| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2006 01:21:43 PM |
| Object: |
The SRians are making contradictory claims |
The SRians (specifically PD) are making the following contradictory
claims:
Claim #1
PD said: When two observers A and B are in relative motion the passage
of a clock second on A's clock does not coincide with the passage of a
clock second in B's clock.
Claim #2
PD (SR) also said that in the twin paradox situation the elapsed clock
seconds in B's clock (the traveling clock) can be compared directly
with the elapsed clock seconds in A's clock when B return after a
journey.
It seems that the SRians will go to the extend of making contradictory
claims to explain their theory. Go figure.
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
18 May 2006 08:08:47 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147793355.687973.260600@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147727023.692623.185960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Aha. And so you think that starting the clock when the front edge
of a
object passes A and stopping the clock when some other part of the
object passes B amounts to a measurement of the speed of the
object?
Sigh....that's what you SRians claim.
Really? Cite one.
References, please.
You're making this stuff up as you go along.
Hey idiot.....x=ct is what SR says. The leading edge of a light pulse
misses
the detector but Sr insists that it hits the detector.
That's not what you said earlier.
That's exactly what I said earlier.
You said:
"That's what you SRians claim:"
"...starting the clock when the front edge of a object passes A and
stopping the clock when some other part of the object passes B amounts
to the measurement of the speed of the object."
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon lisses the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that assumption that
is bogus.
Cite one SRian that claims that. References, please.
Please be careful to distinguish what you think reality is and what SR
says it is.
Because a photon is a wave-packet in the ether and it is being
transmitted
by the ether at constant speed.. While a physical object (a detector) is
moving in the ether on its own. Therefore if there is a train of photons
in
the ether and if the detector is moving in the ether some portion of the
train will miss the detector and the amount missing the detector depends
on
how fast the detector is moving in the ether. This is the reason why a
clock
experience clock rate of a clcok slows down after acceleration (after
increasing its state of absolute motion).
You didn't answer the question. Why would you define speed differently
for light and for another object? The definition of speed is really a
pretty simple idea: it's how far a certain part of an object travels,
divided by the time it takes for that to happen. I don't know why you
try to make simple things into complicated things.
Because an object has length so your comparison of an object with an
individual photon which has no define length .A photon either hits the
detector or miss the detector.
For the last time: A distant detector can detect a photon from the source.
But the same detector cannot detect the lead photon from the same source and
yet SR claims that it can. That SR claim violates the UP and the Schrodinger
equation..
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
18 May 2006 09:10:21 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147793355.687973.260600@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147727023.692623.185960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Aha. And so you think that starting the clock when the front edge
of a
object passes A and stopping the clock when some other part of the
object passes B amounts to a measurement of the speed of the
object?
Sigh....that's what you SRians claim.
Really? Cite one.
References, please.
You're making this stuff up as you go along.
Hey idiot.....x=ct is what SR says. The leading edge of a light pulse
misses
the detector but Sr insists that it hits the detector.
That's not what you said earlier.
That's exactly what I said earlier.
You said:
"That's what you SRians claim:"
"...starting the clock when the front edge of a object passes A and
stopping the clock when some other part of the object passes B amounts
to the measurement of the speed of the object."
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon lisses the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that assumption that
is bogus.
I disagree.
On the other hand, physicists don't call starting a clock when the
front end of an object passes A and stopping the clock when some other
part of the object passes B a measurement of the velocity of the
object. You seem to.
Cite one SRian that claims that. References, please.
Please be careful to distinguish what you think reality is and what SR
says it is.
Because a photon is a wave-packet in the ether and it is being
transmitted
by the ether at constant speed.. While a physical object (a detector) is
moving in the ether on its own. Therefore if there is a train of photons
in
the ether and if the detector is moving in the ether some portion of the
train will miss the detector and the amount missing the detector depends
on
how fast the detector is moving in the ether. This is the reason why a
clock
experience clock rate of a clcok slows down after acceleration (after
increasing its state of absolute motion).
You didn't answer the question. Why would you define speed differently
for light and for another object? The definition of speed is really a
pretty simple idea: it's how far a certain part of an object travels,
divided by the time it takes for that to happen. I don't know why you
try to make simple things into complicated things.
Because an object has length so your comparison of an object with an
individual photon which has no define length .A photon either hits the
detector or miss the detector.
If you are calling the "object" a single photon, and the clock is
started when the first photon passes A, and the clock is stopped when
some *other* photon passes B, then you have not measured the velocity
of the photon -- in fact you haven't measured the velocity of either
photon.
If you are calling the "object" a train of photons, and the clock is
started when the front of the train of photons passes A, and the clock
is stopped when some other part of the train of photons passes B, then
you haven't measured the velocity of the train of photons either.
I don't see how what you're doing could be called a velocity
measurement of anything.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
19 May 2006 10:17:46 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961421.354392.285540@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon lisses
the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that assumption
that
is bogus.
I disagree.
So are you saying that the lead photon will hit the target? So doesn't that
mean that you know the precise location and the velocity of the lead photon
along the x-axis at any time? And you think that is not a violation of the
HUP and the Schrodinger equation?
On the other hand, physicists don't call starting a clock when the
front end of an object passes A and stopping the clock when some other
part of the object passes B a measurement of the velocity of the
object. You seem to.
The lead photon can start the clock and some later photon the follows the
lead photoin can stop the clock. So what is wrong with that?
Cite one SRian that claims that. References, please.
Please be careful to distinguish what you think reality is and what SR
says it is.
