Science > Physics > Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Wilson" |
| Date: |
02 Jul 2005 07:26:21 PM |
| Object: |
Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer
moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer O3,
the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.
For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as c+v2.
Here is the experimental setup:
S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._
v2<T2
O3
O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a
light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1
and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing
speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.
I understand that SRians agree on this.
The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is
considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for
differently moving sources.
Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively
moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.
Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
plane is normal).
For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to
catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect
bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses
will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.
Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive
pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in
reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in
orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will
depend on the distance to the star.
There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
variable star simulation program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE
the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this
argument.
The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames'
may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
03 Jul 2005 03:46:49 PM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:0k7ec1lmdc20ar42f27tngpcpn2gktjdl5@4ax.com...
Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer
moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer
O3,
the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.
For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as
c+v2.
Here is the experimental setup:
S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._
v2<T2
O3
O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a
light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of
T1
and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different
'closing
speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.
I understand that SRians agree on this.
The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or
target is
considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as
well for
differently moving sources.
Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from
relatively
moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.
Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
plane is normal).
For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend
to
catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will
detect
bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast
pulses
will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.
Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will
receive
pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will,
in
reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable)
star in
orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that
will
depend on the distance to the star.
There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
variable star simulation program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always
MEASURE
the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to
this
argument.
The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether
frames'
may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light
speeds.
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
03 Jul 2005 07:20:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:0k7ec1lmdc20ar42f27tngpcpn2gktjdl5@4ax.com...
Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer
moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer
O3,
the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.
For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as
c+v2.
Here is the experimental setup:
S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._
v2<T2
O3
O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a
light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of
T1
and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different
'closing
speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.
I understand that SRians agree on this.
The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or
target is
considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as
well for
differently moving sources.
Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from
relatively
moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.
Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
plane is normal).
For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend
to
catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will
detect
bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast
pulses
will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.
Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will
receive
pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will,
in
reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable)
star in
orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that
will
depend on the distance to the star.
There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
variable star simulation program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always
MEASURE
the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to
this
argument.
The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether
frames'
may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light
speeds.
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests change
or not?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
04 Jul 2005 08:46:45 AM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:0k7ec1lmdc20ar42f27tngpcpn2gktjdl5@4ax.com...
Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target
observer
moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third
observer
O3,
the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.
For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as
c+v2.
Here is the experimental setup:
S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._
v2<T2
O3
O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed
of a
light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed
of
T1
and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different
'closing
speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.
I understand that SRians agree on this.
The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or
target is
considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as
well for
differently moving sources.
Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from
relatively
moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.
Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the
orbit
plane is normal).
For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and
identical
pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will
tend
to
catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will
detect
bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast
pulses
will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.
Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will
receive
pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT
will,
in
reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable)
star in
orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that
will
depend on the distance to the star.
There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very
regular
brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by
my
variable star simulation program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always
MEASURE
the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to
this
argument.
The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether
frames'
may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light
speeds.
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
change
or not?
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just
saw the images of the two slits.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
04 Jul 2005 07:24:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
change
or not?
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just
saw the images of the two slits.
I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double slit
experiment.
How could it?
Ken Seto
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
04 Jul 2005 09:42:36 PM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfbcdmmllpg9dgcfisjo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
change
or not?
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
just
saw the images of the two slits.
I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
slit
experiment.
How could it?
Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
06 Jul 2005 02:07:41 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:wsmye.46998$7X1.43224@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfbcdmmllpg9dgcfisjo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
....
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed
the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
just
saw the images of the two slits.
I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
slit
experiment.
How could it?
Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference
fringes.
The suggestion is that is it wave-like but
that the speed of the waves depends on the
speed of the source that emits them. I don't
agree (for many reasons, the most obvious
being the Sagnac effect) but you should try
to understand his suggestion if you want to
offer valid criticisms.
George
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
05 Jul 2005 04:13:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:42:36 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfbcdmmllpg9dgcfisjo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
change
or not?
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
just
saw the images of the two slits.
I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
slit
experiment.
How could it?
Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes.
Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet...
Let me try to explain.
Have you ever illustrated magnetic lines of force around a bar magnet with iron
filings? It you move the magnet, you can imagine those force lines moving along
with it. Now throw a way the magnet and consider that these field lines remain
and are stretched out in a long cigar shape. They are rapidly oscilating from
front to back and all the time, perpendicular to them is an associated E- field
that oscillates in synchrony. The two fields mutually reinforce each other and
will oscillate virtually forever in completely empty space.
Can you now imagine something like that coming up against a double slit?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
05 Jul 2005 04:54:47 PM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:5btlc1thgo98g0dcm62k77s9982urvisbs@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:42:36 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfbcdmmllpg9dgcfisjo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote:
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests
change
or not?
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed
the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
just
saw the images of the two slits.
