| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Wilson" |
| Date: |
08 Jul 2003 06:40:54 PM |
| Object: |
Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
Here is an exercise for all the really clever people here:
Below is an observer O and a spatial wave, represented by 'Vs'.
O
XVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV\
1) Click on 'reply'.
2) Place the cursor between the X and the first V.
3) place one finger on the 'space bar' and another on the 'backspace'.
4) Move the wave forwards and backwards with these keys.
Questions:
1) If there are n 'Vs' per metre, does the structure possess an intrinsic
wavelength of 1/n?
2) Does the line of Vs oscillate or change in any way as it moves?
3) If the whole structure moves at 'c' metres/sec across the screen, does O
count (n x c) Vs going past per sec ?
4) Does the equation de/dt=de/dx.dx/dt describe the observed 'frequency of
events(e)' seen by O?
5) Does this model simulate 'frequency' as applied to light?
6) If so, what processes might account for the wavelike structure?
7) If there WERE an intrinsic oscillation in the wave itself (in its own
frame), how might this affect de/dt?
Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
08 Jul 2003 10:35:08 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]
5) Does this model simulate 'frequency' as applied to light?
No.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 05:11:41 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2003 00:41:19 GMT, (S. Enterprize Company) wrote:
Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency?
Yes. The Smart Model CLEARLY shows how, why, where, & when at ALL levels of
infinity and this universe.
I couldn't find anything relating to this question on your we site..
Henri Wilson.
Why is the creative output of one SRian equal to the total produced by one million of them?
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
09 Jul 2003 06:17:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 22:35:08 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]
5) Does this model simulate 'frequency' as applied to light?
No.
Well come on, give me a better model, Tom.
Where does the 'frequency' of light come from?
What property of light gives rise to the sensation of 'events per second'?
I'm talking 3D space here. That's how we observe light so that's how we must be
able to explain what we observe.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 07:29:11 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:beilut$cp1@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
HenriWilson wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 22:35:08 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]
5) Does this model simulate 'frequency' as applied to light?
No.
Well come on, give me a better model, Tom.
Where does the 'frequency' of light come from?
The observed frequency of a light beam is NOT intrinsic to the light
beam, but is a relationship among the source of the light beam, the
trajectory of the light beam, the geometry along the trajectory, and the
receiver.
It is easier to think about the time interval between successive crests
of the light (i.e. its period), rather than its frequency.
The time interval between two successive crests surely is dependent on the
motion of the receiver relative to these crests. So from that we can
conclude that red or blue shift is a function of the absolute motion of the
receiver.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 08:51:09 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:vgqmrjae6l716d@corp.supernews.com...
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:beilut$cp1@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
[snip]
The observed frequency of a light beam is NOT intrinsic to the light
beam, but is a relationship among the source of the light beam, the
trajectory of the light beam, the geometry along the trajectory, and the
receiver.
It is easier to think about the time interval between successive crests
of the light (i.e. its period), rather than its frequency.
The time interval between two successive crests surely is dependent on the
motion of the receiver relative to these crests. So from that we can
conclude that red or blue shift is a function of the absolute motion of the
receiver.
"Absolutely Relative Seto Logic"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelAbs.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 06:10:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:51:09 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:vgqmrjae6l716d@corp.supernews.com...
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:beilut$cp1@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
[snip]
The observed frequency of a light beam is NOT intrinsic to the light
beam, but is a relationship among the source of the light beam, the
trajectory of the light beam, the geometry along the trajectory, and the
receiver.
It is easier to think about the time interval between successive crests
of the light (i.e. its period), rather than its frequency.
The time interval between two successive crests surely is dependent on the
motion of the receiver relative to these crests. So from that we can
conclude that red or blue shift is a function of the absolute motion of the
receiver.
"Absolutely Relative Seto Logic"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelAbs.html
Ken is quite justified in holding that point of view. It certainly makes as
much sense as your 4D 'wise after the event' crap.
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson.
Why is the creative output of one SRian equal to the total produced by one million of them?
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 08:36:07 AM |
|
|
On 7/10/2003 7:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
The time interval between two successive crests surely is dependent on the
motion of the receiver relative to these crests.
No. The "motion of the receiver relative to these crests" is always c
for any receiver, so it is not useful in describing this. For a fixed
light trajectory without gravitation, it is motion of the receiver wrt
THE SOURCE that is important, as my discussion shows.
