Hidden Variables
Photon path .. - Printable Version

+- Hidden Variables (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables)
+-- Forum: The Ether vs. Relativity (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Special and General Relativity (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Photon path .. (/showthread.php?tid=32)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 05-20-2016

A summary. Very well.  I started this thread by saying I have no theory. I have just a burning curiosity about one thing concerning a single photon. And yes, it is exactly along the lines of Calkin's paper, i.e., the directionality of a single photon (always rectilinear to the laser gun) indeed seems to put into doubt, SR.

How I continue to hold that query, is thus; rectilinear motion does not effect the photons motion. Why should transverse ?

Yes, we have canvassed it a good deal here, but I am still at the same level of uncertainty, as when I begun.

And that's OK – no problem, and yes, I didn't really expect to overthrow the bastion of physics this week or even next.

I DO NOT naively think that others have missed this point. I'm sure belief comes into it a lot though. Ever heard of seeing is believing ? I rather think it is the OTHER WAY around – BELIEVING IS SEEING !!!

That, and, that all knowledge is provisional, leads me to a healthy scepticism about Einstein's SR. But I am not as vain as to believe I know better. And I laugh at the conscious and unconscious vanity both of those who defend SR, and those who oppose it thinking THEY know better.

Read Calkin's paper – not reviews. It should take you less than 30 minutes (though it took me 30 days) to get the gist of what he is saying. You may too find it VERY interesting – at YOUR level.

Your last paragraph .. yes, stick to physics. Excellent. My summary is my 2nd paragraph.

Your edit;
Not fair, not on topic, and irrelevant. We are talking of ONE thing here. Stick to it, rather than the man. Else, tell me your favourite personages and I will find some .. interesting ... beliefs and practices of theirs for you - not the least Einstein, Newton, et al.


RE: Photon path .. - secur - 05-20-2016

My favorite personage is myself, and I hope you can't find out about my interesting practices! :-)

Newton of course was an alchemist, astrologist, fundamentalist. And, look how he treated Hooke, Leibnitz, others. But he was the greatest physicist, and possibly the smartest person, who ever lived. I see NO contradiction. Great minds can be unlikable; we all know that.

I shouldn't have said that Calkin seems like a fine gentleman and a good artist; I apologize.

Re. gravity bending light, it's not so off topic; we are, after all, talking about the path light takes and the reasons for it.

But the laser paper sounds interesting, so I'll check it out. As I can't find it on the net anywhere I'll PM you with my email and, if you like, send it to me. I don't want the email to be public, of course.

Thanks in advance!


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 05-20-2016

(05-20-2016, 03:48 AM)secur Wrote: My favorite personage is myself, and I hope you can't find out about my interesting practices! :-)

Well, if I did, you never know - it might place you alongside my favourite personages, as well.

Newton of course was an alchemist, astrologist, fundamentalist. And, look how he treated Hooke, Leibnitz, others. But he was the greatest physicist, and possibly the smartest person, who ever lived. I see NO contradiction. Great minds can be unlikable; we all know that.

I shouldn't have said that Calkin seems like a fine gentleman and a good artist; I apologize.

Re. gravity bending light, it's not so off topic; we are, after all, talking about the path light takes and the reasons for it.

Yes, but deviates (excuse the pun) from the thrust (and that one) of my photon, somewhat. Surely another thread somewhat oblique to this one :-)

But the laser paper sounds interesting, so I'll check it out. As I can't find it on the net anywhere I'll PM you with my email and, if you like, send it to me. I don't want the email to be public, of course.

OK. I will wait another day to see if he replies. Much better to have a link, that way, anyone can read it. Otherwise, I sure will email it to you.

Thanks in advance!

All good!



RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 05-21-2016

secur, paper sent to you.
Happy to send to anyone else interested.


RE: Photon path .. - John Duffield - 05-21-2016

(05-10-2016, 12:30 PM)ALT Wrote: ...Now imagine the same setting, but instead of a rifle we have a photon emitter, and scale the speeds, etc., to suitable measurements for this to be considered. The emitter. fires one photon. Does the photon hit the target (now a photoelectric receptor) or does it miss it? It would hit it if it was influenced by the transverse motion of the emitter. It would miss it if it wasn't so influenced. There can only be two possible answers. Which is it?
The photon is not influenced by the transverse motion of the emitter, but it does hit the target. Why? Because if it misses, you claim the emitter wasn't vertical. Vertical when you're moving is not the same as vertical when you're not.


RE: Photon path .. - secur - 05-21-2016

ALT, thanks for Mr. Calkin's paper "A REPORT ON HOW THE OPTICAL LASER DISPROVES THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY - SUBMITTAL FOR PEER REVIEW".