I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
slit
experiment.
How could it?
Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference
fringes.
Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet...
So now you admitted that BaT is dead.
The rest of your bull ***** is trying to use the fact that light is a wave
phenomenon.
Ken Seto
Let me try to explain.
Have you ever illustrated magnetic lines of force around a bar magnet with
iron
filings? It you move the magnet, you can imagine those force lines moving
along
with it. Now throw a way the magnet and consider that these field lines
remain
and are stretched out in a long cigar shape. They are rapidly oscilating
from
front to back and all the time, perpendicular to them is an associated E-
field
that oscillates in synchrony. The two fields mutually reinforce each other
and
will oscillate virtually forever in completely empty space.
Can you now imagine something like that coming up against a double slit?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
05 Jul 2005 06:35:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:54:47 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:5btlc1thgo98g0dcm62k77s9982urvisbs@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:42:36 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfbcdmmllpg9dgcfisjo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote:
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests
change
or not?
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed
the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
just
saw the images of the two slits.
I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
slit
experiment.
How could it?
Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference
fringes.
Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet...
So now you admitted that BaT is dead.
The rest of your bull ***** is trying to use the fact that light is a wave
phenomenon.
You know Ken, I DO have a sneaking suspicion that some kind of periodicity IS
involved in light...be it spatially or time based.
Ken Seto
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "yt56erd" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
05 Jul 2005 09:26:11 AM |
|
|
kenseto is the runt of cranks. henri wilson is a crank. this thread
could implode.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
06 Jul 2005 02:04:37 PM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
....
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
change
or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
07 Jul 2005 05:12:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves but not individual photons.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
change
or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in his
frame?
George
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
10 Jul 2005 10:33:25 AM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup. At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "sue jahn" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
10 Jul 2005 10:56:23 AM |
|
|
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:dareqb$6d8$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
If you do this by reducing the brigtness of the
laser you allow a single *absorbed* photons to eject a
photoelectron.
Quantum dot emitters that will measure out a single
photon are now available.
<<The experiment and Results
This experiment proved that the following two things were possible in an
open photonic network environment such as the Internet.
1. A single photon can interfere...>>
http://www.physorg.com/news4536.html
IOW a single *emitted* photon goes through
both slits.
That doens't look favorable for BaT or
particle propagation models.
Sue...
At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
10 Jul 2005 08:17:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:56:23 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:dareqb$6d8$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
If you do this by reducing the brigtness of the
laser you allow a single *absorbed* photons to eject a
photoelectron.
Quantum dot emitters that will measure out a single
photon are now available.
<<The experiment and Results
This experiment proved that the following two things were possible in an
open photonic network environment such as the Internet.
1. A single photon can interfere...>>
http://www.physorg.com/news4536.html
IOW a single *emitted* photon goes through
both slits.
That doens't look favorable for BaT or
particle propagation models.
Why not?
Photons have an effective cross section that stretches to infinity. It does off
very rapidly with distance from the central axis, though.
Sue...
At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
George
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
10 Jul 2005 08:15:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:33:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
That is a pretty tricky operation.
At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of
photon cross section.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
George
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
12 Jul 2005 07:10:05 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:33:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
That is a pretty tricky operation.
True but it is done.
At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The
linewidth is important in this case. A laser
will show interference with single photons
even if the difference in the path length
is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions
a choerence length of 50m for one laser and
is nothing special, just the first that came
out of Google:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of
photon cross section.
That's a different subject, I was responding to
your comment on the applicability of wavelength
to single photons.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced
by the distance the observer had moved but that is
not correct. There is still a difference between
the two theories.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
12 Jul 2005 05:52:27 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2005 05:10:05 -0700, "george@briar.demon.co.uk"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
That is a pretty tricky operation.
True but it is done.
At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The
linewidth is important in this case.
Single photons should be monochromatic, should they not?
A filter could be used anyway.
A laser
will show interference with single photons
even if the difference in the path length
is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions
a coherence length of 50m for one laser and
is nothing special, just the first that came
out of Google:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of
photon cross section.
That's a different subject, I was responding to
your comment on the applicability of wavelength
to single photons.
You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon. It has a spatial regularity that
shows up as 'frequency' when it passes an observer. The wavelength is fixed.
It is the nature of this 'spatial pattern' that is of interest.
One explanation is that the 'wave package' itself features a standing
oscillation from back to front as it travels along.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced
by the distance the observer had moved but that is
not correct. There is still a difference between
the two theories.
Under BaT, diffraction is explained in terms of frequency, not wavelength.
George
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids |
13 Jul 2005 02:05:58 AM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:gvh8d19d0qrhqheljtd1rgec71oehjstkc@4ax.com...
On 12 Jul 2005 05:10:05 -0700, "george@briar.demon.co.uk"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
That is a pretty tricky operation.
True but it is done.
At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either si | | | | | | | | | |