So from that we can
conclude that red or blue shift is a function of the absolute motion of the
receiver.
Only when you "put it in by hand" implicitly by trying to discuss
"motion of the receiver relative to these crests".
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 01:46:46 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@Lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3F0D6BC7.8000802@Lucent.com...
On 7/10/2003 7:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
The time interval between two successive crests surely is dependent on
the
motion of the receiver relative to these crests.
No. The "motion of the receiver relative to these crests" is always c
for any receiver, so it is not useful in describing this. For a fixed
light trajectory without gravitation, it is motion of the receiver wrt
THE SOURCE that is important, as my discussion shows.
But the motion of the receiver wrt THE SOURCE is just the vector difference
of their absolute motions. So from that we can still conclude that red or
blue shift is a function of the absolute motions of the source and the
receiver.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 03:59:14 PM |
|
|
On 7/10/2003 1:46 PM, kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@Lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3F0D6BC7.8000802@Lucent.com...
On 7/10/2003 7:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
The time interval between two successive crests surely is dependent on
the motion of the receiver relative to these crests.
No. The "motion of the receiver relative to these crests" is always c
for any receiver, so it is not useful in describing this. For a fixed
light trajectory without gravitation, it is motion of the receiver wrt
THE SOURCE that is important, as my discussion shows.
But the motion of the receiver wrt THE SOURCE is just the vector difference
of their absolute motions. So from that we can still conclude that red or
blue shift is a function of the absolute motions of the source and the
receiver.
You assume some sort of absolute motion, and then conclude this is "a
function of the absolute motions" -- that's circular.
Moreover, your approach cannot handle the case of gravitational
redshift, where both source and receiver are motionless (wrt each other
and wrt the earth) but are at different altitudes.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 09:09:55 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@Lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3F0DD3A2.4070902@Lucent.com...
On 7/10/2003 1:46 PM, kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@Lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3F0D6BC7.8000802@Lucent.com...
On 7/10/2003 7:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
The time interval between two successive crests surely is dependent on
the motion of the receiver relative to these crests.
No. The "motion of the receiver relative to these crests" is always c
for any receiver, so it is not useful in describing this. For a fixed
light trajectory without gravitation, it is motion of the receiver wrt
THE SOURCE that is important, as my discussion shows.
But the motion of the receiver wrt THE SOURCE is just the vector
difference
of their absolute motions. So from that we can still conclude that red
or
blue shift is a function of the absolute motions of the source and the
receiver.
You assume some sort of absolute motion, and then conclude this is "a
function of the absolute motions" -- that's circular.
No...consider driving down the highway at a constant speed and you see other
cars are moving relative to you at different speeds. Now consider the
highway is invisible and all you see is the other cars are moving at
different speed relative to you. The relative speed of any specific car wrt
you is the vector difference of your speed wrt the highway and the other
car's speed relative to the highway.
Moreover, your approach cannot handle the case of gravitational
redshift, where both source and receiver are motionless (wrt each other
and wrt the earth) but are at different altitudes.
It can indeed handle gravity. Consider the source and the receiver are
moving in concentric circular highways side by side. There is no relative
motion between them. However their motion (absolute motion) relative to the
highway (the aether) are different. Similarly when the source and the
receiver are at different altitudes as the earth rotates causes them to have
different states of absolute motion and thus the redshift.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "YBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
11 Jul 2003 02:41:02 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
[...]
You assume some sort of absolute motion, and then conclude this is "a
function of the absolute motions" -- that's circular.
No...consider driving down the highway at a constant speed and you see other
cars are moving relative to you at different speeds. Now consider the
highway is invisible and all you see is the other cars are moving at
different speed relative to you. The relative speed of any specific car wrt
you is the vector difference of your speed wrt the highway and the other
car's speed relative to the highway.
The relative speed of any specific car wrt you is as well the
vetor differerence of you speed wrt anything else (say a third car) and
the other car's speed relative to this third thing.
So there is an infinity of absolute frames. Good.
Is the vertical directition isotropic in all of them ? (arf)
Moreover, your approach cannot handle the case of gravitational
redshift, where both source and receiver are motionless (wrt each other
and wrt the earth) but are at different altitudes.