You didn't answer the question. Why would you define speed differently
for light and for another object? The definition of speed is really a
pretty simple idea: it's how far a certain part of an object travels,
divided by the time it takes for that to happen. I don't know why you
try to make simple things into complicated things.
Because an object has length so your comparison of an object with an
individual photon which has no define length .A photon either hits the
detector or miss the detector.
If you are calling the "object" a single photon, and the clock is
started when the first photon passes A, and the clock is stopped when
some *other* photon passes B, then you have not measured the velocity
of the photon -- in fact you haven't measured the velocity of either
photon.
Precisely....that's the reason why OWLS is distance dependent. And that's
the reason why you SRians refuse to measure OWLS directly.
If you are calling the "object" a train of photons, and the clock is
started when the front of the train of photons passes A, and the clock
is stopped when some other part of the train of photons passes B, then
you haven't measured the velocity of the train of photons either.
Right and that's why you don't measure OWLS directly. I suggest that you
read the following link for a new concept on the propagation of light:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
20 May 2006 10:00:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:17:46 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961421.354392.285540@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon lisses
the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that assumption
that
is bogus.
I disagree.
So are you saying that the lead photon will hit the target? So doesn't that
mean that you know the precise location and the velocity of the lead photon
along the x-axis at any time? And you think that is not a violation of the
HUP and the Schrodinger equation?
That is, in fact, a violation of HUP. Fortunately, HUP doesn't care about
speed; it cares about momentum and position. Since momentum is dependent
on energy, it follows we can't exactly measure a photon's energy, and by
derivation frequency and wavelength. However, speed can be exact.
On the other hand, physicists don't call starting a clock when the
front end of an object passes A and stopping the clock when some other
part of the object passes B a measurement of the velocity of the
object. You seem to.
The lead photon can start the clock and some later photon the follows the
lead photoin can stop the clock. So what is wrong with that?
Did *I* miss something here? I thought your claim was that the lead
photon completely *dodges* the clock...?
Cite one SRian that claims that. References, please. Please be
careful to distinguish what you think reality is and what SR says
it is.
You didn't answer the question. Why would you define speed
differently for light and for another object? The definition of
speed is really a pretty simple idea: it's how far a certain part
of an object travels, divided by the time it takes for that to
happen. I don't know why you try to make simple things into
complicated things.
Because an object has length so your comparison of an object with an
individual photon which has no define length .A photon either hits
the detector or miss the detector.
If you are calling the "object" a single photon, and the clock is
started when the first photon passes A, and the clock is stopped when
some *other* photon passes B, then you have not measured the velocity
of the photon -- in fact you haven't measured the velocity of either
photon.
Precisely....that's the reason why OWLS is distance dependent. And
that's the reason why you SRians refuse to measure OWLS directly.
Oh, OK. So what's the formula relating OWLS to distance?
OWLS(d) = ...?
If you are calling the "object" a train of photons, and the clock is
started when the front of the train of photons passes A, and the clock
is stopped when some other part of the train of photons passes B, then
you haven't measured the velocity of the train of photons either.
Right and that's why you don't measure OWLS directly. I suggest that you
read the following link for a new concept on the propagation of light:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
20 May 2006 12:42:15 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.20.14.13.49.471866@earthlink.net...
On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:17:46 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961421.354392.285540@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon lisses
the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the
photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that assumption
that
is bogus.
I disagree.
So are you saying that the lead photon will hit the target? So doesn't
that
mean that you know the precise location and the velocity of the lead
photon
along the x-axis at any time? And you think that is not a violation of
the
HUP and the Schrodinger equation?
That is, in fact, a violation of HUP. Fortunately, HUP doesn't care about
speed; it cares about momentum and position. Since momentum is dependent
on energy, it follows we can't exactly measure a photon's energy, and by
derivation frequency and wavelength. However, speed can be exact.
Then you don't understand the HUP. The HUP applies to all conjugate pair of
properties. Position and velocity is such a pair of properties. Steven
Hawking refer to the HUP applies to the pair of position and velocity in his
book A Brief History of Time.
Ken Seto
On the other hand, physicists don't call starting a clock when the
front end of an object passes A and stopping the clock when some other
part of the object passes B a measurement of the velocity of the
object. You seem to.
The lead photon can start the clock and some later photon the follows
the
lead photoin can stop the clock. So what is wrong with that?
Did *I* miss something here? I thought your claim was that the lead
photon completely *dodges* the clock...?
Cite one SRian that claims that. References, please. Please be
careful to distinguish what you think reality is and what SR says
it is.
You didn't answer the question. Why would you define speed
differently for light and for another object? The definition of
speed is really a pretty simple idea: it's how far a certain part
of an object travels, divided by the time it takes for that to
happen. I don't know why you try to make simple things into
complicated things.
Because an object has length so your comparison of an object with an
individual photon which has no define length .A photon either hits
the detector or miss the detector.
If you are calling the "object" a single photon, and the clock is
started when the first photon passes A, and the clock is stopped when
some *other* photon passes B, then you have not measured the velocity
of the photon -- in fact you haven't measured the velocity of either
photon.
Precisely....that's the reason why OWLS is distance dependent. And
that's the reason why you SRians refuse to measure OWLS directly.
Oh, OK. So what's the formula relating OWLS to distance?
OWLS(d) = ...?
If you are calling the "object" a train of photons, and the clock is
started when the front of the train of photons passes A, and the clock
is stopped when some other part of the train of photons passes B, then
you haven't measured the velocity of the train of photons either.
