Re: Is light a wave or a particle?

From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/25/04 

Date: 24 Sep 2004 17:57:23 -0700

Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.50.0409211042060.17538-100000@localhost>...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2004, Jim Greenfield wrote:
>
> > Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2004, Jim Greenfield wrote:
> > >
> > > > timo@physics.uq.edu.au (Timo A. Nieminen) wrote:
> > > > > greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote:
> > > > > > Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note well that reflection of light from a stationary perfectly reflective
> > > > > > > mirror involves no transfer of energy, although there is a transfer of
> > > > > > > momentum. Your analogy between bricks and photons fails.
> >
> > This wall mirror appears silvery. Something has happened to the light
> > striking it!
>
> If the mirror is a good mirror, it _doesn't_ appear silvery. You can't see
> the mirror at all (from the working side), you see the reflection.

Accepted
>
> Anyway, your energy still fails. Even if the wall mirror appears silvery.
>
> Hint: the direction of motion of an object with no change in its kinetic
> energy.
>
> > > > > > Rot. What transfer of energy? The photon is still going at 300,000k/s.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firstly, you should note that I wrote that there is _no_ transfer of
> > > > > energy.

Your inference is that there is a "change" in energy, from - to +
> > > > >
> > > > > Secondly, you should note that classical physics predicts that all
> > > > > electromagnetic waves in free space travel at 3e8 m/s, independent of
> > > > > frequency and intensity, and hence, according to classical physics,
> > > > > the speed of a photon does not depend on its energy.

I will have to take issue with classical too, if that is the case. The
future will show that EMR A with the same frequency but longer
wavelength than B, completes a course of equal length in a shorter
time interval.
Proviso: the spin of the photon may alter, changing the frequency as
before explained.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thirdly, if you are again misusing "energy" to mean "momentum", do you
> > > > > really think (contrary to Newtonian physics) that photons of equal
> > > > > energy travelling in opposite directions have the same momentum?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> OK, so you disagree with Newtonian physics. But then, that's nothing new -
> you've done that before.
>
> > When they collide, their energy will not disappear. "Energy
> > cannot be either created nor destroyed, but may be changed in form"
> > The situation wont be (-1) unit energy + (+1) = 0
> > it WILL be (+1) + (+1) = 2
>
> Irrelevant to the question of whether photons of equal energy travelling
> in opposite directions have the same momentum.

If you want to call "irrelevant" Newtons Conservation Law.......
>
> > > > You bet. Stand in front of the brick or the photon, and you will still
> > > > receive equal clout or sunburn. Direction is immaterial; distance is
> > > > ALWAYS POSITIVE.
> > >
> > > 1) You are disagreeing with Newton again.
> > > 2) Of course distance is always positive; this directly follows from its
> > > definition.
> >
> > So I wonder why John Baez says in his tutorial on the LT's:
> > "You have to be careful about the sign on the velocity (sic distance)
> > to be used in the LT's; it is positive here"
> > ........because the selection of sign is ARBITRARY, and chosen to make
> > it fit!
>
> Consider the position vectors r1 and r2 of two points P1 and P2. The
> position of P1 relative to P2 is r12 = (r1-r2). The position of P2
> relative to P1 is r21 = (r2-r1). In a given Cartesian coordinate system,
> the non-zero components of the vectors r12 and r21 have opposite signs. If
> plugging the vector components into some formula, you need to be careful
> whether you are using r12 or r21.