It can indeed handle gravity. Consider the source and the receiver are
moving in concentric circular highways side by side. There is no relative
motion between them. However their motion (absolute motion) relative to the
highway (the aether) are different. Similarly when the source and the
receiver are at different altitudes as the earth rotates causes them to have
different states of absolute motion and thus the redshift.
I suppose that you are about to introduce the isotropy of the circular
direction, aren' you ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
11 Jul 2003 03:45:25 AM |
|
|
"YBM" <ybmess@nooos.fr> wrote in message news:3f0e6a2c$0$16257$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net...
kenseto wrote:
[snip]
It can indeed handle gravity. Consider the source and the receiver are
moving in concentric circular highways side by side. There is no relative
motion between them.
hehe ;-)
However their motion (absolute motion) relative to the
highway (the aether) are different. Similarly when the source and the
receiver are at different altitudes as the earth rotates causes them to have
different states of absolute motion and thus the redshift.
I suppose that you are about to introduce the isotropy of the circular
direction, aren' you ?
Ask him whether the moon and the earth have no relative
motion either, after all, they are moving more or less in
concentric circles as well.
Wanna bet he won't even get the point?
Please try asking - he won't reply to me since he pretends
having killfiled me ;-)
Enjoy...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 05:04:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:38:09 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <a7ungvcise9e7smjp09t5r5dkf5ulronns@4ax.com>,
Henri@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
What property of light gives rise to the sensation of 'events per second'?
If by light you mean visible light, i.e., electromagnetic radiation from
~400 nm to ~700nm, then the answer is no property of light gives rise to
the *sensation* of events per second.
I can definitely measure wavelength on the order of 400-700 nm. I can
definitely measure the propagation speed of this radiation in vacuum.
And from that I can infer a frequency as c divided by wavelength. But I
am not aware of any means to directly measure or sense in any fashion
whatever the frequency implied by measurement of wavelength and c for
visible light.
Precisely. There IS NO frequency associated with light. Light has a
'wavelength' but there is no evidence of an intrinsic 'frequency'.
There is a frequency assciated with light's movement past an observer as
spatial regularities give rise to a periodic event.
Run a saw blade over a knife edge and see what you get.
Henri Wilson.
Why is the creative output of one SRian equal to the total produced by one million of them?
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Simmons" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 07:55:59 AM |
|
|
HenriWilson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:38:09 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <a7ungvcise9e7smjp09t5r5dkf5ulronns@4ax.com>,
Henri@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
What property of light gives rise to the sensation of 'events per second'?
If by light you mean visible light, i.e., electromagnetic radiation from
~400 nm to ~700nm, then the answer is no property of light gives rise to
the *sensation* of events per second.
I can definitely measure wavelength on the order of 400-700 nm. I can
definitely measure the propagation speed of this radiation in vacuum.
And from that I can infer a frequency as c divided by wavelength. But I
am not aware of any means to directly measure or sense in any fashion
whatever the frequency implied by measurement of wavelength and c for
visible light.
Precisely. There IS NO frequency associated with light. Light has a
'wavelength' but there is no evidence of an intrinsic 'frequency'.
There is a frequency assciated with light's movement past an observer as
spatial regularities give rise to a periodic event.
Run a saw blade over a knife edge and see what you get.
This is a semantic boondoggle. For travelling waves in any medium,
frequency is defined as the speed of propagation divided by the
wavelength. In the case of lower frequencies, the time elapsed between
say crests of a wave may be measured. At higher frequencies yet, several
gigaHz and above, wavelength measurements are used and converted to
frequency. BTW, many wavelength measurements are made on standing waves.
That should give your rant even more ammunition.
Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 11:24:56 PM |
|
|
In article <baeqgvkga29k74pfnmkbhs11c6crgu9bm2@4ax.com>,
Henri@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:38:09 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote:
If by light you mean visible light, i.e., electromagnetic radiation from
~400 nm to ~700nm, then the answer is no property of light gives rise to
the *sensation* of events per second.
I can definitely measure wavelength on the order of 400-700 nm. I can
definitely measure the propagation speed of this radiation in vacuum.
And from that I can infer a frequency as c divided by wavelength. But I
am not aware of any means to directly measure or sense in any fashion
whatever the frequency implied by measurement of wavelength and c for
visible light.