Your question in this thread, regarding the photon emitter on a moving platform shooting at a co-moving target, is right on, and captures the essence of the paper. As Schmelzer, John Duffield, and I say, yes it does hit it. But none of us has given a "mechanical" reason: that's just the way SR works. You (and Mr. Calkin) aren't satisfied with that answer, and neither am I. "The theory says so" is not enough.

I don't know "why" and am not sure anyone else does either. As I mentioned a few posts ago, the first task is to make sure it's really true. That means finding an experiment which clearly demonstrates it. It's conceivable there isn't one; instead we infer it from experiments which, while not clearly showing it, wouldn't work without this fact. If lucky, someone will post a link to the relevant experiment tomorrow. Else it might take a while to find it; I'm busy these days.

I can't emphasize this point enough. Theory is all very well and good but experiment is trumps. Experiments can't be wrong (when replicated sufficiently).

What are the chances SR is wrong about this: that actually the photon will not hit the target? Sorry, the chance is zero (IMHO). All these facts are tied together. If this one (rather obscure) point were wrong no doubt other, much less obscure, points are too; but they're not (more on this later). Personally I strongly suspect that Lorentz was right, there is an absolute reference frame. This may be yet another place where explaining it in his terms makes more sense than SR. If the emitter (or laser) is physically length-contracted, that may provide a "mechanical" explanation for the phenomenon.

But now let me back up a bit. Since I don't really know the photon hits the target (except by trusting SR's math, which of course I do, in situations which have been accessible to current test apparatus) I'm not in a position to simply dismiss this paper out of hand. So let me review it without that assumption.

Mr. Calkin's understanding of Maxwell's equations is flawed. "As predicted by Maxwell’s equations, electromagnetic waves, including light, do not conform to the principle of relativity." That's wrong. Relativity is implied by Maxwell, as Einstein discussed in "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". "The reference frame for which Maxwell’s equations took their simplest form was ... at rest in the ether." He doesn't explain why he thinks this. It's more-or-less wrong, but he may have a good reason for saying it; I can think of a couple; could come down to mere semantics.

Highly recommend you read Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity. One quote: "Maxwell's equations, when they were first stated in their complete form in 1865, would turn out to be compatible with special relativity." Mr. Calkin should also read this excellent historical article: it will open his eyes.

"This was one of the great puzzles of physics at the beginning of the 20th century. Einstein solved the puzzle using his famous thought experiments." No, the puzzles were solved by Lorentz, Poincare and others; Einstein "borrowed" their solutions. Of course these historical matters aren't physics, but they help understand why SR is so confusing. Lorentz's work is (usually) more illuminating when dealing with good questions like this one.

"Neither Dr. Einstein nor any physicist in the early part of the 20th century had the benefit of possessing a laser ... The directionality of light wasn’t even recognized as an issue." They didn't have lasers but they understood "directionality of light" very well. Read that Wikipedia article. Those guys were far more sophisticated than Mr. Calkin thinks. He's misled by pop-science.

It turns out my intuition about Calkin's ideas re. bending of light by gravity was correct (mentioned in post above) - no surprise there. Mr. Calkin needs to reject it, given his basic thesis, and does so. He also has to reject time dilation! His logic might be correct and it illustrates what I said above. If you deny this apparently small fact about the photon hitting the target, the whole edifice crumbles and you wind up denying other, undeniable, facts too. IF his logic is correct it disproves his thesis! Because time dilation and light-bending are experimentally proven. Time dilation is demonstrated by muons travelling from the upper atmosphere to Earth and many other experiments. Bending of light by gravity is demonstrated by much more than just going through the Sun's atmosphere (as Mr. Calkin clearly thinks). For instance, gravitational lensing.

Finally his comments about the "human condition" are good: sociological factors can, and do, lead science down blind alleys which waste, literally, centuries of effort. I suspect Einsteinian relativity might be such a case.

I sympathize with Mr. Calkin. I'm sure he asked physicists this question, expecting a reasonable response, and instead was treated as though he'd spit on the Koran (metaphorically). So he decided physics had become some sort of weird religious cult (somewhat true); that he knew as much as they did (not true); and went off disgusted, but undaunted, to develop his ideas. Admirable, but the result is incorrect IMHO.

To summarize.

SR must be right: the photon hits that target. However since I don't thoroughly know this (by experiment, I mean) I'm not asserting it like some High Priest. Let's get the experimental evidence, and if possible understand "why" the photon takes the path it does. The physics community "owes" Mr. Calkin an explanation, understandable without years of study, and I'd like to give it to him. However I'm busy and it may take a while (like, months).

Why does the physics community owe you, and Mr. Calkin, that? One, because, ultimately, taxpayers pay their salaries. Two, because they don't understand it themselves if they can't explain it to laypersons.


