A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Light Behaves Like Particles" Means New Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 21st 20, 12:37 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,968
Default "Light Behaves Like Particles" Means New Physics

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-T.../dp/0691024170

Two implications can be drawn from the above text (Feynman would not accept them of course). The first implication is obvious - the speed of light is variable as per Newton, as originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz introducing, ad hoc, contracting lengths) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

"Emission theory, also called Emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

The second implication sounds too strained but it could be justified independently of the light-is-made-of-particles assumption. Nothing in a flying particle would become longer or shorter if the emitter (or receiver) starts moving, or if the particle falls in a gravitational field. So the wavelength of light, no matter how it relates to the particle model, remains constant (for a given emitter).

Hence the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics:

The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter).

Is the new constant-wavelength-of-light axiom correct? Judging from the three scenarios below, (A), (B) and (C), it is:

(A) The observer starts moving relative to the emitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE. The wavelength (distance between light pulses) obviously remains constant while the frequency and the speed of the pulses vary proportionally for the moving observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

(B) The emitter starts moving relative to the observer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M. It is universally taught that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as shown in the video, but this contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure it regularly, inside his spaceship, and so he would be able to calculate his speed without looking outside. The wavelength of light is constant, independent of the speed of the emitter.

(C) Light falls in a gravitational field. The frequency and the speed of falling light vary proportionally, and accordingly the wavelength remains constant. This is clearly shown in the following two texts:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. SO lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Five important corollaries of the constant-wavelength-of-light axiom:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation - Einstein's general relativity is nonsense.

Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is static, not expanding.

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old October 22nd 20, 01:16 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,968
Default "Light Behaves Like Particles" Means New Physics

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel, Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', p. 151 https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-.../dp/0817641432

Einstein based physics "upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" in this way:

Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

That is, Einstein killed physics by abandoning the variable speed of light posited by Newton's particle (discontinuous) model of light and "borrowing" the false constancy of the speed of light posited by the ether field (continuous) model:

John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted. [...] If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. As long as Einstein expected a viable theory of light, electricity and magnetism to be a field theory, these sorts of objections would render an emission theory of light inadmissible." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.pdf

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field." http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf

"Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/

"At a time when other scientists believed that the speed of light was variable, Einstein took it as a fixed limit of nature and made it the absolute non-negotiable around which all other variables and parameters enfolded." https://www.brainpickings.org/2019/0...ng-relativity/

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old October 22nd 20, 10:08 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,968
Default "Light Behaves Like Particles" Means New Physics

Again:

Richard Feynman: "It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-T.../dp/0691024170

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator: "And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Relativity and Its Roots, p.92
https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Einsteinians:

https://thinkinganimation.com/FRL/IM...ear/Fear04.jpg

See mo https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Richard Feynman: Light Behaves like Particles Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 September 15th 20 04:10 PM
New Physics Based on the Axiom "Wavelength of Light Is Invariable" Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 18th 19 08:33 AM
Chapt15.57 ultimate meaning of the fine-structure constant 1/137, the"pi of physics" #1333 New Physics #1536 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 12 May 5th 13 08:01 PM
"Constant failure"; "The greatest equations ever"; "The ComingRevolutions in Particle Physics" Autymn D. C. Astronomy Misc 0 February 20th 08 07:44 AM
"Constant failure"; "The greatest equations ever"; "The Coming Revolutions in Particle Physics" fishfry Astronomy Misc 0 February 13th 08 03:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.