Right and that's why you don't measure OWLS directly. I suggest that you
read the following link for a new concept on the propagation of light:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
21 May 2006 02:42:56 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Then you don't understand the HUP. The HUP applies to all conjugate pair of
properties. Position and velocity is such a pair of properties. Steven
Hawking refer to the HUP applies to the pair of position and velocity in his
book A Brief History of Time.
Ken Seto
Hawking is being sloppy... the conjugate quantum mechanical pair he
is referring to is really position and *momentum*.
Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
Common observables which obey the uncertainty principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle#Common_observables_which_obey_the_uncertainty_principle
"The most common one is the uncertainty relation between position
and momentum of a particle in space
"The uncertainty relation between two orthogonal components of the
total angular momentum operator of a particle.
"The uncertainty relation between energy and time is often presented
in physics textbooks, although its interpretation requires more care
because there is no operator representing time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
24 May 2006 09:15:04 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Then you don't understand the HUP. The HUP applies to all conjugate
pair of
properties. Position and velocity is such a pair of properties. Steven
Hawking refer to the HUP applies to the pair of position and velocity
in his
book A Brief History of Time.
Ken Seto
Hawking is being sloppy... the conjugate quantum mechanical pair he
is referring to is really position and *momentum*.
Apologies to Hawking!
Hawking, page 72, "The Illustrated A Brief History of Time":
"In other words, the more accurately you try to measure the position
of a particle, the less accurately you can measure it speed, and vise
versa. Heisenberg showed that the uncertainty in the position of the
particle times the uncertainty in its *velocity times mass* of a
particle can never be smaller than a certain quantity, which is known
as Planck's constant (Fig. 4.3)."
Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
Common observables which obey the uncertainty principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle#Common_observables_which_obey_the_uncertainty_principle
"The most common one is the uncertainty relation between position
and momentum of a particle in space
"The uncertainty relation between two orthogonal components of the
total angular momentum operator of a particle.
"The uncertainty relation between energy and time is often presented
in physics textbooks, although its interpretation requires more care
because there is no operator representing time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
24 May 2006 08:17:38 PM |
|
|
$$ Sam Wormley wrote: > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > kenseto wrote:
Then you don't understand the HUP. The HUP applies to all
conjugate pair of properties. Position and velocity is such
a pair of properties. Steven Hawking refer to the HUP applies
to the pair of position and velocity in his book A Brief
History of Time.
Ken Seto > >> > >
Hawking is being sloppy... the conjugate quantum mechanical
pair he is referring to is really position and *momentum*.
Apologies to Hawking! >
Hawking, page 72, "The Illustrated A Brief History of Time":
"In other words, the more accurately you try to measure the
position of a particle, the less accurately you can measure
it speed, and vise versa. Heisenberg showed that the
uncertainty in the position of the particle times the
uncertainty in its *velocity times mass* of a particle can
never be smaller than a certain quantity, which is known as
Planck's constant (Fig. 4.3)."
Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
$$ Heisenberg's UNnecessary Principle:
$$ "Heisenberg's original argument used the 'old' quantum theory
$$ ( namely, the Einstein-deBroglie relations ) and provided a
$$ heuristic argument that the position and momentum observables
$$ were not simultaneously observable with infinite precision."
$$
$$ No MEASUREMENT is "observable with iNFiNiTE precision" ..duh.
$$ [Therefore, introducing that SECOND observable is REDUNDANT].
$$
$$ Heisenberg was NOT WRONG just because he got caught too OFTEN
$$ trying to (focus) on BOTH ENDs of a VELOCiTY vector ..AT ONCE.
Common observables which obey the uncertainty principle > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle#Common_observables_which_obey_the_uncertainty_principle > > > >
"The most common one is the uncertainty relation between
position and momentum of a particle in space
"The uncertainty relation between two orthogonal components
of the total angular momentum operator of a particle.
"The uncertainty relation between energy and time is often
presented in physics textbooks, although its interpretation
requires more care because there is no operator representing
time.
Re: Yosemite-SAM-Tivity ..impossible to MEASURE velocity c WRONG.!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
20 May 2006 04:29:44 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" < > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.20.14.13.49.471866@earthlink.net...
On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:17:46 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961421.354392.285540@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon lisses
the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the
photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that assumption
that
is bogus.
I disagree.
So are you saying that the lead photon will hit the target? So doesn't
that
mean that you know the precise location and the velocity of the lead
photon
along the x-axis at any time? And you think that is not a violation of
the
HUP and the Schrodinger equation?
That is, in fact, a violation of HUP. Fortunately, HUP doesn't care about
speed; it cares about momentum and position. Since momentum is dependent
on energy, it follows we can't exactly measure a photon's energy, and by
derivation frequency and wavelength. However, speed can be exact.
Then you don't understand the HUP. The HUP applies to all conjugate pair of
properties. Position and velocity is such a pair of properties. Steven
Hawking refer to the HUP applies to the pair of position and velocity in his
book A Brief History of Time.
You're getting your physics training from a book that was meant to be
read in dentist's waiting rooms?
PD
Ken Seto
On the other hand, physicists don't call starting a clock when the
front end of an object passes A and stopping the clock when some other
part of the object passes B a measurement of the velocity of the
object. You seem to.
The lead photon can start the clock and some later photon the follows
the
lead photoin can stop the clock. So what is wrong with that?
