Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408167 > unrolled thread

The constancy of light

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 17:11 -0800
    Cretin Peter Riedt at it again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 17:16 -0800
      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt at it again, was re: constancy of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 12:38 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 12:25 +1100
      Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:26 -0800
        Peter Riedt eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 20:36 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:56 +0100
        Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 19:31 +1100
          Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 00:39 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:07 -0500
        Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:22 -0600
          Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 16:02 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:11 -0800
              Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 18:16 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:31 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:33 -0600
                  Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:53 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:32 -0600
      Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:36 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:07 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 05:25 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:59 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:14 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:15 +0100
              Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 03:44 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 13:36 +0100
                  Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 04:51 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 05:36 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 15:12 +0100
                    Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-09 08:52 -0600
                      Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 10:20 -0800
                        Imbecile Jay Mosley back with a vengeance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 10:44 -0800
                        Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:16 -0600
                          Re: The constancy of light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:32 +0000
                          Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 11:01 -0800
                      Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-10 12:49 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-10 14:47 +0100
                  Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-10 07:48 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0600
                      Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0800
                        Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 14:16 -0600
                          Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 14:31 -0800
                            Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 09:33 -0600
                              Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 08:18 -0800
                                Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 12:24 -0600
                                  Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 10:40 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-13 21:16 +0100
        Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:00 +0100
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 14:59 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 15:51 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:06 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:09 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 12:53 +1100
          Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:19 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:08 +1100
          Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:24 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:11 +1100
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:24 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 12:10 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 12:45 +1100
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 10:36 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 12:57 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 14:56 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-11 14:42 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:09 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:23 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:27 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:23 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:56 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:44 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#408371

W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 14:07:55 UTC+1 użytkownik matt.r...@outlook.com napisał:

> Is Peter talking about ballistic theory maybe? That wasn't refuted by MMX.

Neither ether theory was.
Relativists imagine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408373

mlwo...@wp.pl>W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 14:07:55 UTC+1 użytkownik matt.r...@outlook.com napisał: 
>> Is Peter talking about ballistic theory maybe? That wasn't refuted by MMX. 

>Neither ether theory was. 
>Relativists imagine. 

They imagined that if you couldn't measure any isotropic change in
light speed in MMX, light couldn't be a wave in MMX. Despite the fact that
the measurement process in MMX involved looking for any offset in the
interference pattern observed in the experimental setup. 
Obviously waves can't cause interference patterns in SR.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408374

W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 14:59:59 UTC+1 użytkownik matt.r...@outlook.com napisał:
> mlwo...@wp.pl>W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 14:07:55 UTC+1 użytkownik matt.r...@outlook.com napisał: 
> >> Is Peter talking about ballistic theory maybe? That wasn't refuted by MMX. 
> 
> >Neither ether theory was. 
> >Relativists imagine. 
> 
> They imagined that if you couldn't measure any isotropic change in
> light speed in MMX

MMX doesn't measure light speed. It measures
the fringes shift.
If it measured light speed it would prove
that (either light speed is what was measured
or there was an measurement error). No
measurement can prove more. 
But anyway it didn't measure speed of light.

Relativists only imagine it refuted something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408442

Dne 08/02/2017 v 14:59 matt.rush200@outlook.com napsal(a):
> mlwo...@wp.pl>W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 14:07:55 UTC+1 użytkownik matt.r...@outlook.com napisał: 
>>> Is Peter talking about ballistic theory maybe? That wasn't refuted by MMX. 
> 
>> Neither ether theory was. 
>> Relativists imagine. 

Classical theories of stationary or ( partially ) dragged aether
each hit the wall of refuting experiments.

> They imagined that if you couldn't measure any isotropic change in
> light speed in MMX, light couldn't be a wave in MMX. 

Who are they ? It is definitely not
the standard MMX nor SR interpretation.

> Despite the fact that
> the measurement process in MMX involved looking for any offset in the
> interference pattern observed in the experimental setup. 

> Obviously waves can't cause interference patterns in SR.

