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 - 06-03-2016

That's true, Schmelzer, and I wouldn't want you to think I didn't notice it! I didn't bother to make sure he was making that elementary error, since even if there was some explanation for the apparent mistake it doesn't change my opinion stated above. His conclusion is wrong however he got there. But I still want to see an experiment.

It occurs to me, does someone know how to solve Maxwell's equations for a wave emitted from a moving source, and show that the lobes (assuming typical dipole) are "thrown forward"? Ought to be easy enough, I'll take a look at it. But someone probably knows how the solution goes off the top of his head, right?


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 06-04-2016

Hi all. Thanks for the above two informative replies. I will reply soon, but just for now, I wanted to say that in relation to experimental evidence that you continue to rightly ask about secur, did you read this part in his conclusion (and also mentioned earlier in the paper) ?

Experiments using molecular beam masers, like those of Ce-
darholm, have confirmed empirically that a source in motion
does not "carry" its orthogonal radiation sidewise. In addition,
the physics community has in many other ways acknowledged
that SRT, as traditionally presented, has been somewhat mislead-
ing.

also see '6' in references and notes.

Now this - if I could ever find it, would be well beyond me, but it may be of some interest to you.

Also he mentions another paper ..

F. Wilczek, "The Persistence of Ether"


.. which is fascinating and by some guy who (looks like to me) knows his stuff, but anyway, don't want to get carried away.

Oh, one more thing. Earlier on I quoted Lorentz;

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

I would really appreciate your views about what he was specifically talking about here. I myself have no idea, but would like to follow it up.

First up, the second postulate (from Wiki)

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.


(my underline).
So what am I missing here ? I have restricted my thought experiment to ONE inertial frame of reference and have said that the receptor is capable of registering a redshifted or blueshifted photon.


RE: Photon path .. - secur - 06-04-2016

Ok.

Johnson is right that the light isn't "carried sideways". Instead, it shoots off at an angle, affected by the transverse motion of the emitter. The physics community has said - complained - many times that SRT is presented in a misleading way but never that its math conclusions are wrong.

Ref. 6, Cedarholm, was summarized well by Johnson and I didn't check it. maybe I should.

Wilczek is right, and is only saying what Einstein also said many years ago: there is an "ether" but it's not the old mechanical idea of the 19th century. Wilczek is updating Einstein's assertions in the light of recent data.

Lorentz is asserting the Principle of Relativity (POR): that we can't determine our state of motion via any experiment, EM or otherwise. He says "many" (not "all") because he believes length contraction and time dilation really do happen - and he's right. But we still can't detect it, because our instruments (measuring rods, clocks) are also contracted / dilated! Finally note the POR requires the angling of light due to emitter motion.

Wikipedia is quoting Einstein, who should have said the speed c is unaffected by emitter motion, not velocity. The angle is affected by motion. Einstein's SRT is wrong, Lorentz was right. SRT also predicts mathematically that the emitter affects the angle. But Einstein just doesn't want to admit it, because then there's no real difference between his and Lorentz's paper, which he stole the ideas from.

Does it sound like I'm shooting from the hip? It's true, don't have time to look into it further now. But I will, as the days go by.


RE: Photon path .. - Schmelzer - 06-04-2016

(06-03-2016, 02:56 PM)secur Wrote: It occurs to me, does someone know how to solve Maxwell's equations for a wave emitted from a moving source, and show that the lobes (assuming typical dipole) are "thrown forward"? Ought to be easy enough, I'll take a look at it. But someone probably knows how the solution goes off the top of his head, right?
That is indeed trivial. If one has a solution for a source at rest (which would be easier to find, given that it has some rotational symmetry, as far as it is not destroyed by the device which emits the wave in some direction), simply take it and make a Lorentz transformation. The result will be a solution for a wave emitted by a moving source.

This is the main point of the Lorentz transformations: It transforms solutions into other solutions of the same equation.


