CAN SPECIAL RELATIVITY BE SAVED ?

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c/L)(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Clearly special relativity is violated.

The only way to save special relativity is to assume that the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light so that, in the frame of the moving observer, the product (frequency)(wavelength), which is equal to the speed of light, remains constant (independent of the speed of the observer). This wavelength change is usually implicit in Einsteiniana's texts but silly Einsteinians sometimes produce explicit explanations similar to this one:

According to special relativity, the speed of light is the same for any observer so if for the moving observer the frequency shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c), then, for the same observer, the wavelength shifts from L to L'=L/(1+v/c), and the product f'L', which is the speed of light relative to that observer, remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Clever Einsteinians know that the motion of the observer can change nothing in the incoming light - the idea is too silly even for Divine Albert's world. Tom Roberts explicitly admits this but then proposes an even sillier explanation of the wavelength behaviour: the wavelength of light, in Tom Roberts' imagination, is not an intrinsic property of light; rather, it is a function of mysterious "measuring instruments" possessed by the observer, and the state of those "measuring instruments" is a function of the speed of the observer. To put it simply, as the observer changes his speed, his "measuring instruments" react accordingly and give the precious value of the wavelength guaranteeing constancy of the speed of light and allowing Tom Roberts to safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ
Tom Roberts: "Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates. Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the measuring instrument."

Pentcho Valev

Tom Roberts' idea of measured wavelength of light that depends on the speed of the observer, no matter how silly, is still the only hope for special relativity and deserves special attention:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....o/0oN0istr3lgJ
Tom Roberts: "...yes, from experimental measurements we know that the motion of an observer does not affect the measured wavelength of sound waves. (....) All that matters is the world we inhabit, and in that world, the wavelength of a light wave is NOT an intrinsic aspect of the wave, but rather represents a RELATIONSHIP between wave and measuring instrument. Differently moving observers in different inertial frames can AND DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given light wave."

That is, by changing his speed relative to the emitter, the observer does not change the incoming light but changes his measuring instruments which give a different value of the wavelength. The mechanism is obscure but the respective calculations are extremely simple:

If the speed of the observer relative to the emitter shifts from zero to v and the frequency measured by the observer shifts accordingly from f to f', then the wavelength as provided by the measuring instrument of the observer shifts from L to L'=fL/f'. So, if c' is the speed of the light relative to the moving observer, we have:

c' = f'L' = fL = c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Special relativity is inherently contradictory when it comes to explaining the alleged wavelength change caused by the motion of the light source or observer:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."

That is, if the light source starts moving towards the stationary observer, the shortening of the wavelength occurs at the very beginning, as two consecutive wavecrests leave the source, and then the shortened wavelength starts its journey towards the observer. In other words, the wavelength that travels between source and observer is shortened.

If the observer starts moving towards the stationary source, the situation implied by special relativity is entirely different. This time the wavelength that travels between source and observer is not shortened - rather, it is the original wavelength which could only be shortened upon interaction with the observer.

Clearly the two different pictures - the travelling wavelength is shorter when the source moves towards the observer and longer when the observer moves towards the source - contradict the principle of relativity. The only solution to the problem is to assume that there is no shortening of the wavelength in both cases. So the principle of relativity is restored but special relativity will have to be abandoned.

Pentcho Valev

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:30:51 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."



That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:



f' = f(1+v/c) = (c/L)(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L



where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Clearly special relativity is violated.



The only way to save special relativity is to assume that the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light so that, in the frame of the moving observer, the product (frequency)(wavelength), which is equal to the speed of light, remains constant (independent of the speed of the observer). This wavelength change is usually implicit in Einsteiniana's texts but silly Einsteinians sometimes produce explicit explanations similar to this one:



According to special relativity, the speed of light is the same for any observer so if for the moving observer the frequency shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c), then, for the same observer, the wavelength shifts from L to L'=L/(1+v/c), and the product f'L', which is the speed of light relative to that observer, remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.



Clever Einsteinians know that the motion of the observer can change nothing in the incoming light - the idea is too silly even for Divine Albert's world. Tom Roberts explicitly admits this but then proposes an even sillier explanation of the wavelength behaviour: the wavelength of light, in Tom Roberts' imagination, is not an intrinsic property of light; rather, it is a function of mysterious "measuring instruments" possessed by the observer, and the state of those "measuring instruments" is a function of the speed of the observer. To put it simply, as the observer changes his speed, his "measuring instruments" react accordingly and give the precious value of the wavelength guaranteeing constancy of the speed of light and allowing Tom Roberts to safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":



https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ

Tom Roberts: "Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates. Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the measuring instrument."



Pentcho Valev

Is it objectively proven that an individual photon wave and its phantom/quantum particle actually move?