Obviously they can and they do.
The point is, the patterns did not change,
while it had been expected they would have.
.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408562

Poutnik
>> They imagined that if you couldn't measure any isotropic change in 
>> light speed in MMX, light couldn't be a wave in MMX. 

>Who are they ? It is definitely not 
>the standard MMX nor SR interpretation. 

Are you suggesting that you think a classical model of 
light where it *is a wave* isn't ruled out by MMX?

>> Despite the fact that 
>> the measurement process in MMX involved looking for any offset in the 
>> interference pattern observed in the experimental setup. 

>> Obviously waves can't cause interference patterns in SR. 

>Obviously they can and they do. 
>The point is, the patterns did not change, 
>while it had been expected they would have. 

This doesn't prove that light isnt a wave. It only proves
that the aether/vacuum medium is not measureable.

How do you explain the interference pattern with waves,
while at the same time saying the experiment rules out
a wave model of light?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408565

On 02/09/2017 12:44 PM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Poutnik
>>> They imagined that if you couldn't measure any isotropic change in
>>> light speed in MMX, light couldn't be a wave in MMX.
>
>> Who are they ? It is definitely not
>> the standard MMX nor SR interpretation.
>
> Are you suggesting that you think a classical model of
> light where it *is a wave* isn't ruled out by MMX?

No, it is not.
It is ruled out by later experiments.

What is rule out by MMX is the classical EM wave theory
considering stationary aether.

>>> Despite the fact that
>>> the measurement process in MMX involved looking for any offset in the
>>> interference pattern observed in the experimental setup.
>
>>> Obviously waves can't cause interference patterns in SR.
>
>> Obviously they can and they do.
>> The point is, the patterns did not change,
>> while it had been expected they would have.
>
> This doesn't prove that light isnt a wave. It only proves
> that the aether/vacuum medium is not measureable.

I did not say otherwise. If you think I did,
you have misinterpreted what I said.

>
> How do you explain the interference pattern with waves,
> while at the same time saying the experiment rules out
> a wave model of light?

You have said MMX ruled a wave model of light, not me.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408566

Poutnik
>>> Who are they ? It is definitely not 
>>> the standard MMX nor SR interpretation. 
> 
>> Are you suggesting that you think a classical model of 
>> light where it *is a wave* isn't ruled out by MMX? 

>No, it is not. 
>It is ruled out by later experiments. 

Fair enough. Other experiments supposedly rule it out. 
But if Light is not a wave, then how do you explain the interference 
patterns observed  in MMX, Sagnac, Kennedy Thorndike etc?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408573

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-7, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> Poutnik
> >
> > > Are you suggesting that you think a classical model of 
> > > light where it *is a wave* isn't ruled out by MMX? 
> 
> > No, it is not. 
> > It is ruled out by later experiments. 
> 
> Fair enough. Other experiments supposedly rule it out. 
> But if Light is not a wave, then how do you explain the interference 
> patterns observed  in MMX, Sagnac, Kennedy Thorndike etc?

Do you believe that electrons, protons, etc. are particles or waves?
How can you tell in the light of the de Broglie relationship?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408579

On 02/09/2017 01:51 PM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> But if Light is not a wave, then how do you explain the interference
> patterns observed  in MMX, Sagnac, Kennedy Thorndike etc?

Light in classical macro world physics context is a wave.

Light or more generally EM radiation in context
of quantum physics - following the principle of correspondence
- is wave in sense of time and space variable collection
of quantum objects called photons.

Photons manifest wave-like and particle-like behaviour,
but are neither waves nor particles in classical sense.

But this topic deviates too far from the thread topic.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408588

On 2/9/17 2/9/17   6:51 AM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Fair enough. Other experiments supposedly rule [light being a wave] out.
> But if Light is not a wave, then how do you explain the interference
> patterns observed  in MMX, Sagnac, Kennedy Thorndike etc?