Did *I* miss something here? I thought your claim was that the lead
photon completely *dodges* the clock...?
Cite one SRian that claims that. References, please. Please be
careful to distinguish what you think reality is and what SR says
it is.
You didn't answer the question. Why would you define speed
differently for light and for another object? The definition of
speed is really a pretty simple idea: it's how far a certain part
of an object travels, divided by the time it takes for that to
happen. I don't know why you try to make simple things into
complicated things.
Because an object has length so your comparison of an object with an
individual photon which has no define length .A photon either hits
the detector or miss the detector.
If you are calling the "object" a single photon, and the clock is
started when the first photon passes A, and the clock is stopped when
some *other* photon passes B, then you have not measured the velocity
of the photon -- in fact you haven't measured the velocity of either
photon.
Precisely....that's the reason why OWLS is distance dependent. And
that's the reason why you SRians refuse to measure OWLS directly.
Oh, OK. So what's the formula relating OWLS to distance?
OWLS(d) = ...?
If you are calling the "object" a train of photons, and the clock is
started when the front of the train of photons passes A, and the clock
is stopped when some other part of the train of photons passes B, then
you haven't measured the velocity of the train of photons either.
Right and that's why you don't measure OWLS directly. I suggest that you
read the following link for a new concept on the propagation of light:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
21 May 2006 08:04:45 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148160584.360270.114250@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.20.14.13.49.471866@earthlink.net...
On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:17:46 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961421.354392.285540@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon
lisses
the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the
photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that
assumption
that
is bogus.
I disagree.
So are you saying that the lead photon will hit the target? So
doesn't
that
mean that you know the precise location and the velocity of the lead
photon
along the x-axis at any time? And you think that is not a violation
of
the
HUP and the Schrodinger equation?
That is, in fact, a violation of HUP. Fortunately, HUP doesn't care
about
speed; it cares about momentum and position. Since momentum is
dependent
on energy, it follows we can't exactly measure a photon's energy, and
by
derivation frequency and wavelength. However, speed can be exact.
Then you don't understand the HUP. The HUP applies to all conjugate pair
of
properties. Position and velocity is such a pair of properties. Steven
Hawking refer to the HUP applies to the pair of position and velocity in
his
book A Brief History of Time.
You're getting your physics training from a book that was meant to be
read in dentist's waiting rooms?
So you are saying that position and velocity is not apair of conjugate
properties. Also are you saying that Steven Hawking is wrong?
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
21 May 2006 02:34:24 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148160584.360270.114250@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.20.14.13.49.471866@earthlink.net...
On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:17:46 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961421.354392.285540@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon
lisses
the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the
photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that
assumption
that
is bogus.
I disagree.
So are you saying that the lead photon will hit the target? So
doesn't
that
mean that you know the precise location and the velocity of the lead
photon
along the x-axis at any time? And you think that is not a violation
of
the
HUP and the Schrodinger equation?
That is, in fact, a violation of HUP. Fortunately, HUP doesn't care
about
speed; it cares about momentum and position. Since momentum is
dependent
on energy, it follows we can't exactly measure a photon's energy, and
by
derivation frequency and wavelength. However, speed can be exact.
Then you don't understand the HUP. The HUP applies to all conjugate pair
of
properties. Position and velocity is such a pair of properties. Steven
Hawking refer to the HUP applies to the pair of position and velocity in
his
book A Brief History of Time.
You're getting your physics training from a book that was meant to be
read in dentist's waiting rooms?
So you are saying that position and velocity is not apair of conjugate
properties. Also are you saying that Steven Hawking is wrong?
Ken Seto
Hawking is being sloppy... the conjugate quantum mechanical
in really position and *momentum*.
Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
Common observables which obey the uncertainty principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle#Common_observables_which_obey_the_uncertainty_principle
"The most common one is the uncertainty relation between position
and momentum of a particle in space
"The uncertainty relation between two orthogonal components of the
total angular momentum operator of a particle.
"The uncertainty relation between energy and time is often presented
in physics textbooks, although its interpretation requires more care
because there is no operator representing time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
21 May 2006 06:56:16 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Hawking is being sloppy... the conjugate quantum mechanical
in really position and *momentum*.
Apologies to Hawking!
Hawking, page 72, "The Illustrated A Brief History of Time":
"In other words, the more accurately you try to measure the position
of a particle, the less accurately you can measure it speed, and vise
versa. Heisenberg showed that the uncertainty in the position of the
particle times the uncertainty in its *velocity times mass* of a
particle can never be smaller than a certain quantity, which is known
as Planck's constant (Fig. 4.3)."
Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
Common observables which obey the uncertainty principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle#Common_observables_which_obey_the_uncertainty_principle
"The most common one is the uncertainty relation between position
and momentum of a particle in space
"The uncertainty relation between two orthogonal components of the
total angular momentum operator of a particle.
"The uncertainty relation between energy and time is often presented
in physics textbooks, although its interpretation requires more care
because there is no operator representing time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
21 May 2006 05:42:29 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148160584.360270.114250@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You're getting your physics training from a book that was meant to be
read in dentist's waiting rooms?
So you are saying that position and velocity is not apair of conjugate
properties.
They aren't.
Also are you saying that Steven Hawking is wrong?
I'd like to know on what page this quote came from. I'm going
to read the section myself before I believe you've interpreted
Hawking correctly. I suspect that this bears as much resemblance
to what Hawking is saying as the Seto Uncertainty Principle
does to HUP.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
21 May 2006 06:30:46 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148251348.993334.21330@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148160584.360270.114250@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You're getting your physics training from a book that was meant to be
read in dentist's waiting rooms?