Precisely. There IS NO frequency associated with light. Light has a
'wavelength' but there is no evidence of an intrinsic 'frequency'.
Not exactly. There is clearly a frequency asscociated with
electromagnetic energy in say the 1 meter band. I can easily measure
this directly on my oscilloscope. And all available experimental
evidence indicates visible light is simply the same as 1 meter
electromagnetic radiation with a shorter wavelength. And that is
certainly evidence there is a frequency associated with visible light
whether or not I can directly measure it or sense it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
10 Jul 2003 11:45:32 PM |
|
|
Dear Bill Rowe:
"Bill Rowe" <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-DA7245.21271710072003@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
....
Not exactly. There is clearly a frequency asscociated with
electromagnetic energy in say the 1 meter band. I can easily measure
this directly on my oscilloscope. And all available experimental
evidence indicates visible light is simply the same as 1 meter
electromagnetic radiation with a shorter wavelength. And that is
certainly evidence there is a frequency associated with visible light
whether or not I can directly measure it or sense it.
What you measure of the photon; energy, momentum, frequency, or wavelength
is *not* intrinsic to the photon stream. It is as much a measure of your
velocity relative to the source, as it is the action of the source that
emitted it.
By adjusting your speed, you can make your 1m wavelength anything you
choose, visible light, gamma, or 100,000 km wavelength.
Sorry to disagree with a fine point.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
27 Jul 2003 12:26:10 PM |
|
|
"dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message news:<%hrPa.1337$u51.776@fed1read05>...
Dear Bill Rowe:
"Bill Rowe" <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-DA7245.21271710072003@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
...
Not exactly. There is clearly a frequency asscociated with
electromagnetic energy in say the 1 meter band. I can easily measure
this directly on my oscilloscope. And all available experimental
evidence indicates visible light is simply the same as 1 meter
electromagnetic radiation with a shorter wavelength. And that is
certainly evidence there is a frequency associated with visible light
whether or not I can directly measure it or sense it.
What you measure of the photon; energy, momentum, frequency, or wavelength
is *not* intrinsic to the photon stream. It is as much a measure of your
velocity relative to the source, as it is the action of the source that
emitted it.
By adjusting your speed, you can make your 1m wavelength anything you
choose, visible light, gamma, or 100,000 km wavelength.
Sorry to disagree with a fine point.
David A. Smith
And there is the essence of Einstein's General Relativity...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
12 Jul 2003 09:40:16 PM |
|
|
In article <%hrPa.1337$u51.776@fed1read05>,
"dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote:
Dear Bill Rowe:
"Bill Rowe" <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-DA7245.21271710072003@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
...
Not exactly. There is clearly a frequency asscociated with
electromagnetic energy in say the 1 meter band. I can easily measure
this directly on my oscilloscope. And all available experimental
evidence indicates visible light is simply the same as 1 meter
electromagnetic radiation with a shorter wavelength. And that is
certainly evidence there is a frequency associated with visible light
whether or not I can directly measure it or sense it.
What you measure of the photon; energy, momentum, frequency, or wavelength
is *not* intrinsic to the photon stream. It is as much a measure of your
velocity relative to the source, as it is the action of the source that
emitted it.
Quite true
Sorry to disagree with a fine point.
I am puzzled. What in my comments leads you to think I disagree?
.
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
12 Jul 2003 10:17:59 PM |
|
|
Dear Bill Rowe:
"Bill Rowe" <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-5416E0.19400512072003@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
In article <%hrPa.1337$u51.776@fed1read05>,
"dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote:
....
Sorry to disagree with a fine point.
I am puzzled. What in my comments leads you to think I disagree?
Something is the way you said:
There is clearly a frequency asscociated with
electromagnetic energy in say the 1 meter band. I can easily measure
this directly on my oscilloscope.
To Henri Wilson's:
Precisely. There IS NO frequency associated with light. Light has a
'wavelength' but there is no evidence of an intrinsic 'frequency'.
It is now clear to me that you were simply describing a particular
measurement, and not directly responding to his statement. He words things
so oddly...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
13 Jul 2003 02:27:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:17:59 -0700, "dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net>
wrote:
Dear Bill Rowe:
"Bill Rowe" <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-5416E0.19400512072003@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
In article <%hrPa.1337$u51.776@fed1read05>,
"dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote:
...