The best model we have is QED, in which light consists of myriad photons. In 
QED, for the physical situations of those experiments, the probability of 
detecting a photon exhibits interference patterns that mimic the behavior of 
waves. There are other physical situations where light behaves quite different 
from waves.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408641

Tom Roberts
On 2/9/17 2/9/17   6:51 AM, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: 
>> Fair enough. Other experiments supposedly rule [light being a wave] out. 
>> But if Light is not a wave, then how do you explain the interference 
>> patterns observed  in MMX, Sagnac, Kennedy Thorndike etc? 

>The best model we have is QED, in which light consists of myriad photons. In 
>QED, for the physical situations of those experiments, the probability of 
>detecting a photon exhibits interference patterns that mimic the behavior of 
>waves. There are other physical situations where light behaves quite different 
>from waves. 

There are no other situations where light cannot be modelled as a wave.

I think you specifically refer to the " photoelectric effect" and also how 
light behaves at photo detectors. These are not good examples.
At photodetectors it's called the photovoltaic effect which isn't inconsistent
with the observations. On conductors the fault lies with the interpretation.
Photons do not "dislodge electrons to create a current" .
That is the photovoltaic effect. In the photoelectric effect, contrary to popular 
lack of wisdom, it is the applied pd that supplies the current. Hence any 
explanations involving photons are erroneous.
But I think Poutnik and yourself are being insincere. MMX *is*used as an
excuse to rule out light as a wave. Yet in fact it isn't doing that at all.
It only shows the aether/vacuum is unmeasurable. 
If you look at the experiment in historical context this experiment directly 
led to theorists ditching the wave model and trying to use a ballistic
model. Even your hero Albert did this. Yet they were ignoring the fact 
that light could still be a wave, by ignoring the interference pattern.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408644 — Imbecile Jay Mosley back with a vengeance

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:20:42 AM UTC-8, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote:
> 
> If you look at the experiment in historical context this experiment directly 
> led to theorists ditching the wave model and trying to use a ballistic
> model. Even your hero Albert did this. Yet they were ignoring the fact 
> that light could still be a wave, by ignoring the interference pattern.

Cretin Jay,

Why do you call yourself "Matt"? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409064

On 2/9/17 2/9/17 - 12:20 PM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The best model we have is QED, in which light consists of myriad photons. In
>> QED, for the physical situations of those experiments, the probability of
>> detecting a photon exhibits interference patterns that mimic the behavior of
>> waves. There are other physical situations where light behaves quite different
>>from waves.
>
> There are no other situations where light cannot be modelled as a wave.

Yes, there are; it's just that you are ignorant of them. They include: the 
observed stability of atoms, atomic spectra, blackbody radiation, photoelectric 
effect, operation of lasers, squeezed light, energy-doubling crystals, exotica 
such as "quantum choice" experiments, and many more.

> I think you specifically refer to the " photoelectric effect" and also how
> light behaves at photo detectors. These are not good examples.

Yes, they are good examples, because when a light beam is applied, electrons 
begin getting emitted immediately, far faster than a wave could build up enough 
energy to reach the threshold.

> At photodetectors it's called the photovoltaic effect which isn't inconsistent
> with the observations. On conductors the fault lies with the interpretation.
> Photons do not "dislodge electrons to create a current" .

Hmmm. This is just blather. The light _DOES_ provide the energy necessary for 
electrons to be emitted from the surface, and the threshold behavior clearly 
establishes that the energy comes in quanta with energy proportional to frequency.

> That is the photovoltaic effect. In the photoelectric effect, contrary to popular
> lack of wisdom, it is the applied pd that supplies the current. Hence any
> explanations involving photons are erroneous.

Nope. Without the incident light beam, no electrons are emitted. But it's more 
complicated than just light being present or not: there is a work function 
associated with electrons being able to leave the surface, and each electron 
must be given at least that much energy in order for it to be emitted; when h*f 
for a photon is below that value, no electrons are emitted, and when h*f is 
above that threshold, electrons are emitted with kinetic energy equal to the 
difference between h*f and the work function.

