> course of transit, even though they travel for the same
time, and are> emitted from the source with the same speed and and
frequency .. its> the same ray been split in two.

Well, in his model they don't have the same speed.

Yes they do, as emitted from the moving source. its only according to
a some differently moving observer that the speeds are different

This is a rotation so it isn't inertial frames.

Henry supposes a form of emission theory where one side moves at c+v and
one at c-v and they keep the speed on reflection, and this time it isn't
just an observer effect.

He postulates that both sides reach the detector at the same time, and
the detector has moved so that d1 and d2 are in the ratio c+v:c-v.

The distance from the short interval on the ring that a photon was
emitted to the short interval on the ring where the light reaches the
detector can be measured by anybody who doesn't suffer length
contraction. If everybody agrees that the light reaches the detector
from both sides at the same time, then there isn't a lot of room for
observer effects here. The distances are different, the times are the
same, so the speeds are different.

They are in phase
when they are emitted,

Yes

but their frequency after they are emitted
doesn't have to be the same

Nothing changes it

If "frequency" is the number of turns per unit time, and they travel
different distances in a unit time, and the number of turns is fixed by
distance, then they have different frequencies.

and isn't when the speed is different.

It's all an artefact of who is measuring it .. there is no change in
the wave itself. its not the case that after emissions one wave
speeds up and the other slows down. It's just a different measurement
due to the movement of the observer relative to the source (and the
rays). There is no change to the rays making their frequency or
wavelength different (depending on whether the ray is a wave or a
moving oscillator), its just how they are measured by a relatively
moving observer.

If a sagnac device tells you that something is rotating, is that just
due to a relatively moving observer?

He
has the "wavelength", the distance it takes for the leading edge to
do a complete turn, be constant independent of speed.

Which is not physically possible. The speed is different depending on
the relative speed of whoever observes it. But the number of turns
taken isn't .. all inertial observers see the same number of turns
happening in the same time (we are talking about a non-relativistic
framework here), but a different speed, so a different wavelength.

He postulates the distance it takes to do a complete turn to be constant
for a given sort of light, independent of speed. That distance may not
be what you mean by wavelength. What you mean by wavelength might not be
constant. If the speed is different between the two sides, then all
nonrelativistic observers who count the number of turns will count the
same numbers. But the two sides will have different numbers of turns in
the same length of time because of the different speeds.

Henry's notion is just totally unphysical.

It may well be. I'm not sure I understand what he's talking about. But I
understand this much, and so far it looks like a possible way for things
to go.

I don't understand interference well enough yet, at a minimum I'll have
to sleep on it. But traditional interference looks like it depends only
on wavelength independent of speed and frequency. If you count the
distance traveled in wavelengths, the distance will vary smoothly from
one end of a slit to the other. If the sides of the slit cancel, the
center is the part that's least likely to spread out anyway.... I
started to say more but it might not make sense to me in the morning. So
better not to write it until morning at the earliest.

So if frequency has
meaning for him it would absorb all the speed change.

I think of wavelength as the distance between wave crests, and that
needn't have anything to do with the distance it takes for the
leading edge to turn.

What wave crests are there? Its a turning object. If you mean the
distance it travels to make one turn, then that depends on the speed.

I repeat, he postulates a system where the distance required to make one
turn is independent of speed.

Wilson has said that in his model the photon has a
definite length, and he appears to picture it like a coil of wire
that turns a definite number of times, it is incompressible and the
length is completely stable.

So what is its wavelength and what is its frequency and what is its
phase. These all need to be defined or we can't talk about what
happens in Sagnac at the detector.

He doesn't need to define all that, but he does need to define how
interference happens in his system. That might involve wavelength and
frequency and phase, or he might have different concepts that work.

But if there was value in a model where the photon
can be stretched or compressed independent of the fixed distance it
takes for the leading edge to turn, that model is available.

Of course, when phase changes at the leading edge like that, what
you> have is a moving intrinsic oscillator, and so wavelength varies
and> frequency is fixed, and you still end up with them in phase.

He's doing something that does not fit your model. I don't know
whether it works, but it isn't what you say.

Then what is it? Is it a wave, is it a moving oscillator (eg a
spinning object) ?

He talks like it's a spinning object but I haven't yet seen how that's
important. Just to imagine it, I try to imagine a series of spinning
objects. Each of them can spin, and each next one can be a little out of
phase with the previous one. The spin that each one has does not have to
match up with the change in spin for successive particles. (Though
Maxwell's equations might say they do have to match up in some
particular way.)

I found that concept alien enough that I simply did not
understand> > what you were saying.
It just did not register. Now the question is whether
that approach can fit together with the other things we think we
know, and what has to be changed to fit your model.

I would like it better if we had a model for travel that did not
fit> > either of my two pictures. In the one case the leading edge
does not> > turn and the Sagnac experiment does not get out of phase.
In the> > other case the leading edge turns but another particle
following in> > the footsteps of the first, or later wraps of the
same photon, would> > give a stationary charge at each spot they
traversed until they were> > gone.

There ought to be a third way.

Or Henry is simply wrong. That's been the concensus for the last
few> years.

He might easily be wrong. But physics has not advanced by depending
on the consensus of people who don't understand what they're
deciding about.

Indeed it doesn't .. but Henry has never presented a consistent
non-contradictory model. And his ballistic analysis of Sagnac is just
plain wrong. Those are facts, not opinions.

Are you sure you understand his model? I'm sure I don't fully understand
it, and I've been giving it the most sympathetic hearing I could manage.
Much harder to understand an idea if you don't give it a sympathetic
hearing. (Of course, even after you do it can still be plain wrong.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speed Of Light Question
    ... |>|>Double or triple critical distance is a dwarf cepheid. ... |>| If you inculdes Ghost's molecular speeds though.... ... | I would prefer to believe that all light from any star experiences ... |>the error bars of the observer, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... you do not accept the correct explanation. ... What you find is that both the wavelength and the frequency, ... observer by one of the known methods. ... how speeds combine. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... What has the distance have to do with it ... wavelength and speed> and frequency wrt the destination .. ... can't>> tell which frame is absolute rest, one frame is as good as ... light in different directions at different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... >they>> have to have both traveled the same distance. ... Each different inertial observer will measure a different speed for the same ray. ... so the speeds are different. ... > has the "wavelength", the distance it takes for the leading edge to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... Traditionally people thought of frequency and wavelength and ... waves, isn't it? ... photon moves a certain distance in one 'cycle' of its intrinsic ... opposite directions and at different speeds are at the same angle in ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast