Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
From: Timo Nieminen (timo_at_physics.uq.edu.au)
Date: 09/30/04
- Next message: Timo Nieminen: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Previous message: David McAnally: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Next in thread: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Reply: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:56:50 +1000
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Jim Greenfield wrote:
> Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> > > Jim Greenfield wrote:
> >
> > The position vector specifying where an object is in space is not the
> > actual physical location of the object. The position vector is a
> > mathematical specification of the actual physical location of the object.
> > The position vector is 3 numbers and 3 basis vectors (and possibly units
> > if not included in the basis vectors). The actual physical location of the
> > object is a point in space.
>
> If this "object" happens to be the Milky Way, please give me an
> accurate position!
> "a point in space"- a bit of a put-down for our home galaxy?
> Are you confused by "center of gravity"?
> ..or "average position"
Are you complaining about the basic structure of Newtonian mechanics
again?
There are (at least) three distinct approaches.
1) Consider the extended object as a single rigid body. Specify the
location of a particular point within the object, and the orientation of
the object. Typically, the centre of mass would be chosen as the point
which has its location given. A useful simple approach when the object
behaves approximately like a rigid body. Even useful for specifying the
location and orientation of a galaxy at a particular time. Not so useful
for the dynamics of galaxies.
2) Specify the positions (and orientations if required) of the individual
component parts of the extended object. All the way down to atoms if you
want. Note that at some stage a classical description (in which positions
and momenta can be specified exactly) will fail.
3) Specify the mass density at all points.
> This is where SR goes wrong! It uses coordinates for the ends of a
> moving train.
And since this is exactly the same that is done in Newtonian mechanics,
this must also be where Newtonian mechanics goes wrong.
What do you plan to replace Newtonian mechanics with?
> > The mathematical description changes if we change the descriptive
> > framework (eg coordinate system, reference frame, choice of gauge, etc)
> > that we choose to use.
> >
> > Why you continue to think that changing the mathematical description of a
> > physical property changes that property?
>
> So you see no difference between a train being (+1) mile long, and
> (-1) mile long?????? Is the length of a train, not a "physical
> property"?
Show me a train that is (-1) mile long. No such train exists in either
Newtonian mechanics or SR, since length is sqrt((x1-x2).(x1-x2)) where x1
and x2 are the coordinates of the endpoints measured at the same time.
Note that this quantity is never negative.
Note that the proper length of the train is a constant (unless the train
physically changes length) in both Newtonian mechanics and SR. Note that
the proper length of a train is the same in Newtonian mechanics and SR.
> > But that's all beside the point. In the example above of reflection of
> > photons by a perfect stationary mirror, the reflected photons _are_
> > actually moving in the opposite direction to the incident photons.
> >
> > Are you trying to say that their momentum _isn't_ reversed?
>
> Their DIRECTION is reversed- no other natural entity!
So, according to you, photons going in opposite directions have the _same_
momentum?
Oh dear! Your disagreements with Newton are deeper and more fundamental
that I thought!
> > Note that the reflected photons have the same _speed_ (ie magnitude of
> > velocity vector) as the incident photons.
>
> If this translates to time taken to get between A and B (you decide
> which is source and which is mirror)
> >
> > Note that according to both Newtonian mechanics and SR, this means that
> > their kinetic energy is the _same_.
>
> It IS the same; it IS NOT some mythical "less than zero" energy
So why did you disagree before? Earlier you _were_ claiming that they had
some mythical "less than zero" energy. I've been saying all along that
their energy is the same.
> (sorrreee! momentum)
Ah, are you saying that their momentum is the same, even though they are
going in the opposite direction?
Why bother complaining about SR? It's fundamentally Newton that you
disagree with.
> > > > Same with spin: clockwise has (+)....step around to the other side,
> > > > and we have reversed it! (anti-clockwise)
> > > > Confusion between the application of (- / +) for position and
> > > > direction, and the measurement of ACTUAL length, has led the faulty
> > > > LT's to be accepted, and carried over to mathematically "prove" SR.
> > >
> > > I see that you brain-dead idiot *still* do not accept that all these
> > > concepts of negative velocity etc. are firmly rooted in *Newtonian*
> > > physics and *Galilei* transformations.
>
> Maybe! But Newton wasn't fool enough to confuse them as producing
> "less than zero" natural entities (eg distance)
Distance is measured the same way in Newtonian mechanics and SR. Negative
distances don't exist in either. Negative speeds (of natural entities)
don't exist in either.
If you disagree with the way that distance, position, speed, velocity etc
are desribed or measured in SR, it's exactly the same in Newtonian
physics. Why bother complaining about SR? It's fundamentally Newton that
you disagree with.
> > Could it be that you (ie JG) don't know what "Newtons Conservation Law"
> > might be?
>
> So it isn't along the lines: "Energy can be neither created nor
> destroyed etc"????????? And here is poor old me paying a dollar
> a litre for bloody diesel!
That's right. It isn't along those lines.
Why don't you read some Newton? Google for Newton and Principia. Read
"Axioms, or Laws of Motion". There you will see a most important
conservation law given by Newton. And it isn't about conservation of
energy.
> > > > Does this say, that light is always emitted at c wrt the source,
> > >
> > > If measured within a frame of reference which is at rest wrt the source:
> > > yes.
> > >
> > > > or
> > > > that light assumes c in accord with its environment (still vacuum)?
> > >
> > > The speed of light in vacuum is always *measured* to be c. By
> > > *any* observer.
>
> NEWS GROUP RECORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Complete reversal of position in only 6 lines!
Perhaps you should re-read exactly what Bjoern wrote.
> > But you just agreed above that both your theory and SR predict that the
> > filter sees no change in the frequency it receives!
>
> No such! If this rocket is just a hollow tube, with light coming in
> (front/ back), BOTH light emitted from earth,AND from the moving
> rocket, cannot BOTH pass through the filter.
Sure. But this prediction is also made by SR. So how can your experiment
distinguish between your theory and SR, if both make the same prediction?
> > Anyway, yes, if your (ie JG's) emission hypothesis is correct, and the
> > emitted photons travel at c' = c+v, and the Galilei transforms are
> > correct, then the separation will remain the same, and the reception
> > frequency will increase.
>
> Thank you!
> Next time you encounter EMR Doppler shift, that may well be what you
> are actually observing (more photons per time)
The observed frequency is unrelated to the rate at which photons are
recieved. In fact, the Doppler shift that we measure most often here is
rotational Doppler shift, where the rate at which photons are received
stays the same. So I don't think that the next time I encounter Doppler
shift, I'll be observed "more photons per time".
> > Next, note that this Doppler shift of the frequency is general, and holds
> > for waves as well as for frequency of particle emission and reception.
> >
> > Further questions (for which quantitative answers will be much better than
> > nebulous handwaving):
> >
> > 1) How is the energy of a photon related to its speed?
>
> KE of both linear and rotational mass of the photons
Can you provide a quantitative answer?
How can the possible validity of your theory of light be determined if all
you provide is nebulous handwaving?
> > 2) How is the energy of a photon related to the frequency of the
> > lightwave?
>
> As above
Can you provide a quantitative answer?
> > 3) How is the momentum of a photon related to its speed?
>
> as above
Can you provide a quantitative answer?
> > A) Are your answers to the above questions compatible with the
> > experimentally measured momentum of lightwaves?
> >
> > Note that your (ie JG) theory appears to predict that the wavelength of
> > light is unaltered by Doppler shift, so giving a deviation from classical
> > electromagnetic theory that is first order in v/c . This suggests that it
> > is possible to design a simple and cheap experiment based on
> > interferometry or a resonant cavity to distinguish between the two.
> >
> > Do you (ie JG) have sufficient faith in the correctness of your emission
> > hypothesis to actually design a feasible experiment that will falsify it
> > if the currently accepted theory is correct?
>
> I think you've seen it.
> From space (Saturn would have been a good opportunity) fire a pulse to
> earth from a stationary (wrt earth) and a moving source (say 30 k/s
> towards earth)
> when sources in reasonable separation (hundreds of kms accepatable),
> and simultaneously. This would require signals between the two
> rockets, where time delays would be negligible. Ghost calculates a
> difference of arrival time here of about .5 sec. I agree that the
> two pulses WILL NOT arrive together.
So, again you suggest your too-expensive experiment, that will not even
give a conclusive result. Review the arguments against de Sitter's binary
star analysis. You do realise that your rocket experiment is essentially
identical to de Sitter's binary star analysis, don't you? You do realise
that the same arguments that can be made against de Sitter could also be
made against your rocket experiment?
If you think that the anti-de Sitter arguments are valid, then your rocket
experiment is useless. If you don't think that the anti-de Sitter
arguments are valid, then your rocket experiment is useless, since de
Sitter's results already falsify your theory.
Think: your theory appears to predict that the wavelength of
light is unaltered by Doppler shift, so giving a deviation from classical
electromagnetic theory that is first order in v/c . This suggests that it
is possible to design a simple and cheap experiment based on
interferometry or a resonant cavity to distinguish between the two.
So design such a simple and cheap experiment.
-- Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
- Next message: Timo Nieminen: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Previous message: David McAnally: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Next in thread: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Reply: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