No "wave explanation" has ever succeeded in accounting for that behavior (a 
slight increase in frequency suddenly causing electrons to be emitted).

> But I think Poutnik and yourself are being insincere. MMX *is*used as an
> excuse to rule out light as a wave.

I have no idea where you got this notion; I have not seen it. It is quite 
clearly wrong, and the MMX by itself does not rule out light as a wave [#]. But 
many other experiments do (mostly ones performed many decades after the MMX).

	[#] Though it does put constraints on what could be "waving".

> If you look at the experiment in historical context this experiment directly
> led to theorists ditching the wave model and trying to use a ballistic
> model.

I have no idea where you got this, either. In the 1880s to 1930s there were MANY 
attempts to explain light and electrodynamics, spurred on by many different 
experiments. Not until QED in the 30s was there a theory that could accurately 
model all the experiments (though it took a decade or more to be able to 
calculate efficiently). QED is, of course, neither a wave, ballistic, nor 
particle model, it is something that was then entirely new: a quantum theory.

> Yet they were ignoring the fact
> that light could still be a wave, by ignoring the interference pattern.

But light cannot be a wave (in the sense you mean). You MUST learn about the 
experiments that have refuted every wave theory of light that has been 
presented. As long as you insist on discussing "wave theory" with no more 
specification that that, you will remain mystified, and will also remain too 
ignorant to recognize how mystified you actually are.

	(And once you learn enough to try a specific wave theory,
	 you will find it is already refuted by experiments.)

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409082

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Yes, they are good examples, because when a light beam is applied,
> electrons begin getting emitted immediately, far faster than a wave
> could build up enough energy to reach the threshold.

Are you pretty much sure? You are not violating causality, am I? They
cannot just start being emitted without reaching a threshold. This is the
number one lesson in embedded systems (CRTs included). Without a
threshold, nothing may happen.

> Nope. Without the incident light beam, no electrons are emitted. But
> it's more complicated than just light being present or not: there is a
> work function associated with electrons being able to leave the surface,
> and each electron must be given at least that much energy in order for
> it to be emitted; when h*f for a photon is below that value, no
> electrons are emitted, and when h*f is above that threshold, electrons
> are emitted with kinetic energy equal to the difference between h*f and
> the work function.

What kinetic energy? Does not really matter, in a conductor. It's rather
about a current, something you can measure. You cannot possibly measure an
electron(s)'s kinetic energy.

Even know, that current is a DC, not AC wave. It's clear, since the
electrons cannot oscillate at the incident light frequency.

> I have no idea where you got this notion; I have not seen it. It is
> quite clearly wrong, and the MMX by itself does not rule out light as a
> wave [#]. But many other experiments do (mostly ones performed many
> decades after the MMX).

The fringes depends on which half of the wave is hitting the detector
first.

> 	(And once you learn enough to try a specific wave theory,
> you will find it is already refuted by experiments.) Tom Roberts

Excellent post, thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409091

>> That is the photovoltaic effect. In the photoelectric effect, contrary to popular 
>> lack of wisdom, it is the applied pd that supplies the current. Hence any 
>> explanations involving photons are erroneous. 

>Nope. Without the incident light beam, no electrons are emitted. But it's more 
>complicated than just light being present or not: there is a work function 
>associated with electrons being able to leave the surface, and each electron 
>must be given at least that much energy in order for it to be emitted; when h*f 
>for a photon is below that value, no electrons are emitted, and when h*f is 
>above that threshold, electrons are emitted with kinetic energy equal to the 
>differences between h*f and the work function. 

Not what the reference says. You don't get any current no matter how
much light at whatever frequency is incident. You need an applied pd
before any effect is observed. Otherwise why don't we have solar
panels using this effect? You would get electricity from all incident
frequencies above the threshold. Not just the narrow ranges seen in 
solar panels currently. (Which utilise the photovoltaic effect.)