So you are saying that position and velocity is not apair of conjugate
properties.
They aren't.
Also are you saying that Steven Hawking is wrong?
I'd like to know on what page this quote came from. I'm going
to read the section myself before I believe you've interpreted
Hawking correctly. I suspect that this bears as much resemblance
to what Hawking is saying as the Seto Uncertainty Principle
does to HUP.
Page 54 and 55 in his 1988 print of his book "A Brief History of Time". Also
I like to remind an naive SRian like you that the position and speed of a
photon is not meaurable at anytime as SR asserts. A Photon can only be
considered to be emitted and absorbed.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
21 May 2006 06:51:42 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148251348.993334.21330@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148160584.360270.114250@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You're getting your physics training from a book that was meant to be
read in dentist's waiting rooms?
So you are saying that position and velocity is not apair of conjugate
properties.
They aren't.
Also are you saying that Steven Hawking is wrong?
I'd like to know on what page this quote came from. I'm going
to read the section myself before I believe you've interpreted
Hawking correctly. I suspect that this bears as much resemblance
to what Hawking is saying as the Seto Uncertainty Principle
does to HUP.
Page 54 and 55 in his 1988 print of his book "A Brief History of Time". Also
I like to remind an naive SRian like you that the position and speed of a
photon is not meaurable at anytime as SR asserts. A Photon can only be
considered to be emitted and absorbed.
Ken Seto
Hawking, page 72, "The Illustrated A Brief History of Time":
"In other words, the more accurately you try to measure the position
of a particle, the less accurately you can measure it speed, an vise
versa. Heisenberg showed that the uncertainty in the position of the
particle times the uncertainty in its *velocity times mass* of a
particle can never be smaller than a certain quantity, which is known
as Planck's constant (Fig. 4.3)."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
22 May 2006 01:39:32 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148251348.993334.21330@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148160584.360270.114250@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You're getting your physics training from a book that was meant to be
read in dentist's waiting rooms?
So you are saying that position and velocity is not apair of conjugate
properties.
They aren't.
Also are you saying that Steven Hawking is wrong?
I'd like to know on what page this quote came from. I'm going
to read the section myself before I believe you've interpreted
Hawking correctly. I suspect that this bears as much resemblance
to what Hawking is saying as the Seto Uncertainty Principle
does to HUP.
Page 54 and 55 in his 1988 print of his book "A Brief History of Time".
Sam Wormley has provided the quote. When I get a chance
to look at a copy, I'll check out the context but as quoted,
in attempting to avoid the word "momentum" Hawking has
quoted a version of the uncertainty principle which does not
apply to photons. He says "mass times velocity".
I like to remind an naive SRian like you that the position and speed of a
photon is not meaurable at anytime as SR asserts.
You're "reminding" me of something which is not stated anywhere
in physics.
When the thing doing the absorbing is a detector, that
detector has a position. That's a position measurement.
Since you can time the distance between source and
detector, that's a speed measurement.
A Photon can only be
considered to be emitted and absorbed.
In what way is absorption by a detector of known position
not a position measurement?
In what way is dividing measured distance by measured time
not a speed measurement?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
23 May 2006 08:56:59 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148323172.805340.44390@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148251348.993334.21330@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148160584.360270.114250@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You're getting your physics training from a book that was meant to
be
read in dentist's waiting rooms?
So you are saying that position and velocity is not apair of
conjugate
properties.
They aren't.
Also are you saying that Steven Hawking is wrong?
I'd like to know on what page this quote came from. I'm going
to read the section myself before I believe you've interpreted
Hawking correctly. I suspect that this bears as much resemblance
to what Hawking is saying as the Seto Uncertainty Principle
does to HUP.
Page 54 and 55 in his 1988 print of his book "A Brief History of Time".
Sam Wormley has provided the quote. When I get a chance
to look at a copy, I'll check out the context but as quoted,
in attempting to avoid the word "momentum" Hawking has
quoted a version of the uncertainty principle which does not
apply to photons. He says "mass times velocity".
Exactly....that's because the lead photon's position or velocity is not
knowable at any time as asserted by SR (x=ct). The position of *A PHOTON*
from the source is known when it is detected (absorbed). However, it is not
the lead photon.
Ken Seto
I like to remind an naive SRian like you that the position and speed of
a
photon is not meaurable at anytime as SR asserts.
You're "reminding" me of something which is not stated anywhere
in physics.
When the thing doing the absorbing is a detector, that
detector has a position. That's a position measurement.
Since you can time the distance between source and
detector, that's a speed measurement.
A Photon can only be
considered to be emitted and absorbed.
In what way is absorption by a detector of known position
not a position measurement?
In what way is dividing measured distance by measured time
not a speed measurement?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
23 May 2006 10:51:12 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148323172.805340.44390@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley has provided the quote. When I get a chance
to look at a copy, I'll check out the context but as quoted,
in attempting to avoid the word "momentum" Hawking has
quoted a version of the uncertainty principle which does not
apply to photons. He says "mass times velocity".
Exactly....that's because the lead photon's position or velocity is not
knowable at any time as asserted by SR (x=ct). The position of *A PHOTON*
from the source is known when it is detected (absorbed). However, it is not
the lead photon.
There is nothing in the HUP which says something different
about one particle than another. It does not distinguish "lead".
Anything HUP says about "the lead photon" it also says
about every other photon.