RE: Photon path .. - Schmelzer - 06-04-2016

(06-04-2016, 04:49 AM)secur Wrote: Wikipedia is quoting Einstein, who should have said the speed c is unaffected by emitter motion, not velocity. The angle is affected by motion. Einstein's SRT is wrong, Lorentz was right. SRT also predicts mathematically that the emitter affects the angle. But Einstein just doesn't want to admit it, because then there's no real difference between his and Lorentz's paper, which he stole the ideas from.
Einstein said "Geschwindigkeit", which can be translated as velocity or as speed, so blame the translator. I can also see no reasons for "doesn't want to admit" or "stole" accusations.


RE: Photon path .. - secur - 06-04-2016

(06-04-2016, 09:18 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:56 PM)secur Wrote: It occurs to me, does someone know how to solve Maxwell's equations for a wave emitted from a moving source, and show that the lobes (assuming typical dipole) are "thrown forward"? Ought to be easy enough, I'll take a look at it. But someone probably knows how the solution goes off the top of his head, right?
That is indeed trivial.  If one has a solution for a source at rest (which would be easier to find, given that it has some rotational symmetry, as far as it is not destroyed by the device which emits the wave in some direction), simply take it and make a Lorentz transformation.  The result will be a solution for a wave emitted by a moving source.

This is the main point of the Lorentz transformations:  It transforms solutions into other solutions of the same equation.

Right ... I was thinking of solving it without using Lorentz transformations because this thread is, in a way, questioning their validity. But of course one would just get the same answer.

BTW that's similar to LM asking you to solve dBB equations without using Bohm's Equivalence Theorem. No matter how it's done it must give the same answer so one simply uses the most direct technique, once it's proven equivalent.

Anyway, we already know, roughly, the solution one gets: the photon is "thrown forward". I.e. if it was going off at 90 degrees to the direction of the emitter, when stationary, it will be angled forward in motion. You showed that at the beginning of the thread, using simple relativistic addition - which also gives an equivalent answer.

(06-04-2016, 09:53 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(06-04-2016, 04:49 AM)secur Wrote: Wikipedia is quoting Einstein, who should have said the speed c is unaffected by emitter motion, not velocity. The angle is affected by motion. Einstein's SRT is wrong, Lorentz was right. SRT also predicts mathematically that the emitter affects the angle. But Einstein just doesn't want to admit it, because then there's no real difference between his and Lorentz's paper, which he stole the ideas from.
Einstein said "Geschwindigkeit", which can be translated as velocity or as speed, so blame the translator.  I can also see no reasons for "doesn't want to admit" or "stole" accusations.

Woops ... apologies for those terms which are extremely inappropriate! I wrote that reply very quickly at the end of a long day. Should have waited for the morning instead. My opinion, BTW, is based on historical research; but that's no excuse.

As for "Geschwindigkeit", thanks for that information about translation, I will say more on it later.


RE: Photon path .. - Schmelzer - 06-04-2016

That the formulas of SR are not Einstein's invention is not questioned, it is not an accident that the transformations are named "Lorentz transformations", and the theory itself was initially named Lorentz-Einstein theory. Poincare's contributions are also well-known, and it was only that his paper was published in a less prominent journal which nobody read that he was not named the founder of SR. There have been also a lot of argumentation about the priority of the Einstein equations of GR, Einstein or Hilbert. In all these cases the involved scientists have cared much less about priority than some people today.


RE: Photon path .. - secur - 06-05-2016

I've studied some documents and realized that back in early 1900's these physics papers did not use the word "speed" at all. They used "velocity" to mean both velocity and speed.

Remember that back then German was more-or-less the "official language" of science, and German has only the one word "Geschwindigkeit". So English followed suit and always translated that to "velocity". The papers always make it clear when they meant velocity as a vector. So if nothing is said about it, it always means "speed" - I believe.

I don't know when English speaking physicists began to use the word "speed". I've only been looking at papers translated from German; for all I know, original English papers back then did make the distinction that we use today.