Take the first discoveries of this effect. Spark gap by Hertz and gold leaf
discharge. They both already had electrical charge applied. The incident 
radiation only speeded up the discharge, not created it.
That is unless you have an experiment you can cite where no *pd is applied* 
and when any emr above a threshold frequency is incident on the cleaned
metal a current is still generated, and that current increases linearly with
either an increase in intensity or incident frequency or both.
Maybe these exist but I've looked and can't find any. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408761

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 15:52:33 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 2/9/17 2/9/17   6:51 AM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> > Fair enough. Other experiments supposedly rule [light being a wave] out.
> > But if Light is not a wave, then how do you explain the interference
> > patterns observed  in MMX, Sagnac, Kennedy Thorndike etc?
> 
> The best model we have is QED, in which light consists of myriad photons. In 
> QED, for the physical situations of those experiments, the probability of 
> detecting a photon exhibits interference patterns that mimic the behavior of 
> waves. There are other physical situations where light behaves quite different 
> from waves.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Unfortunately this model provides nonsense in the EPR-Bell type of parody.

Therefore the model is stupid and wrong - another idiotic improvisation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408723

On 09.02.2017 12:44, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>> matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
>>> Obviously waves can't cause interference patterns in SR.
>
>> Obviously they can and they do.
>> The point is, the patterns did not change,
>> while it had been expected they would have.
>
> This doesn't prove that light isnt a wave. It only proves
> that the aether/vacuum medium is not measureable.

Nobody has said that the MMX prove that light isn't a wave.
Quite the contrary, in 1887, when the MMX was performed
everybody considered it proven that light was a wave,
because of the interference patterns seen in the MMX
and other optical experiments.

Later experiments have shown em-radiation
to be particles and not a wave, though.

When you read Einstein's 1905 paper
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES"
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
it is quite clear that he consider light to be a wave.

And even if Einstein the same year 1905 wrote the paper
where he introduced the idea that EM-radiation was
quantized, he still seemed to think that light was a wave.
A. Einstein:
ON A HEURISTIC POINT OF VIEW CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION AND 
TRANSFORMATION OF LIGHT
https://paulba.no/paper/Einstein_quanta.pdf
  quote from the introduction:
  <<
   The wave theory of light, which operates with
   continuous spatial functions, has proved itself
   splendidly in describing purely optical phenomena
   and will probably never be replaced by another
   theory. One should keep in mind, however, that
   optical observations apply to time averages and
   not to momentary values, and it is conceivable
   that despite the complete confirmation of the
   theories of diffraction, reflection, refraction,
   dispersion, etc., by experiment, the theory of
   light, which operates with continuous spatial
   functions, may lead to contradictions with
   experience when it is applied to the phenomena
   of production and transformation of light.
      Indeed, it seems to me that the observations
   regarding "black-body radiation," photoluminescence,
   production of cathode rays by ultraviolet light,
   and other groups of phenomena associated with the
   production or conversion of light can be understood
   better if one assumes that the energy is discontinuously
   distributed in space. According to the assumption to
   be contemplated here, when a light ray is spreading
   from a point, the energy is not distributed continuously
   over ever-increases spaces, but consists of a finite
   number of energy quanta that are localized in points
   in space, move without dividing, and can be absorbed
   or generated only as a whole.
  >>

> How do you explain the interference pattern with waves,
> while at the same time saying the experiment rules out
> a wave model of light?

You (like the scientists of the 19th century and early 20th
century) seem to think that particles can't form interference
patterns. But that is wrong, all quantum particles can do that.

See double slit experiment with electrons:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018/pdf
or:
http://tinyurl.com/hnx5gn3

When we use light, the interference pattern will usually appear
almost immediately after the light is switch on. That is because
the number of photons is so vast that the interference pattern
will appear to be continuous. But if the light is emitted photon
by photon, then points will first appear seemingly at random
positions on the detector (CCD). But after a while the
interference pattern will build up. So it is quite obvious that
the inference pattern must show the probability for where the
photons will hit.
We know that this pattern is as predicted by Maxwell's theory,
that is as interference between EM-waves.

