Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #519359 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-06 20:21 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-14 09:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-06 20:21 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-06 14:34 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-06 21:47 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-06 17:36 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-07 01:56 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 07:15 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-07 05:44 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:50 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-07 15:16 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:04 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 16:59 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:41 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 18:24 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:22 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 17:43 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:47 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 19:26 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-10 01:58 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:16 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:42 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 00:53 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 06:07 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:08 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:28 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 06:31 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio "Phony McNymster" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-09-11 07:42 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 07:59 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 07:16 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 09:41 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 09:49 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-11 18:18 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 11:24 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 11:20 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 06:21 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 02:04 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-13 00:07 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:22 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:59 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-13 03:44 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:33 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:49 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 01:07 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:40 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 03:40 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 13:19 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 04:55 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:01 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 16:36 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 12:18 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:29 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 02:41 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 12:11 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:40 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:59 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:47 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 10:10 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 19:57 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 11:14 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 20:23 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 20:31 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 12:21 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:30 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 00:57 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 14:50 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 12:57 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:37 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 03:06 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:10 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:15 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 06:43 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:11 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:26 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:35 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:44 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 08:15 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 08:44 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 17:38 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:00 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 11:22 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 12:29 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 01:16 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 23:09 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:35 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:44 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 23:50 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-13 05:24 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:35 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 01:01 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:39 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:34 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 12:31 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:53 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:22 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:08 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:31 -0500
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 20:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Relativistic Radio |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.06.20.21.35@localhost.localdomain> |
Think you're knowledgeable about modern physics? Well then, answer this one: I am driving along in my relativistic automobile. A radio station broadcasts at a frequency X. I turn in the direction of the transmitter and hit the accelerator to bring me to a velocity of 0.6c. The frequency I receive is now 2X. But what about the energy? The energy of the EM waves as I perceive them has now increased, but in the transmitter frame the energy remains the same. What is happening?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e6db3df-7274-402c-b207-e0744eab2371@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519359 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 1:22:14 PM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: > Think you're knowledgeable about modern physics? Well then, > answer this one: > > I am driving along in my relativistic automobile. A radio station > broadcasts at a frequency X. I turn in the direction of the > transmitter and hit the accelerator to bring me to a velocity > of 0.6c. The frequency I receive is now 2X. > > But what about the energy? The energy of the EM waves as I perceive > them has now increased, but in the transmitter frame the energy remains > the same. What is happening? So? Chestnuts falling from trees and hitting your windshield would appear to have increased energy too. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.06.21.47.53@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #519380 |
On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 14:34:18 -0700, Double-A wrote: > > [snip retarded drool] > Your brains are exempt from relativity. All observers will agree on you having zero intelligence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcardinale@volcanomail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 17:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4bc4378-ad92-4b35-8d2a-c2e148a12245@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519359 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 1:22:14 PM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: > Think you're knowledgeable about modern physics? Well then, > answer this one: > > I am driving along in my relativistic automobile. A radio station > broadcasts at a frequency X. I turn in the direction of the > transmitter and hit the accelerator to bring me to a velocity > of 0.6c. The frequency I receive is now 2X. > > But what about the energy? The energy of the EM waves as I perceive > them has now increased, but in the transmitter frame the energy remains > the same. What is happening? Energy is frame dependent. Physics 101.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 01:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.07.01.56.48@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #519439 |
On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 17:36:00 -0700, pcardinale wrote: > > Energy is frame dependent. Physics 101. > Oh really. The number of photons emitted in each frame is the same. In principle, all could be captured in moving frames and thus total energy conservation would be violated. Explain what is happening. Or can we get something for nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 07:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msj6dn$v4e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519460 |
Dne 07/09/2015 v 03:56 Fabian Russell napsal(a): > On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 17:36:00 -0700, pcardinale wrote: > >> >> Energy is frame dependent. Physics 101. >> > > Oh really. Oh really. > > The number of photons emitted in each frame is the same. > In principle, all could be captured in moving frames and > thus total energy conservation would be violated. > > Explain what is happening. In different frames different energy is used to produce the photons, thus the frame total energy conservation is not violated. Note that different frames have different total energy values. > > Or can we get something for nothing. > No, we cannot. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 05:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.07.05.44.51@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #519480 |