"Position" is a vector???????? What a classic!
>
> On the other hand, the distance between the two points is
>
> sqrt( r12.r12 ) = sqrt( r21.r21 )
>
> which is always positive.
>
> > > 3) Sunburn results from inelastic scattering and is irrelevant to
> > > consideration of elastic collisions with photons.
> >
> > With a long focal length magnifying glass, of large diameter (catch a
> > lot of photons), how much do you bet that I can push a small particle
> > in the direction of the beam?
> > (Hint: It has already been done in the lab with a laser)
>
> Hint: its usually done with a microscope objective, which is neither a
> long focal length magnifying glass, or of large diameter.
>
> How much do you bet that not only can I push a small particle in the
> direction of the beam, but that I can also pull it back towards the lens?
>
> How much do you bet that I can keep a small particle in a fixed position
> in the focussed beam?
>
> How much do you bet that I can keep a small particle in a fixed position
> in the focussed beam and spin it around?
>
> Of course, none of this changes the fact that sunburn results from
> inelastic scattering and is irrelevant to consideration of elastic
> collisions with photons.
>
> > > > > > Apart from that, let's wait and see how the Jap solar sail works. It
> > > > > > has been clearly demonstrated in the lab, by lasers pushing beads,
> > > > > > that photons deliver the classic impact push.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the same experiments also show that they can do so with no
> > > > > transfer of energy. Cool, eh?
> > > >
> > > > On the face of it, free energy forever! The photons push the mirror,
> > > > with no lost momentum/energy!?
> > >
> > > On the face of it, no free energy. How much work is done by a force
> > > (whether exerted by photons or not) on a stationary object?

Potetential energy is an ellusive little beast eh? By not falling
down, I "feel" like I am doing wotk (by resisting gravity), but I
spose by definition, I am not.
> >
> > But the Japs think they ARE going to get some (kinetic) energy into
> > the sail.
>
> The solar sail isn't intended to be a stationary object.

But it is intended to change speed, surely. So it might be started at
zero, and increase in velocity in the direction away from the photon
source (photons to be reflected 180 deg)
>
> 1) How much work is done by a force on a stationary object?
> 2) How much work is done by a force on a moving object?

Above
>
> > > If the mirror accelerates, it gains kinetic energy, but in that case, the
> > > reflected photons are redshifted. Do the maths, you'll see the numbers add
> > > up.
> >
> > Will I see a red shift, if I accelerate along with the sail?

> > > > How big can my lab be? Within the solar system is feasible!
> > > > Rocket A leaving earth at fair distance, gives a high five to B
> > > > approaching. At that instant, both fire a single short pulse EMR
> > > > towards earth. The pulse from the approaching one will arrive at earth
> > > > detector before the other.
> > >
> > > Well, if can find the funding, go ahead. However, since the main
> > > theoretical support you offer against SR is a hypothesis concerning the
> > > emission of light that is in direct contradiction with classical
> > > electromagnetic theory, it should be possible to devise an experiment that
> > > might be over a million times cheaper.
> >
> > sigh........all for want of a lousy 50 mill
>
> As I said, if you want your theory tested, it's up to you to devise a
> feasible experiment:
>
> > > It's _your_ theory. If you really aren't willing to actually do any work
> > > towards a real test of it, why should anybody else care?

There you have it! "Why should anybody want to know if SR is
bull***?"
Typical DHR response; akin to politicians voting themselves a drop in
pay.
>
> > > > > > > > but the scenario is this:
> > > > > > > > A monochromatic beam is shone through a filter/gate, which allows that
> > > > > > > > frequency ONLY to pass. The third part of the fixed apparatus, is a
> > > > > > > > photon detector (ANY frequency). At rest, the machine is allowing
> > > > > > > > light through. Now speed the whole system up (train?). If c is still
> > > > > > > > the same, the frequency should alter, and the beam be BLOCKED
> > > > > > > > (forward). If the apparatus is rotated while on the (train), similarly
> > > > > > > > it should be noted that the beam is blocked or not, depending on the
> > > > > > > > train's motion. I say that NO CHANGE will happen to the beam, PROVING
> > > > > > > > that c'=c+v
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Given that the postulates of SR directly leads to the result that the
> > > > > > > observer moving on the train notices no change due to the motion of the
> > > > > > > train, then the SR prediction is that the beam continues to pass through
> > > > > > > the filter. The outside observer will also see this.