But why, when I just finished saying "this quote does not
apply to photons" do you say "Exactly!" and then make a
conclusion about photons as if this quote applied to photons?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
24 May 2006 08:24:16 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148399472.148007.100920@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148323172.805340.44390@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley has provided the quote. When I get a chance
to look at a copy, I'll check out the context but as quoted,
in attempting to avoid the word "momentum" Hawking has
quoted a version of the uncertainty principle which does not
apply to photons. He says "mass times velocity".
Exactly....that's because the lead photon's position or velocity is not
knowable at any time as asserted by SR (x=ct). The position of *A
PHOTON*
from the source is known when it is detected (absorbed). However, it is
not
the lead photon.
There is nothing in the HUP which says something different
about one particle than another. It does not distinguish "lead".
Anything HUP says about "the lead photon" it also says
about every other photon.
Our arguement is whether the SR assertion that one can detect the postion
and velocity of a lead photon of a light ray at any time (x=ct) violates the
HUP. Clearly I have demonstrated to you conclusively that this SR assertion
indeed violates the HUP
But why, when I just finished saying "this quote does not
apply to photons" do you say "Exactly!" and then make a
conclusion about photons as if this quote applied to photons?
When I said *exactly* I am referring to your bogus assertion that your can
detect the position of the lead photon of a light ray at any time. The fact
is that you cannot determine the postion of the lead photon at all. The
position of a specfic photon is not known at anytime until it is absorbed.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
24 May 2006 09:08:50 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148399472.148007.100920@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148323172.805340.44390@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley has provided the quote. When I get a chance
to look at a copy, I'll check out the context but as quoted,
in attempting to avoid the word "momentum" Hawking has
quoted a version of the uncertainty principle which does not
apply to photons. He says "mass times velocity".
Exactly....that's because the lead photon's position or velocity is not
knowable at any time as asserted by SR (x=ct). The position of *A
PHOTON*
from the source is known when it is detected (absorbed). However, it is
not
the lead photon.
There is nothing in the HUP which says something different
about one particle than another. It does not distinguish "lead".
Anything HUP says about "the lead photon" it also says
about every other photon.
Our arguement is whether the SR assertion that one can detect the postion
and velocity of a lead photon of a light ray at any time (x=ct) violates the
HUP. Clearly I have demonstrated to you conclusively that this SR assertion
indeed violates the HUP
Clearly not. The HUP requires only that the uncertainty
in measurement of those variables meet certain
conditions. It certainly doesn't preclude x, v and t
from having values.
But why, when I just finished saying "this quote does not
apply to photons" do you say "Exactly!" and then make a
conclusion about photons as if this quote applied to photons?
When I said *exactly* I am referring to your bogus assertion that your can
detect the position of the lead photon of a light ray at any time.
You've never explained why telling you the position
is 0.5+-0.01 doesn't count as detecting the position.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
25 May 2006 09:17:34 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148479729.993189.11950@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148399472.148007.100920@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148323172.805340.44390@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley has provided the quote. When I get a chance
to look at a copy, I'll check out the context but as quoted,
in attempting to avoid the word "momentum" Hawking has
quoted a version of the uncertainty principle which does not
apply to photons. He says "mass times velocity".
Exactly....that's because the lead photon's position or velocity is
not
knowable at any time as asserted by SR (x=ct). The position of *A
PHOTON*
from the source is known when it is detected (absorbed). However, it
is
not
the lead photon.
There is nothing in the HUP which says something different
about one particle than another. It does not distinguish "lead".
Anything HUP says about "the lead photon" it also says
about every other photon.
Our arguement is whether the SR assertion that one can detect the
postion
and velocity of a lead photon of a light ray at any time (x=ct) violates
the
HUP. Clearly I have demonstrated to you conclusively that this SR
assertion
indeed violates the HUP
Clearly not. The HUP requires only that the uncertainty
in measurement of those variables meet certain
conditions. It certainly doesn't preclude x, v and t
from having values.
But why, when I just finished saying "this quote does not
apply to photons" do you say "Exactly!" and then make a
conclusion about photons as if this quote applied to photons?
When I said *exactly* I am referring to your bogus assertion that your c
an
detect the position of the lead photon of a light ray at any time.
You've never explained why telling you the position
is 0.5+-0.01 doesn't count as detecting the position.
I am tired of argueing with a block head like you.
Here's what Tom Roberts said:
A photon is a quantum object, and does not have a definite velocity or
speed. Indeed, from the form of the equations of QED it is clear that in
configuration space one must ascribe to a photon all possible speeds
(yes, -infinity to +infinity), and all possible locations (yes, all
space for emission, and all space for absorption). This is one reason
why momentum space is usually used for computations....
Here's what the Schrodinger Equation says:
You can only determine the probabilistic postion of a particle at any time.
Here's what the HUP and Steven Hawking said:
The uncertainty in the velocity of a particle times the mass of the particle
can never be smaller than the Planck constant. Since the photon has no mass
that means that the position of a photon is not determinable at any time.
Here's what SR. PD and Randy said:
x=ct. This means that at any time along the x-axis the velocity and the
postion of the lead photon of a light ray is known at all times. Both PD and
Randy insisted that this does not contradict what Tom Roberts said and what
the Schrodinger equation and the HUP said.
PD and Randy are a couple of runts of the SRians.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
20 May 2006 04:25:34 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:17:46 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961421.354392.285540@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon lisses
the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that assumption
that
is bogus.