Here are some relevant facts from "The Principle of Relativity", A collection of original memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl. Notes by A. Sommerfeld. Translated by W. Perrett and G.B. Jeffery. First published by Methuen and Company, Ltd, 1923. Translated from Des Relativitatsprinzip (Teubner, 4th ed, 1922); except for Lorentz's paper.

"Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity less than that of light", H.A. Lorentz. English version in Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of Amsterdam, 6, 1904.

As you see in the title he uses "velocity" to mean "speed". Later he says "... the angle between the velocity and the normal to the plates ..." using it in our modern sense.

"On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" A. Einstein, Original paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper", Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905.

The second postulate: "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." My conclusion is that "velocity" means speed here. Later he uses "velocity-vector" to make it clear he's not talking about speed. Later, "... a universal constant - the velocity of light in empty space." This is obviously a scalar. Later, "... makes the angle theta with the velocity of the observer ...". Here it's a vector.

I hope that settles that issue!

Regarding another issue, on the first page, Einstein gives his "famous example" of a conductor and a magnet in relative motion to each other. He describes how it doesn't matter which is moving; Maxwell's equations give the same effective results, but in one case it's due to an electric field, in the other to an electromotive force. Then he says, "Examples of this sort ... suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest ... the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." This is the Principle of Relativity for which the great genius Einstein is so famous today.

But it's interesting to note: in this publication, Einstein's paper is preceded by Lorentz's. And if you just read Lorentz, and now see this - published a year later - you're wondering why Einstein demonstrated this Principle of Relativity, implying that it's his original discovery. Because a year earlier Lorentz proved it! Not only that, but you've just read Lorentz mentioning that it's been well known for more than a decade! Therefore Arnold Sommerfeld feels compelled to add the following note: "The preceding memoir by Lorentz was not at this time known to the author."

Historical research has demonstrated to the satisfaction of most physicists and historians of science that this note is incorrect; the author had seen Lorentz's paper.


RE: Photon path .. - ALT - 06-05-2016

Hi secur, my comments in blue.


Ok. Johnson is right that the light isn't "carried sideways". Instead, it shoots off at an angle, affected by the transverse motion of the emitter.

Agree with the first sentence, but the second ? I can't see it. Are you say HE said that, or is that what YOU are concluding? My reading is that he says that it is independent of transverse (or any) motion. Also, he mentions reflection and says;

A similar confirmation of Lodge's
insight can be found in the assumption (not exclusive to SRT)
that light bouncing back and forth between front-surfaced mirrors loses no time during the reflection process (i.e., absorption and re-emission process).

Firstly, what is the current view of the physics community on this ? And secondly, what is your view ?

The physics community has said - complained - many times that SRT is presented in a misleading way but never that its math conclusions are wrong.

I of course, can never get into the math. But it seems to me that there is an inordinate amount of 'wiggle room' in such important definitions, concepts, etc, for such an .inviolate' theory as SRT.


Ref. 6, Cedarholm, was summarized well by Johnson and I didn't check it. maybe I should.

I would REALLY appreciate it if you would and then let us know your opinion.

Wilczek is right, and is only saying what Einstein also said many years ago: there is an "ether" but it's not the old mechanical idea of the 19th century. Wilczek is updating Einstein's assertions in the light of recent data.

Lorentz is asserting the Principle of Relativity (POR): that we can't determine our state of motion via any experiment, EM or otherwise.

In the brief passage of his that I quoted ? I can't see that.

He says "many" (not "all") ..

Which does he say are not ?

.. because he believes length contraction and time dilation really do happen - and he's right. But we still can't detect it, because our instruments (measuring rods, clocks) are also contracted / dilated! Finally note the POR requires the angling of light due to emitter motion.

I don't want to go too much off topic .. though I'm probably not .. best to say I don't want to confuse myself with arguments about time dilation and length contraction.
I just finished reading a 27 page thread on this in sciforums (is a length contraction just a visual thing) which ended in the usual acrimony (mainly brought about by the resident scientists there - shame on them).