Sorry to disagree with a fine point.
I am puzzled. What in my comments leads you to think I disagree?
Something is the way you said:
There is clearly a frequency asscociated with
electromagnetic energy in say the 1 meter band. I can easily measure
this directly on my oscilloscope.
To Henri Wilson's:
Precisely. There IS NO frequency associated with light. Light has a
'wavelength' but there is no evidence of an intrinsic 'frequency'.
It is now clear to me that you were simply describing a particular
measurement, and not directly responding to his statement. He words things
so oddly...
David A. Smith
Well come on! Tell us all about light's intrinsic frequency.
Henri Wilson.
Why is the creative output of one SRian the same as that produced by one million of them?
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
13 Jul 2003 02:45:27 PM |
|
|
In article <ngc3hvclci9kvv3uicduvaet4f6h4tgpv1@4ax.com>,
Henri@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
Tell us all about light's intrinsic frequency.
Light does not have an *intrinsic* frequency. An intrinsic property of a
thing is by definition a property of that thing. An intrinsic property
of a thing cannot be changed without changing the thing.
Measurements of wavelength for light change when you change your motion
with respect to the source. That means wavelength cannot be an intrinsic
property of light. Since wavelength times frequency is a constant, it is
clear frequency must also change and cannot be an intrinsic property of
light.
In fact, both wavelength and frequency are properties of the
relationship between the observer and the light source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
13 Jul 2003 06:55:20 PM |
|
|
"Bill Rowe" <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-D54BFE.12475313072003@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
| In article <ngc3hvclci9kvv3uicduvaet4f6h4tgpv1@4ax.com>,
| Henri@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
|
| > Tell us all about light's intrinsic frequency.
|
| Light does not have an *intrinsic* frequency. An intrinsic property of a
| thing is by definition a property of that thing. An intrinsic property
| of a thing cannot be changed without changing the thing.
|
| Measurements of wavelength for light change when you change your motion
| with respect to the source. That means wavelength cannot be an intrinsic
| property of light. Since wavelength times frequency is a constant, it is
| clear frequency must also change and cannot be an intrinsic property of
| light.
|
| In fact, both wavelength and frequency are properties of the
| relationship between the observer and the light source.
What is generating that relationship? OK, lets say the the observer is in
the rest frame of the source. What then? The frequency is generated by the
source and the same frequency should end up at the observer. So the photon
has something that carries this. I thought it would be the relationship of
spin and momentum.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
13 Jul 2003 09:38:04 PM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Bill Rowe" <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-D54BFE.12475313072003@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
| In article <ngc3hvclci9kvv3uicduvaet4f6h4tgpv1@4ax.com>,
| Henri@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
|
| > Tell us all about light's intrinsic frequency.
|
| Light does not have an *intrinsic* frequency. An intrinsic property of a
| thing is by definition a property of that thing. An intrinsic property
| of a thing cannot be changed without changing the thing.
|
| Measurements of wavelength for light change when you change your motion
| with respect to the source. That means wavelength cannot be an intrinsic
| property of light. Since wavelength times frequency is a constant, it is
| clear frequency must also change and cannot be an intrinsic property of
| light.
|
| In fact, both wavelength and frequency are properties of the
| relationship between the observer and the light source.
What is generating that relationship?
Let me discuss a light beam, and use classical electrodynamics and GR to
describe it.
Unlike what Bill Rowe said, the basic relationship is between the light
beam and the observer. But there is a fixed relationship between the
light beam and the source generating it, so Bill's statement is not
wrong, it's merely incomplete. The basic problem with Bill's statement
is that all physics is local, but his statement is not -- there MUST be
more going on.
A light ray is a physical object, and therefore exists independent of
any human coordinate system one might use to describe it. This means we
must use a coordinate-independent quantity to represent it. That
eliminates all of these quantities: energy, 3-momentum, frequency,
wavelength (all are inherently dependent on coordinates). As the light
ray has a direction, clearly a 4-vector is the most appropriate object
to use to model it.
For a particle of mass m, the relevant 4-vector is 4-momentum. When
projected onto Cartesian locally-inertial coordinates it has components
(E,Px,Py,Pz). With Planck's work in mind, the obvious corresponding
4-vector components for a light ray are proportional to (f,Kx,Ky,Kz),
where f is its frequency wrt these coordinates, and K is its wave
3-vector (=n/w where n is the unit 3-vector in the direction of
propagation and w is its wavelength). This is indeed a 4-vector[#], and
we call it the wave 4-vector (in the standard definition, neither
Planck's constant nor intensity are included in it).