Much the same is the case for electrons, but then the associated
probability waves are not em-waves, obviously.

Maxwell's equations and em-waves are still very usable tools.
All kind of radio system components (antennae, waveguides,
transmission lines, etc.) are designed using Maxwell. It would
in principle be possible to use QED for the purpose, but very
impractical (and probably practically impossible).

So Einstein's words quoted above were quite prophetic.
The wave theory of em-radiation is splendid to explain
certain phenomena, but "other groups of phenomena associated
with the production or conversion of light can be understood
better" with a quantum particle theory. (QED)

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408730

Paul B Andersen
>When we use light, the interference pattern will usually appear 
>almost immediately after the light is switch on. That is because 
>the number of photons is so vast that the interference pattern 
>will appear to be continuous. But if the light is emitted photon 
>by photon, then points will first appear seemingly at random 
>positions on the detector (CCD). But after a while the 
>interference pattern will build up. So it is quite obvious that 
>the inference pattern must show the probability for where the 
>photons will hit. 
>We know that this pattern is as predicted by Maxwell's theory, 

The same can be done with waves where the atom quantises the
input radiation. 
Assuming all atoms in the detector absorb a steady input of wave
radiation over time and release it at set quantised amounts 
equivalent to one 'photon' to the circuit. And all atoms start at 
different filled amounts, then where there is even intensity 
incident light but no pattern on the detector plane all atoms will 
fill and release at different times in random dots to the screen.

Where an interference pattern of light is incident on the detector
plane this will always give more incident radiation to the brighter 
stripes of the pattern areas of the detector. Hence although the 
overall fill and release of dots on the whole screen will still be 
random. Over time more dots will appear in the brighter stripe areas.

One can even do this with a simple number experiment. Divide 
a square into 100 squares 10x10 equally. And set each square at a 
random value between 0-9. Have each square fill to 10 units and 
then release a 'dot'. (photon=10)Now have a sequence of 
events where you simulate wave light incident on the square. 
Each 'event' has one unit added to each square.
Over time you get a random dot appearing somewhere on the 
screen. Reduce the amount each square gets each event,
and the random dots will appear less frequently. Apply a pattern
to the squares where every second column gets twice the amount.
( to simulate the interference stripes) 
Then a striped pattern to the random dots will emerge over time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409070

On 2/10/17 2/10/17 - 9:48 AM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> [...]

You claim a "wave theory" can explain various phenomena that Paul, I, and others 
point to as requiring quantum theory.

Apparently you don't understand how waves actually behave. In particular, 
objects that are significantly smaller than the wavelength of a wave cannot 
couple to it very efficiently, if at all.

So you need to think about how an atom or molecule with diameter less than a 
nanometer can efficiently absorb and emit "waves" that are millions of times 
larger in wavelength. Specifically consider the 1.2 cm output of an NH3 maser.

All "wave theories" are dead, and only quantum theories account for all the 
observed phenomena. Until you actually sit down and LEARN about those 
experiments, you will remain mystified.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409084

Tom Roberts 
>

>You claim a "wave theory" can explain various phenomena that Paul, I, and others 
>point to as requiring quantum theory. 

>Apparently you don't understand how waves actually behave. In particular, 
>objects that are significantly smaller than the wavelength of a wave cannot 
>couple to it very efficiently, if at all. 

>So you need to think about how an atom or molecule with diameter less than a 
>nanometer can efficiently absorb and emit "waves" that are millions of times 
>larger in wavelength. Specifically consider the 1.2 cm output of an NH3 maser. 

>All "wave theories" are dead, and only quantum theories account for all the 
>observed phenomena. Until you actually sit down and LEARN about those 
>experiments, you will remain mystified. 

This is a ridiculous argument. I can create waves much larger than the emitting 
object by moving the object back and forth by a distance greater than the objects
diameter. Furthermore any accurate measurement of an atoms diameter that
you refer to is suspect and theoretical only.
I only see data that shows an atom is indistinct and theses scales. There is no 
edge to an atom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web