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 .. - secur - 05-29-2016

ALT: I thought that mainstream say it is NOT being thrown forward.

No I think they say nothing on the subject.

ALT: The "length contractions" and "time dilations" of SR refer to what is OBSERVED. etc So what's all the fuss about ?

It's very simple. Time dilation has real effects. When he comes back from space trip the twin is actually younger. Similarly the photon really does hit the target therefore really does need to go at an angle. Length contraction is the only one that still could be an illusion AFAIK since the effects are not noticeable after the speed has stopped; but no doubt it too has some real effects.

OTOH I can look at you with a magnifying glass all I want you won't get bigger or smaller in reality.
.
That's why time dilation etc can't be merely illusion.


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 05-30-2016

Let's keep it simple and on topic. I know time dilation, length contraction are all related to the OP, but let's just stick to my photon thought experiment for the moment if you please.

Why do I suspect that the photon does NOT contain the transverse motion of it's emitter ?

For the same reason it does not contain the rectilinear motion. As Lorentz said (see a couple of posts up)

.. many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system.

I suspect I strongly agree with this. And those words can't mean anything less than what they say. Entirely independent means ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT. What is your view ?

I visualise that a photon emission is an instantaneous event. It happens in no time. And when it does happen, it is entirely free of the emitter. It takes no time to go from speed zero to c, else, the speed of light constant is defeated. What do you and others think ?


RE: Photon path .. - Schmelzer - 05-30-2016

If it would be entirely independent, the system would be unable to radiate. It radiates, thus, interacts with the electromagnetic field.

Whatever happens at a single point in a single moment is always only an approximation. Every classical equation of motion depends not only on the actual configuration, but also on the actual change of the configuration - the velocity, or the momentum, above would be zero without change. But to identify a change, you have to compare different moments. That the interaction between the matter and the EM field is somehow different and does not depend on change completely is not plausible at all.


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 06-01-2016

Hi Schmelzer and thanks for the interesting post. Haven't even been able to think about this stuff for a couple of days due to commitments but will certainly do so in due course.

In the meantime, I have just found the paper I read years ago that most impresses me on this whole thing, and that purports some experimental evidence.

I'm sure you and secur will find it very interesting. Please have a look at it and tell me your view.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiw-u_-p__MAhVlPKYKHbydBT8QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F228686590_On_the_transverse_emission_and_propagation_of_light_from_moving_sources%2Fpreview%2F0004a7520cf2ed98fb449928%2FPreview-228686590_On_the_transverse_emission_and_propagation_of_light_from_moving_sources.pdf%3FinViewer%3D0%26pdfJsDownload%3D0%26origin%3Dpublication_detail&usg=AFQjCNEuDXm1WlHTFFAsTCojBYs1MUXn7w&bvm=bv.123325700,d.dGY


RE: Photon path .. - Schmelzer - 06-01-2016

First, I have seen only the first page. Helpful to understand where your idea comes from, put not enough to evaluate the paper itself. Given that EM theory taken alone is the same before and after SR, there is no reason to suspect that an explanation given before SR is somehow automatically wrong. "Explanation differs" is one thing, different physics another one. (BTW, Galilean electrodynamics is certainly an anti-prestigious journal, it decreases the reputation of an article if it is published there. Such ad hominem against a journal is, of course, only a very cheap argument, but one can get it for free, without having to evaluate any formulas.)

Note also that this situation is a little bit different, because a moving star radiates in all directions anyway, while our discussion was about a light ray emitted in only one direction.


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 06-02-2016

(06-01-2016, 02:23 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: First, I have seen only the first page.  

Not clear. Is that because you are unable to get the rest - four from memory - or because you are not interested ?

Helpful to understand where your idea comes from, put not enough to evaluate the paper itself.  

You would have to read all the paper to evaluate it. It would probably take you another 5 minutes to read it all.
Also, my idea does NOT come from that paper any more than it comes from the Calkin paper. It is something I have mused about on and off for several decades.


Given that EM theory taken alone is the same before and after SR, there is no reason to suspect that an explanation given before SR is somehow automatically wrong. "Explanation differs" is one thing, different physics another one.  