I disagree.
So are you saying that the lead photon will hit the target? So doesn't that
mean that you know the precise location and the velocity of the lead photon
along the x-axis at any time? And you think that is not a violation of the
HUP and the Schrodinger equation?
That is, in fact, a violation of HUP. Fortunately, HUP doesn't care about
speed; it cares about momentum and position. Since momentum is dependent
on energy, it follows we can't exactly measure a photon's energy, and by
derivation frequency and wavelength. However, speed can be exact.
Be careful here, Ghost. You've gotten a little muddy here.
On the other hand, physicists don't call starting a clock when the
front end of an object passes A and stopping the clock when some other
part of the object passes B a measurement of the velocity of the
object. You seem to.
The lead photon can start the clock and some later photon the follows the
lead photoin can stop the clock. So what is wrong with that?
Did *I* miss something here? I thought your claim was that the lead
photon completely *dodges* the clock...?
Cite one SRian that claims that. References, please. Please be
careful to distinguish what you think reality is and what SR says
it is.
You didn't answer the question. Why would you define speed
differently for light and for another object? The definition of
speed is really a pretty simple idea: it's how far a certain part
of an object travels, divided by the time it takes for that to
happen. I don't know why you try to make simple things into
complicated things.
Because an object has length so your comparison of an object with an
individual photon which has no define length .A photon either hits
the detector or miss the detector.
If you are calling the "object" a single photon, and the clock is
started when the first photon passes A, and the clock is stopped when
some *other* photon passes B, then you have not measured the velocity
of the photon -- in fact you haven't measured the velocity of either
photon.
Precisely....that's the reason why OWLS is distance dependent. And
that's the reason why you SRians refuse to measure OWLS directly.
Oh, OK. So what's the formula relating OWLS to distance?
OWLS(d) = ...?
He doesn't have a formula. He has a "depends". He has a "only doing my
experiment on your nickel will measure it."
If you are calling the "object" a train of photons, and the clock is
started when the front of the train of photons passes A, and the clock
is stopped when some other part of the train of photons passes B, then
you haven't measured the velocity of the train of photons either.
Right and that's why you don't measure OWLS directly. I suggest that you
read the following link for a new concept on the propagation of light:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
19 May 2006 11:45:39 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961421.354392.285540@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon lisses
the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that assumption
that
is bogus.
I disagree.
So are you saying that the lead photon will hit the target? So doesn't that
mean that you know the precise location and the velocity of the lead photon
along the x-axis at any time?
Depends on what you mean by "precise". If you mean "exact", no, of
course you don't know the *exact* location of the lead photon. But you
do know it with some precision. For example, if it is a 2mm VLPC and
its center is at 258.7 cm, then you know the position is 258.7 +/- 0.1
cm. That's a measurement of the position of the lead photon.
Likewise, you will not measure the momentum *exactly*, but you do know
it with some precision. You may, for instance, measure the photon's
momentum to be 38.1 +/- 0.2 MeV/c. That is a measurement of the
momentum of the lead photon's momentum. We have a simultaneous
measurement of the position and momentum of the photon.
The HUP does NOT say that if you have a measured value for momentum
(38.1 MeV/c), you cannot have a measured value for the position (258.7
cm), or vice versa. What it DOES say is that the products of the
imprecisions (0.1 cm and 0.2 MeV/c) must be at least as big, if not
larger, than Planck's constant. That is true in this case, of course,
as a quick numerical check will establish. What the HUP principle DOES
says is that you will never have measurements of momentum and position
whose imprecisions are so small that the product will be less than
Planck's constant.
And you think that is not a violation of the
HUP and the Schrodinger equation?
SR makes no requirements that the measurements of position and momentum
of the photon are measured *exactly*. That's not what x=ct says.
Newton's second law, F=ma, doesn't say that F and m and a are measured
*exactly* either. Hell, basic kinematic formulas like d = vt +
(1/2)at^2 don't say that d and v and t and a are measured *exactly*.
Ken, you have a physics book (Halliday and Resnick, if I recall). Read
the first chapter, where it pays special effort to talk about precision
of numbers used in physics calculations. You'll see the same material
covered in the first chapter of a chemistry textbook, too, and I'm SURE
you have one of those handy. It's a basic skill for quantitative
science.
On the other hand, physicists don't call starting a clock when the
front end of an object passes A and stopping the clock when some other
part of the object passes B a measurement of the velocity of the
object. You seem to.
The lead photon can start the clock and some later photon the follows the
lead photoin can stop the clock. So what is wrong with that?
Because you're not measuring the speed of any one object. You haven't
measured the speed of anything.
If I have two runners that keep pace with each other but one is running
behind the other at the same distance all the way around the track, and
I start the clock when Jeremy crosses the start line, and I stop the
clock when Brent crosses the finish line, then I've not found the speed
of either Jeremy or Brent. I haven't found the speed of anybody.
If I have two axles that are rolling down a road, one behind the other,
and I start the clock when the front axle crosses A and I stop the
clock when the back axle crosses B, then I haven't found the velocity
of either axle. And if the two axles happened to be connected by a car,
then I haven't found the velocity of the car either.
Cite one SRian that claims that. References, please.
Please be careful to distinguish what you think reality is and what SR
says it is.
You didn't answer the question. Why would you define speed differently
for light and for another object? The definition of speed is really a
pretty simple idea: it's how far a certain part of an object travels,
divided by the time it takes for that to happen. I don't know why you
try to make simple things into complicated things.