[#] see MTW page 573.
So the frequency of a light wave in a given set of coordinates is merely
the time component of the wave 4-vector, and its wavelength can be
obtained from the spatial components of the wave 4-vector.
The wave 4-vector is intrinsic to the light beam. It is determined by
the source. The receiver projects the wave 4-vector of the beam onto the
locally-inertial coordinates of the detector, separating it into
frequency and a 3-vector related to its wavelength and propagation
direction. Now we have a local description of the relationship between
the wave and the detector, and one that is independent of coordinates.
The discussion in MTW referenced above shows another property
intrinsic to the light beam: the phase of the wave at each
point in the manifold (this is clearly a scalar function on the
manifold, and the wave 4-vector is merely its exterior
derivative[%]). This directly displays the important geometrical
aspect of a light beam.
[%] in physics we always have a metric available, so the
distinction between vector and covector is not very important
(at least at this level).
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
15 Jul 2003 07:33:14 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bet4u2$l9r@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Bill Rowe" <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-D54BFE.12475313072003@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
| In article <ngc3hvclci9kvv3uicduvaet4f6h4tgpv1@4ax.com>,
| Henri@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
|
| > Tell us all about light's intrinsic frequency.
|
| Light does not have an *intrinsic* frequency. An intrinsic property of
a
| thing is by definition a property of that thing. An intrinsic property
| of a thing cannot be changed without changing the thing.
|
| Measurements of wavelength for light change when you change your
motion
| with respect to the source. That means wavelength cannot be an
intrinsic
| property of light. Since wavelength times frequency is a constant, it
is
| clear frequency must also change and cannot be an intrinsic property
of
| light.
|
| In fact, both wavelength and frequency are properties of the
| relationship between the observer and the light source.
What is generating that relationship?
Let me discuss a light beam, and use classical electrodynamics and GR to
describe it.
Unlike what Bill Rowe said, the basic relationship is between the light
beam and the observer. But there is a fixed relationship between the
light beam and the source generating it, so Bill's statement is not
wrong, it's merely incomplete. The basic problem with Bill's statement
is that all physics is local, but his statement is not -- there MUST be
more going on.
A light ray is a physical object, and therefore exists independent of
any human coordinate system one might use to describe it. This means we
must use a coordinate-independent quantity to represent it. That
eliminates all of these quantities: energy, 3-momentum, frequency,
wavelength (all are inherently dependent on coordinates). As the light
ray has a direction, clearly a 4-vector is the most appropriate object
to use to model it.
But the direction will change with different observers. So that too,
according to you, cannot be an intrinsic property of the light ray.
The discussion in MTW referenced above shows another property
intrinsic to the light beam: the phase of the wave at each
point in the manifold (this is clearly a scalar function on the
manifold, and the wave 4-vector is merely its exterior
derivative[%]). This directly displays the important geometrical
aspect of a light beam.
Here you assume that the light ray is composed of waves and the phase of the
wave is an intrinsic property. So why isn't the number of wave per unit time
(frequency) an intrinsic property of the light ray?
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
15 Jul 2003 07:55:10 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bet4u2$l9r@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
A light ray is a physical object, and therefore exists independent of
any human coordinate system one might use to describe it. This means we
must use a coordinate-independent quantity to represent it. That
eliminates all of these quantities: energy, 3-momentum, frequency,
wavelength (all are inherently dependent on coordinates). As the light
ray has a direction, clearly a 4-vector is the most appropriate object
to use to model it.
But the direction will change with different observers. So that too,
according to you, cannot be an intrinsic property of the light ray.
The direction is NOT intrinsic to the light ray, the wave 4-vector is.
Differently-moving observers project it onto different spatial
coordinates, and obtain different wavelengths and directions for the
observation.
Here I used direction in the 3-vector sense, as your question
implied. In the 4-vector sense, of course, the direction of
the ray is indeed intrinsic and invariant.
Here you assume that the light ray is composed of waves and the phase of the
wave is an intrinsic property. So why isn't the number of wave per unit time
(frequency) an intrinsic property of the light ray?