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 05-22-2016

Hello John Duffield and thanks for joining the conversation.

You said;
The photon is not influenced by the transverse motion of the emitter,

Good. I agree.

You said;
but it does hit the target. Why? Because if it misses, you claim the emitter wasn't vertical.

By 'you' do you mean personally ? I do not claim this. I have always said the emitter remains rigidly affixed to the apparatus, and vertical at all times.

You said;
Vertical when you're moving is not the same as vertical when you're not.

I don't understand how. Please explain ?

And thanks for adding some new perspective to this.


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 05-22-2016

(05-21-2016, 10:09 PM)secur Wrote: [I have deleted most of the quoted text. It is a bad style to quote the whole text. One should quote only those parts which are necessary to understand the answer.]

To summarize.

SR must be right: the photon hits that target. However since I don't thoroughly know this (by experiment, I mean) I'm not asserting it like some High Priest. Let's get the experimental evidence, and if possible understand "why" the photon takes the path it does. The physics community "owes" Mr. Calkin an explanation, understandable without years of study, and I'd like to give it to him. However I'm busy and it may take a while (like, months).

Why does the physics community owe you, and Mr. Calkin, that? One, because, ultimately, taxpayers pay their salaries. Two, because they don't understand it themselves if they can't explain it to laypersons.
Hi secur. Thanks for the reply. It will take me some time to digest it. I just want to make two main points at this stage.

Firstly, I cannot tell you how much I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph and particularly your last sentence which I've bolded, above. To remove something unto the realm of the unknown (as far as 99% the population is concerned), is to me, bordering on mysticism - particularly as science admits to mathematics being but a language. And to defame and persecute sincere detractors is reminiscent of the Church, circa 1500's. It is interesting that the word 'heresy' comes from a much earlier benign, indeed positive word, 'eirisis' - to question or enquire.

This is the HUGE fallibility that science fora suffer from. And in my opinion, it stems from one or two main reasons;

a) they think everyone else without their qualifications is an idiot, or
b) the detractor might be homing in on the absurdity which they themselves dimly percieve but ignore.

Secondly, about Calkins. After I emailed you, I did receive an email response from him - a very lengthy, positive and friendly one, in where he clarified a perceived misunderstanding by the scientific community in the subject paper. In fact, he has revised the paper, and sent me a fresh copy, together with another 4 papers concerning and critical of SR, one of them with the provocative title of 'Relativity Is Based On A Parlour Trick.

It is going to take me a long time to read and comprehend these papers, let alone formulate any meaningful comment.

No matter. I'm glad though, that there IS some discussion here at my meagre level. I have not ignored the stuff you said in your above post and will try to come to terms with it and reply .. soon or late.


RE: Photon path .. - John Duffield - 05-22-2016

You said "but it does hit the target. Why? Because if it misses, you claim the emitter wasn't vertical." By 'you' do you mean personally? I do not claim this. I have always said the emitter remains rigidly affixed to the apparatus, and vertical at all times.

This "vertical at all times" is the root of the issue here. Imagine you and I are motionless standing in front of the apparatus. I press the button, and it emits a vertical photon that bounces off a horizontal mirror. Then it comes back down and bounces off another horizontal mirror, like this:

[Image: 200px-Time-dilation-001.svg.png]Public domain image by Mdd4696

 
No problem with that. We both agree that the emitter is vertical. OK, now imagine that we each have an identical apparatus, but we aren't together. We each press our buttons, and we each watch it emit a vertical photon that bounces off a horizontal mirror and comes back down like the depiction above. Only I forgot to mention we're in our spaceships, moving fast past one another. See the simple inference of time dilation on Wikipedia. I see my photon going vertically up and down, and you see your photon going vertically up and down. But I see your photon moving diagonally up and down like this:

[Image: 400px-Time-dilation-002.svg.png]Public domain image by Mdd4696

In similar vein you see my photon moving diagonally up and down like the depiction above. The point to note is that when we have relative motion, we no longer agree on what vertical is. My vertical is not your vertical, and your vertical isn't mine. Our sense of what's vertical gets "skewed" by our motion.


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 05-23-2016

Hi secur, yes, I agree with the quoting thing .. your red text, above. I can't seem to find any formatting buttons for selective quoting.
Added .. OOPS .. it seems the change was made by Schmelzer. OK.


Hi John D.
May I suggest you read though this entire thread, and see where I have legitimately obviated different observers, etc. To the effect that there is NO observer. One event happens and is recorded by a computer and the result is subsequently transmitted to .. anyone. Please, read the thread entirely to see that we have covered all this. After doing so, I would be happy to hear from you.