And after reading it, I was none the wiser. Some of the residents were in fact, skirting the 'visual image' idea.

Much earlier in this thread, I posted some revealing comments I had saved from years ago, from a discussion between some real heavyweights and mentors in physicsforums, which outwardly said it WAS a visual thing.

Wikipedia is quoting Einstein, who should have said the speed c is unaffected by emitter motion, not velocity. The angle is affected by motion. Einstein's SRT is wrong, Lorentz was right. SRT also predicts mathematically that the emitter affects the angle. But Einstein just doesn't want to admit it, because then there's no real difference between his and Lorentz's paper, which he stole the ideas from.

I can't comment on the math, but it seems to me, as I mentioned earlier, the wiggle room is quite large.

Does it sound like I'm shooting from the hip? It's true, don't have time to look into it further now. But I will, as the days go by.

NO, not at all. I appreciate your time and efforts, and I do hope you look into it further and that any future thoughts you may have will continue to be (with some wiggle room) in 'my' language :-)

Secur, re your post 78 which I will read more fully later, regardless of past confusion, what is the current unambiguous expression of the 2nd postulate (even today, I saw many varied versions and wording of it in various science pages) ?


RE: Photon path .. - secur - 06-05-2016

secur previous: Johnson is right that the light isn't "carried sideways". Instead, it shoots off at an angle, affected by the transverse motion of the emitter.

Agree with the first sentence, but the second ? I can't see it. Are you say HE said that, or is that what YOU are concluding?

He didn't say it; that's my comment, which does NOT disagree with this one statement of his. I'm being a bit of a wise-a**. In fact, the rest of his paper contradict my addition here.

Don Johnson: A similar confirmation of Lodge's insight can be found in the assumption (not exclusive to SRT) that light bouncing back and forth between front-surfaced mirrors loses no time during the reflection process (i.e., absorption and re-emission process).

Firstly, what is the current view of the physics community on this ? And secondly, what is your view ?

Physics community agrees with that. Of course reflection involves a phase change, and momentum loss, but no speed loss. My view: there may be more to it than that. In 10 or 20 years a lot of these simple answers will become obsolete. Research in this area is very exciting and seems to be saying, when you really look at light closely, it's a lot more complicated than previously thought.

it seems to me that there is an inordinate amount of 'wiggle room' in such important definitions, concepts, etc, for such an .inviolate' theory as SRT.

Yes, that's what motivates me and many others.

secur previous: Lorentz is asserting the Principle of Relativity (POR): that we can't determine our state of motion via any experiment, EM or otherwise.

In the brief passage of his that I quoted ? I can't see that.

Can't say you're wrong. It's complicated; not because of physics but because of language! Have to parse his words, and the context thereof, very carefully. Not worth the trouble; of more interest to an English composition class than to us.

I just finished reading a 27 page thread on this in sciforums (is a length contraction just a visual thing) which ended in the usual acrimony (mainly brought about by the resident scientists there - shame on them).
And after reading it, I was none the wiser. Some of the residents were in fact, skirting the 'visual image' idea.
Much earlier in this thread, I posted some revealing comments I had saved from years ago, from a discussion between some real heavyweights and mentors in physicsforums, which outwardly said it WAS a visual thing.


I wish Einstein had stuck to the patent office, left the physics to Lorentz and Poincare. None of these problems would be with us today.

what is the current unambiguous expression of the 2nd postulate (even today, I saw many varied versions and wording of it in various science pages) ?

The speed of light in vacuum is constant and (a fortiori) not affected by transmitter motion or anything else.

As for the velocity, that's what this whole thread is about! As you know I and Schmelzer think it is affected by emitter motion. You, Mr. Calkin, Don Johnson, and Sir Oliver Lodge think it's not. Mainstream physics thinks it's magic: "a visual thing". Relax! The answer will become clear as time goes on, let's say a month to a year. We just have to find the experiment that nails it down. I'll look at Cedarholm one of these days.