The wave 4-vector is an intrinsic property of the wave.
Differently-moving observers project its time component onto different
time coordinates, and obtain different frequencies for the observation.
The key to understanding the basis of SR and GR is to learn that they
are GEOMETRICAL theories, and the usual acts of detection and
observation are represented mathematically by PROJECTION of the
underlying physical system onto the observer's coordinates.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
15 Jul 2003 05:31:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:55:10 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bet4u2$l9r@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
A light ray is a physical object, and therefore exists independent of
any human coordinate system one might use to describe it. This means we
must use a coordinate-independent quantity to represent it. That
eliminates all of these quantities: energy, 3-momentum, frequency,
wavelength (all are inherently dependent on coordinates). As the light
ray has a direction, clearly a 4-vector is the most appropriate object
to use to model it.
But the direction will change with different observers. So that too,
according to you, cannot be an intrinsic property of the light ray.
The direction is NOT intrinsic to the light ray, the wave 4-vector is.
Differently-moving observers project it onto different spatial
coordinates, and obtain different wavelengths and directions for the
observation.
Here I used direction in the 3-vector sense, as your question
implied. In the 4-vector sense, of course, the direction of
the ray is indeed intrinsic and invariant.
Here you assume that the light ray is composed of waves and the phase of the
wave is an intrinsic property. So why isn't the number of wave per unit time
(frequency) an intrinsic property of the light ray?
The wave 4-vector is an intrinsic property of the wave.
Differently-moving observers project its time component onto different
time coordinates, and obtain different frequencies for the observation.
How do you determine the zero of your 'spatial axes' here? Are you not assuming
some kind of spatial absolutivity?
The key to understanding the basis of SR and GR is to learn that they
are GEOMETRICAL theories, and the usual acts of detection and
observation are represented mathematically by PROJECTION of the
underlying physical system onto the observer's coordinates.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Henri Wilson.
Why is the creative output of one SRian the same as that produced by one million of them?
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
14 Jul 2003 08:06:07 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bet4u2$l9r@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Bill Rowe" <bjrowe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-D54BFE.12475313072003@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
| In article <ngc3hvclci9kvv3uicduvaet4f6h4tgpv1@4ax.com>,
| Henri@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
|
| > Tell us all about light's intrinsic frequency.
|
| Light does not have an *intrinsic* frequency. An intrinsic property of
a
| thing is by definition a property of that thing. An intrinsic property
| of a thing cannot be changed without changing the thing.
|
| Measurements of wavelength for light change when you change your
motion
| with respect to the source. That means wavelength cannot be an
intrinsic
| property of light. Since wavelength times frequency is a constant, it
is
| clear frequency must also change and cannot be an intrinsic property
of
| light.
|
| In fact, both wavelength and frequency are properties of the
| relationship between the observer and the light source.
What is generating that relationship?
Let me discuss a light beam, and use classical electrodynamics and GR to
describe it.
Unlike what Bill Rowe said, the basic relationship is between the light
beam and the observer. But there is a fixed relationship between the
light beam and the source generating it, so Bill's statement is not
wrong, it's merely incomplete. The basic problem with Bill's statement
is that all physics is local, but his statement is not -- there MUST be
more going on.
A light ray is a physical object, and therefore exists independent of
any human coordinate system one might use to describe it. This means we
must use a coordinate-independent quantity to represent it. That
eliminates all of these quantities: energy, 3-momentum, frequency,
wavelength (all are inherently dependent on coordinates). As the light
ray has a direction, clearly a 4-vector is the most appropriate object
to use to model it.
Question: Is the speed of light an intrinsic property of a photon?
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
14 Jul 2003 07:36:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:43:20 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@Lucent.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2003 8:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
Question: Is the speed of light an intrinsic property of a photon?
No. The speed of any object is never an intrinsic aspect of the object
itself. Speed is always a relationship between the object in question
and some observer's coordinate system.
Note "speed of a photon" is really not well defined; I am
answering for a light pulse, not a photon. The quantum
complexities are simply too great....
Why don't you admit it Tom. We simply don't know much about the propagation of
light at all.
The fact that the local speed of light is independent of the observer's
coordinates is an aspect of the underlying geometry and the relationship
between EM radiation and the geometry.
