How does the Light Move?

On Dec 18, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
In our best model of light, QED, the photon is NOT a particle. Neither is it a
wave.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare

There is no expectation that words and concepts from your everyday life capture
the essence of phenomena far removed from you everyday experience. Photons and
quantum phenomena are indeed far removed (you experience light, not photons or
their quantum implications).

Honest Roberts stop introducing red herrings! You know that the
problem crucial for contemporary physics is: Does the speed of light
depend on the speed of the light source, as Newton's emission theory
of light assumes, or is it independent of the speed of the light
source, as Einstein's special relativity assumes. I suggest that you
return to and develop the following insights of yours:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2

John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."

Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
In our best model of light, QED, the photon is NOT a particle. Neither is
it a
wave.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare

There is no expectation that words and concepts from your everyday life
capture
the essence of phenomena far removed from you everyday experience.
Photons and
quantum phenomena are indeed far removed (you experience light, not
photons or
their quantum implications).

Honest Roberts stop introducing red herrings! You know that the
problem crucial for contemporary physics is: Does the speed of light
depend on the speed of the light source, as Newton's emission theory
of light assumes, or is it independent of the speed of the light
source, as Einstein's special relativity assumes. I suggest that you
return to and develop the following insights of yours:

Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
emitter. It also varies wtih the dielectric constant of the medium. Thus,
light travels slower in glass or water than in air. (Note, this is the
valid reason for the stellar displacement that apparent "proved" GR -
actually the light was bent by the matter around the sun, just like an
optical lens. The Einsteinians played a trick, by ignoring the matter
around the sun that caused the light bending during the famous eclipse, and
by third-rate legerdemain, told the world that the sun acting as a
gravitational lens proved GR! What a shoddy trick!).

Actually, the MMI experiment proves beyond doubt that the speed of light
varies with the speed of the emitter. That is why they are no nulls, as the
distances travelled along different directions get ACTUALLY suitably shifted
WHILE APPEARINING TO BE THE SAME since the Earth has velocity, so there are
no time differences between the returns at various angles. If there were
non-nulls, or time differences from the returns in various directions, then
only would the speed of light vary with the speed of the emitter, for the
distances would be greater or lesser SINCE THE EARTH IS MOVING. Unless the
MMI apparatus would remain stuck to ether while the Earth moved under the
MMI appratus (that is, its speed was 0 wrt to the ether, an impossible case
BUT THIS IS WHAT IS NOW IMPLICITLY ASSUMED); or the Earth actually stood
still (in the Aristotlean model, which contradicts all notions of Earth's
movement around the sun).

Cheers, and let me know if there is anything I need to elaborate. I will
put up my paper on my website if anyone is interested - it used to be there,
now with changes in my ISP policy is not around any more.

Arindam Banerjee


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2

John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."

Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

Pentcho Valev

Arindam Banerjee says...

Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
emitter.

No, it certainly does not. It has been known for nearly 150 years that light is
a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by Maxwell's equations.
The speed of light is uniquely determined by two parameters: epsilon and mu,
whe (1) the electric field E a distance r from a point particle of charge Q
has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and (2) the magnetic field B a distance r
from a wire carrying current J has magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding
prediction of Maxwell's equations is that these two constants determined from
time independent charges and currents imply the existence of travelling
electromagnetic waves of velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon). The velocity of
the emitter has no role whatsoever in the theory, which has been tested in an
enormous number and variety of experiments.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Dec 20, 7:44*am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Arindam Banerjee says...

Very good. *Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
emitter.

No, it certainly does not. It has been known for nearly 150 years that light is
a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by Maxwell's equations.
The speed of light is uniquely determined by two parameters: epsilon and mu,
whe (1) the electric field E a distance r from a point particle of charge Q
has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and (2) the magnetic field B a distance r
from a wire carrying current J has magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding
prediction of Maxwell's equations is that these two constants determined from
time independent charges and currents imply the existence of travelling
electromagnetic waves of velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon). The velocity of
the emitter has no role whatsoever in the theory, which has been tested in an
enormous number and variety of experiments.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

The initial wave front isn't limited to 'c'.

Are you suggesting that gravity is also limited to 'c'?

We can't see much further than 15 billion light years because the
source of those photons are moving away at something near or above the
velocity of 'c'.

~ BG


~ BG

On Dec 20, 7:44*am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Arindam Banerjee says...

Very good. *Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
emitter.

No, it certainly does not. It has been known for nearly 150 years that light is
a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by Maxwell's equations.
The speed of light is uniquely determined by two parameters: epsilon and mu,
whe (1) the electric field E a distance r from a point particle of charge Q
has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and (2) the magnetic field B a distance r
from a wire carrying current J has magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding
prediction of Maxwell's equations is that these two constants determined from
time independent charges and currents imply the existence of travelling
electromagnetic waves of velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon).

Velocity c with respect to what?

The velocity of
the emitter has no role whatsoever in the theory, which has been tested in an
enormous number and variety of experiments.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Newberry wrote:

On Dec 20, 7:44 am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Arindam Banerjee says...

Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of
the emitter.

No, it certainly does not. It has been known for nearly 150 years that
light is a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by
Maxwell's equations. The speed of light is uniquely determined by two
parameters: epsilon and mu, whe (1) the electric field E a distance r
from a point particle of charge Q has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and
(2) the magnetic field B a distance r from a wire carrying current J has
magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding prediction of Maxwell's equations
is that these two constants determined from time independent charges and
currents imply the existence of travelling electromagnetic waves of
velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon).

Velocity c with respect to what?

Inertial frames. Do catch up.


The velocity of
the emitter has no role whatsoever in the theory, which has been tested
in an enormous number and variety of experiments.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Newberry says...

Velocity c with respect to what?

Operationally, constancy of the speed of light means this: Take two standard
clocks and synchronize them. Slowly move them a distance L apart (as measured by
standard meter sticks). Keeping the two clocks at rest relative to one another
(make sure that the measured distance between them remains constant), send a
light signal from one clock to the other. Let T be the difference between the
time at which the signal was received (as shown on the receiving clock) and the
time at which the signal was sent (as shown on the sending clock). Then the
prediction of relativity is that L/T = c, regardless of the state of motion of
the clocks, as long as the clocks are not accelerated (and there are no
gravitational fields). If the clocks are accelerated (or if there are
gravitational fields present), then the prediction still holds in a limiting
sense: in the limit as L -- 0, L/T = c.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On 12/21/09 10:30 AM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Newberry says...

Velocity c with respect to what?

Operationally, constancy of the speed of light means this: Take two standard
clocks and synchronize them. Slowly move them a distance...

What makes you think that "slowly" moving them makes a difference?

Sam Wormley says...

On 12/21/09 10:30 AM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Newberry says...

Velocity c with respect to what?

Operationally, constancy of the speed of light means this: Take two standard
clocks and synchronize them. Slowly move them a distance...

What makes you think that "slowly" moving them makes a difference?

Because if clocks are moved about at speeds comparable to the speed of
light, then they do not remain synchronized (unless their motions are
exactly identical).

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On 12/21/09 12:55 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Sam Wormley says...

On 12/21/09 10:30 AM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Newberry says...

Velocity c with respect to what?

Operationally, constancy of the speed of light means this: Take two standard
clocks and synchronize them. Slowly move them a distance...

What makes you think that "slowly" moving them makes a difference?

Because if clocks are moved about at speeds comparable to the speed of
light, then they do not remain synchronized (unless their motions are
exactly identical).

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY


Any acceleration (no matter how small) spoils synchronization.
Satellite clocks are an excellent example.