THIS light is that used to measure that the train has SHORTENED. IF it
"seems to be" unchanged, then the LENGTH should ALSO seem to be
UNCHANGED!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong!
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Time is passing at a different rate as well, remember! (SR)
> > > > >
> > > > > Which affects the source and filter equally. No net effect on
> > > > > transmission of the beam.
> > > >
> > > > It is BLUE SHIFTED! If that isn't a "net effect", what is????
> > >
> > > No net effect on the _transmission_ of the beam, ie whether the beam is
> > > transmitted or blocked.
> >
> > double sigh........but that changed (blue) frequency will be
> > BLOCKED!!!!!!
> > Otherwise the filter isn't working
>
> If that is how you define "working" for the filter (a bizarre definition,
> to be sure), then the filter isn't working.
>
> > > > > > > How then can this experiment distinguish between SRs c'=c and your c'=c+v?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have half the beam missing the detector, then, and passing through a
> > > > > > front window to the ground observer (rocket incoming). You've said
> > > > > > above, that both passenger and ground observer see exactly the same
> > > > > > thing
> > > > >
> > > > > I wrote no such thing. I wrote that the passenger and ground observer
> > > > > would both see the beam pass through the filter.
> >
> > What? The ground observer sees the same frequency as the passeneger?
> > lol
>
> No, the passenger and ground observer both see the beam pass through the
> filter.

One sees one colour pass through; the other sees blued pass------and
YOU still claim that the filter only allows one colour---BUT both
observers are still correct_AND the filter is STILL working----and you
think that I have "bizarre" notions??????
>
> > > > But one would see an "altered " beam? If the beam was altered, HOW
> > > > did it get through the filter? Or did it alter AFTER passing through
> > > > the filter?
> > >
> > > The beam is, fundamentally, unaltered. Observers making measurements in
> > > different reference frames might measure different values for various
> > > properties of the beam. So what?
> >
> > So this is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of:
> > Which affects the source and filter equally. No net effect on
> > > > > transmission of the beam.
>
> No, not at all. Observers making measurements in different reference
> frames also measure different values for the passband of the filter. Same
> in both the Newtonian and relativistic cases.

"How to turn rubies into emeralds", by Timo N
>
> > > > I maintain that if more photons are received
> > > > per time, then the frequency will LIKELY increase. The last proviso
> > > > being because there is a spin (of photon) which may cancel the changed
> > > > frequency.
> > >
> > > You might benefit from reading some of the literature on rotational
> > > Doppler shift. The earliest (Righi, 1884(?)) is pre-SR, so you shouldn't
> > > have any religious objection to it.
> >
> > The religion which has stymied the progress of physics/science for 100
> > years, it the one which preaches that 2 photons will travel together,
> > whether their sources were moving relative to each other, or
> > not--which is a more fundamental belief of the spirit, than rising
> > from the dead!
>
> Make it 140 years. Blame Maxwell.
>
> Of course, if you can't be bothered devising an experiment to test whether
> or not your theory or Maxwell's theory is a better description of reality,
> then the progress of physics/science will just have to continue being
> stymied. Alas! After all, there's been so little progress made in the last
> century.
>
> > > Of course, it's very easy to arrange a situation where the rate of
> > > receiving photons changes, and the frequency remains the same. But in the
> > > special case of counting rate of receiving photons vs rate of emission of
> > > photons by the source towards the detector, then the proportional Doppler
> > > shift of the photon rate is the same as that of the proportional Doppler
> > > shift of the frequency of the EM wave. The actual frequencies will differ.
> >
> > Doppler?? And the relationship/analogy of a photon traversing a
> > vacuum, and a succession of pressure waves in air is???????????
>
> Who said anything about pressure waves in air?
>
> It might be a useful exercise for you to calculate the Newtonian Doppler
> shift in the rate of receiving photons due to motion of the detector.

If there is a change in the velocity of a source towards a reciever of
300 k/sec. then the frequency will be seen to increase by .1% , and
the wavelength decrease by .1% (VACUUM)
>
> > > > > So what? This is the same in both Galilean and Einsteinian relativity.
> > > >
> > > > So what? You see me cheering G? (mostly N)
> > >
> > > You do realise that Newtonian mechanics is based directly on Galilean
> > > relativity?
> >
> > And Newton timed the flight of a photon over a given distance as? and
> > G?
> > And they set up their moving and staionary sources how?
>
> You do realise that Newtonian mechanics is based directly on Galilean
> relativity?

Newton new jack about the velocity of light. Don't try to tie source
dependency to his measurements; there weren't any!

Jim G
c'=c+v

Quantcast