There is no evidence that the OW light speed is independent of source velocity
over short ranges.
If you run my short demo www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
you will see that your argument is impossible.
Only invariant quantities can be intrinsic to an object, but
invariants need not be intrinsic to some object.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Henri Wilson.
Why is the creative output of one SRian the same as that produced by one million of them?
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
19 Jul 2003 06:54:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:07:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
wrote:
"HenriWilson" <Henri@the.edge> skrev i melding news:b9i6hv0dc79pmt6ev7mju9btt83n6oe0gi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:43:20 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@Lucent.com> wrote:
The fact that the local speed of light is independent of the observer's
coordinates is an aspect of the underlying geometry and the relationship
between EM radiation and the geometry.
There is no evidence that the OW light speed is independent of source velocity
over short ranges.
If you run my short demo www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
you will see that your argument is impossible.
And in that "short demo" we find the following demonstration
of Wilsonian logic at its very best:
| Based on the second postulate, SR has derived a formula
| showing that velocities must be added relativistically
| using the formula w=(u+v)/(1+(uv/c^2)), where w is the
| velocity of object A in the observer frame, v is the velocity
| of B in the observer frame and u the velocity of A in B's frame.
| If we apply this formula to a photon (A) emitted at velocity c
| from a moving source (B), we first assume that the photon's speed
| must be added to that of the source.
| In other words, it is source dependent.
Congratulations, Henry.
You have demonstrated that the fact that the speed of light
is independent of the velocity of its source prove that the speed
of light depend on the velocity of its source.
That should settle the matter.
SR must be wrong.
Paul
Welcome back Paul. Your education has suffered markedly because of your recent
absence from this NG.
Yes, SR's little maths trick once again disguises the fact that SR is just
another aether theory.
By combining source dependency with its velocity addition equation, SR manages
to prove that light speed is absolute even without an aether.
Thus, Einstein again made the aether irrelevant whether it exists or not - just
as he did with his clock synch definition.
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Light Possess an Intrinsic Frequency? |
20 Jul 2003 04:12:43 PM |
|
|
"HenriWilson" <Henri@the.edge> skrev i melding news:t7mjhvgbp70a8mp9n8hkvvda2mshmqdpba@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:07:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
wrote:
"HenriWilson" <Henri@the.edge> skrev i melding news:b9i6hv0dc79pmt6ev7mju9btt83n6oe0gi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:43:20 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@Lucent.com> wrote:
The fact that the local speed of light is independent of the observer's
coordinates is an aspect of the underlying geometry and the relationship
between EM radiation and the geometry.
There is no evidence that the OW light speed is independent of source velocity
over short ranges.
If you run my short demo www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
you will see that your argument is impossible.
And in that "short demo" we find the following demonstration
of Wilsonian logic at its very best:
| Based on the second postulate, SR has derived a formula
| showing that velocities must be added relativistically
| using the formula w=(u+v)/(1+(uv/c^2)), where w is the
| velocity of object A in the observer frame, v is the velocity
| of B in the observer frame and u the velocity of A in B's frame.
| If we apply this formula to a photon (A) emitted at velocity c
| from a moving source (B), we first assume that the photon's speed
| must be added to that of the source.
| In other words, it is source dependent.
Congratulations, Henry.
You have demonstrated that the fact that the speed of light
is independent of the velocity of its source prove that the speed
of light depend on the velocity of its source.
That should settle the matter.
SR must be wrong.
Paul
Welcome back Paul. Your education has suffered markedly because of your recent
absence from this NG.
Yes, SR's little maths trick once again disguises the fact that SR is just
another aether theory.
By combining source dependency with its velocity addition equation, SR manages
to prove that light speed is absolute even without an aether.
Henry, do you really not understand how ridiculous this statement is?
From whence did you get the crazy idea that
"SR manages to prove that light speed is absolute "
in any way?
The second postulate is just that - a postulate.
Of course a postulate cannot be proven logically.
How can an experimental physicist like yourself be ignorant of this?
A postulate can only be tested experimentally.
It is.
It has passed every test so far.
Thus, Einstein again made the aether irrelevant whether it exists or not - just
as he did with his clock synch definition.
What about it?
Have you forgotten that no synch definition can make
the speed of light isotropic?
Or as you said it:
"It can only make the speed of light isotropic along a line". :-)
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