Because an object has length so your comparison of an object with an
individual photon which has no define length .A photon either hits the
detector or miss the detector.
If you are calling the "object" a single photon, and the clock is
started when the first photon passes A, and the clock is stopped when
some *other* photon passes B, then you have not measured the velocity
of the photon -- in fact you haven't measured the velocity of either
photon.
Precisely....that's the reason why OWLS is distance dependent. And that's
the reason why you SRians refuse to measure OWLS directly.
Nonsense. That's not a velocity of any kind. It doesn't *mean*
anything.
If you are calling the "object" a train of photons, and the clock is
started when the front of the train of photons passes A, and the clock
is stopped when some other part of the train of photons passes B, then
you haven't measured the velocity of the train of photons either.
Right and that's why you don't measure OWLS directly. I suggest that you
read the following link for a new concept on the propagation of light:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
21 May 2006 08:01:58 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148057139.091233.87340@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961421.354392.285540@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147883129.949039.296960@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147801414.560412.294660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we were talking about a train of photons. The lead photon
lisses
the
target and some later photon hits the target. SR assumes that the
photon
that hits the target is the lead photon (x=ct). It is that
assumption
that
is bogus.
I disagree.
So are you saying that the lead photon will hit the target? So doesn't
that
mean that you know the precise location and the velocity of the lead
photon
along the x-axis at any time?
Depends on what you mean by "precise". If you mean "exact", no, of
course you don't know the *exact* location of the lead photon. But you
do know it with some precision. For example, if it is a 2mm VLPC and
its center is at 258.7 cm, then you know the position is 258.7 +/- 0.1
cm. That's a measurement of the position of the lead photon.
Sure but that's not a position on the x-axis. SR claims that x=ct. That
means that if you place a detector on the x-axis you will detect the lead
photon. It is that assertion of SR that is violating the HUP.
Ken Seto
Likewise, you will not measure the momentum *exactly*, but you do know
it with some precision. You may, for instance, measure the photon's
momentum to be 38.1 +/- 0.2 MeV/c. That is a measurement of the
momentum of the lead photon's momentum. We have a simultaneous
measurement of the position and momentum of the photon.
The HUP does NOT say that if you have a measured value for momentum
(38.1 MeV/c), you cannot have a measured value for the position (258.7
cm), or vice versa. What it DOES say is that the products of the
imprecisions (0.1 cm and 0.2 MeV/c) must be at least as big, if not
larger, than Planck's constant. That is true in this case, of course,
as a quick numerical check will establish. What the HUP principle DOES
says is that you will never have measurements of momentum and position
whose imprecisions are so small that the product will be less than
Planck's constant.
And you think that is not a violation of the
HUP and the Schrodinger equation?
SR makes no requirements that the measurements of position and momentum
of the photon are measured *exactly*. That's not what x=ct says.
Newton's second law, F=ma, doesn't say that F and m and a are measured
*exactly* either. Hell, basic kinematic formulas like d = vt +
(1/2)at^2 don't say that d and v and t and a are measured *exactly*.
Ken, you have a physics book (Halliday and Resnick, if I recall). Read
the first chapter, where it pays special effort to talk about precision
of numbers used in physics calculations. You'll see the same material
covered in the first chapter of a chemistry textbook, too, and I'm SURE
you have one of those handy. It's a basic skill for quantitative
science.
On the other hand, physicists don't call starting a clock when the
front end of an object passes A and stopping the clock when some other
part of the object passes B a measurement of the velocity of the
object. You seem to.
The lead photon can start the clock and some later photon the follows
the
lead photoin can stop the clock. So what is wrong with that?
Because you're not measuring the speed of any one object. You haven't
measured the speed of anything.
If I have two runners that keep pace with each other but one is running
behind the other at the same distance all the way around the track, and
I start the clock when Jeremy crosses the start line, and I stop the
clock when Brent crosses the finish line, then I've not found the speed
of either Jeremy or Brent. I haven't found the speed of anybody.
If I have two axles that are rolling down a road, one behind the other,
and I start the clock when the front axle crosses A and I stop the
clock when the back axle crosses B, then I haven't found the velocity
of either axle. And if the two axles happened to be connected by a car,
then I haven't found the velocity of the car either.
Cite one SRian that claims that. References, please.
Please be careful to distinguish what you think reality is and
what SR
says it is.
You didn't answer the question. Why would you define speed
differently
for light and for another object? The definition of speed is
really a
pretty simple idea: it's how far a certain part of an object
travels,
divided by the time it takes for that to happen. I don't know why
you
try to make simple things into complicated things.
Because an object has length so your comparison of an object with an
individual photon which has no define length .A photon either hits
the
detector or miss the detector.
If you are calling the "object" a single photon, and the clock is
started when the first photon passes A, and the clock is stopped when
some *other* photon passes B, then you have not measured the velocity
of the photon -- in fact you haven't measured the velocity of either
photon.
Precisely....that's the reason why OWLS is distance dependent. And
that's
the reason why you SRians refuse to measure OWLS directly.
Nonsense. That's not a velocity of any kind. It doesn't *mean*
anything.
If you are calling the "object" a train of photons, and the clock is
started when the front of the train of photons passes A, and the clock
is stopped when some other part of the train of photons passes B, then
you haven't measured the velocity of the train of photons either.
Right and that's why you don't measure OWLS directly. I suggest that you
read the following link for a new concept on the propagation of light:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
22 May 2006 08:53:33 | | | | | | | |