I'm not sure what that means. I think the central core of my 'thought bubble' is that the emission of a photon is an instantaneous event that happens in no time, therefore is not effected by ANY motion of the emitter. Along the lines of the Lorentz quote I gave earlier.

(BTW, Galilean electrodynamics is certainly an anti-prestigious journal, it decreases the reputation of an article if it is published there. Such ad hominem against a journal is, of course, only a very cheap argument, but one can get it for free, without having to evaluate any formulas.)

Cheap, yes.
Not sure what you're saying about .."one can get for free without having to evaliuate any formulas'.


Note also that this situation is a little bit different, because a moving star radiates in all directions anyway, while our discussion was about a light ray emitted in only one direction.

Had you read the entire paper (5 minutes) you would see it in fact substantially speaks about a single photon emitted in one direction. And it makes some good reference to experimental proof to - and that, I thought, would have meant a whole lot more to you and secur, than it ever could to me.

BTW, if you are finding this thread tedious or not quite what you prefer for this site, please feel free to close it.



RE: Photon path .. - secur - 06-02-2016

(06-02-2016, 06:58 AM)ALT Wrote:
(06-01-2016, 02:23 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: First, I have seen only the first page.  

Not clear. Is that because you are unable to get the rest - four from memory - or because you are not interested ?

Only the first page is available at that link.

Quote:
Quote:Given that EM theory taken alone is the same before and after SR, there is no reason to suspect that an explanation given before SR is somehow automatically wrong. "Explanation differs" is one thing, different physics another one.  
I'm not sure what that means.
Sir Oliver Lodge's old idea is still relevant: because EM, taken alone, is the same now as it was in the 19th century.

Quote:
Quote:(BTW, Galilean electrodynamics is certainly an anti-prestigious journal, it decreases the reputation of an article if it is published there. Such ad hominem against a journal is, of course, only a very cheap argument, but one can get it for free, without having to evaluate any formulas.)

Not sure what you're saying about .."one can get for free without having to evaliuate any formulas'.

He gets a "cheap shot" without the hard work of actually reading the paper! (a little humor)


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 06-02-2016

[attachment=3]

OK, apologies for the misunderstanding about accessing the document. Strange, because I checked the link from two different computers, one Windows and one Linux, and got it in full both times. No matter.

I see there's some facility here to attach a document, Have attempted this. See how it goes.

EDIT. Yep - worked for me ..

BTW, secur, you had previously mentioned experimental evidence. The paper does make some reference to that. Would be interesting to see what you think.


RE: Photon path .. - secur - 06-03-2016

Thanks ALT, Don Johnson's paper is an honest effort to understand this question. The stellar aberration experiments are illuminating (pun intended). I read it carefully and my opinion is unchanged: a photon is affected by the transverse motion of the emitter. But now, more than before, I want to see an experiment that actually proves that.

There are a couple valuable points here. One, it occurs to me that the fact that the light wave is "thrown forward" is inherent in Maxwell's equations. The question has nothing to do with Special Relativity! Two, it's more understandable now why it's hard to do such an experiment: most light sources are spherical, sending beams out in all directions, unlike lasers. This is a point that Mr. Calkin made, that I appreciate better now.

As I said before, it's a great gedanken to support ether ideas. I tried it out on more non-physicists and they "get it" immediately. So let's keep trying to resolve the issue.

Remember the three most important things in science: experimental data, experimental data, and experimental data!


RE: Photon path .. - Schmelzer - 06-03-2016

Quote:One of these photons is emitted toward K, the other directly away from K. Thus one photon would have a velocity v+u, the other a velocity v-u. The result is that in the given proper time interval (represented in the diagram by the radius of the spherical wave front), the two photons would necessarily have traveled different distances from the historical point of origin, contrary to the SRT postulate for the velocity of light.

Here he simply ignores the relativistic formula for the addition of velocities. So, this looks for me like applying non-relativistic formulas and then seeing some contradiction with SR:

Quote:My purpose in this paper has been to establish that the SRT thought experiment underlying such basic concepts as time dilation and the relativity of motion contains a logical inconsistency