On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 07:15:17 +0200, Poutnik wrote: > > In different frames different energy is used to produce the photons, > thus the frame total energy conservation is not violated. > Total energy is the same. The intensity, however, and the antenna pattern are subject to transformation. The moving observer sees a different intensity of radiation and a different radiation pattern. If a standard dipole antenna pattern is present in the stationary frame the moving frame observes the following pattern: http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 08:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msjbvt$efc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519481 |
Dne 07/09/2015 v 07:44 Fabian Russell napsal(a): > On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 07:15:17 +0200, Poutnik wrote: > >> >> In different frames different energy is used to produce the photons, >> thus the frame total energy conservation is not violated. >> > > Total energy is the same. Total invariant energy is the same. But not all frame energy is invariant energy. Frame energies differ in total kinetic energy, as each frame counts zero kinetic energy for different state. Also, one must count what energy the moving transmitter puts in, not standing one. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcardinale@volcanomail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c86fea51-2aa4-4501-83c7-ef6b4e5e54f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519460 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:57:06 PM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 17:36:00 -0700, pcardinale wrote: > > > > > Energy is frame dependent. Physics 101. > > > > Oh really. > Yes, really. > The number of photons emitted in each frame is the same. Yes. > In principle, all could be captured in moving frames and > thus total energy conservation would be violated. > No. Total energy is conserved. But the value is different in different frames. > Explain what is happening. > Energy is frame dependent. Physics 101. > Or can we get something for nothing. No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msmtd8$h1k$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #519460 |
On 9/6/2015 8:56 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 17:36:00 -0700, pcardinale wrote: > >> >> Energy is frame dependent. Physics 101. >> > > Oh really. > > The number of photons emitted in each frame is the same. > In principle, all could be captured in moving frames and > thus total energy conservation would be violated. Why do you think energy conservation would be violated? Energy conservation doesn't say that the energy is the same in both frames. A car in the road frame has an energy of 450,000 J. The very same car as viewed in the rest frame of another car in the opposite lane has 1,800,000 J. This is classical mechanics. > > Explain what is happening. > > Or can we get something for nothing. > > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.08.16.59.50@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #519749 |
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Why do you think energy conservation would be violated? > Energy conservation doesn't say that the energy is the same in both frames. > > This is classical mechanics. > We're not talking mechanics. We're talking electromagnetics. Consider that an atomic transition in the rest frame produces a photon. Will an observer in the moving frame, who senses an increased photon energy, also see different energy levels in the atom? Consider a (tiny) transmitter, in the rest frame, powered by a battery that contains one mole of reactant. Does the observer in the moving frame see a greater energy (potential) within that one mole?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 12:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msn6l2$7cr$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #519770 |
On 9/8/2015 11:59 AM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> Why do you think energy conservation would be violated? >> Energy conservation doesn't say that the energy is the same in both frames. >> >> This is classical mechanics. >> > > We're not talking mechanics. We're talking electromagnetics. I'm pretty sure the frame dependence of energy conservation doesn't depend on whether it's classical mechanics or electromagnetics. > > Consider that an atomic transition in the rest frame produces > a photon. Will an observer in the moving frame, who senses > an increased photon energy, also see different energy levels > in the atom? Yes, indeed. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.08.18.24.10@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #519775 |
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:41:56 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > I'm pretty sure the frame dependence of energy conservation doesn't > depend on whether it's classical mechanics or electromagnetics. > This problem is actually a statement of synchrotron radiation. In synchrotron radiation, the energy produced in the particle frame is utilized in the laboratory frame. If the lab frame sees a higher frequency, with a concomitant higher total energy, then the energy used to produce the radiation in the particle frame will be multiplied and expended in the lab frame. Hence we get something for nothing. http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/SynchrotronPower.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 21:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msnce1$11l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519770 |
Dne 08/09/2015 v 18:59 Fabian Russell napsal(a): > > Consider that an atomic transition in the rest frame produces > a photon. Will an observer in the moving frame, who senses > an increased photon energy, also see different energy levels > in the atom? > An atom with an excited electron has higher mass dm = dE/c^2 than an atom at a base level. Therefore the former has at given velocity higher kinetic energy than the latter. Emission by moving atom provides additional energy equal to difference of the kinetic energies of the different masses. Furthermore, there is redistribution of momentum, aside of energy. An approaching atom decelerates while emitting a photon toward you. Decreased kinetic energy of the atom adds to the photon energy. A departing atom accelerates while emitting a photon toward you. Increased kinetic energy of the atom subtracts from to the photon energy. These 3 effects increase with increasing atom speed. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.08.17.43.47@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #519749 |
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Why do you think energy conservation would be violated? > Energy conservation doesn't say that the energy is the same in both frames. > > This is classical mechanics. > I cannot find much on the 'net to back up my claims. All web sites just rehash the standard textbook argument on mechanics. However, although not ideal, here is an excerpt from the "Alice in Physics" site: http://www.aliceinphysics.com/publications/doppler/en/doppler.html "We clearly see that any kind of differences that occurred on the wavelength DOES NOT CHANGE THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE (the energy that is between two peak points). Only the energy of the electromagnetic wave does take place in a larger (Redshift) or a more narrow distance (Blueshift) on the field of the spaceship. Instead of this, we can say that the frequency of the electromagnetic wave changes. In one respect, Doppler Effect is the law of conservation of energy between electromagnetic wave and its target. "As a result of change of the wavelength, the amount of energy that reaches to the spaceship in unit time, changes. This situation is sensed and measured as frequency change of the electromagnetic wave."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 12:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msn6vk$9ce$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #519776 |
On 9/8/2015 12:43 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >> >Why do you think energy conservation would be violated? >> >Energy conservation doesn't say that the energy is the same in both frames. >> > >> >This is classical mechanics. >> > > I cannot find much on the 'net to back up my claims. All web sites just > rehash the standard textbook argument on mechanics. Why are you not looking in books, which talk about the frame dependence of energy in electromagnetism? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 19:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.08.19.24.49@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #519777 |
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:47:34 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Why are you not looking in books, which talk about the frame dependence > of energy in electromagnetism? > Here's a nice on-line text-book: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html Looking at equation #1649 (in node130) we see a relativistic generalization of Larmor's formula, which is valid in all reference frames. In equation #1676 (in node133) we find the differential dependence of power on solid angle. The gist is that the radiation angular distribution differs between the two frames but the *integral* of dPower/dAangle over either angular distribution gives the same power. http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png At least that is my understanding. If I am incorrect, then where is the error?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 01:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0c2160b-597f-4dbb-ac76-55b06d684cdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519749 |
Odd wrote... >> The number of photons emitted in each frame is the same. >> In principle, all could be captured in moving frames and >> thus total energy conservation would be violated. >Why do you think energy conservation would be violated? > Energy conservation doesn't say that the energy is the same in both frames. Interesting argument he has. But it seems inadvertantly to be a good argument against the the concept of photons and for a wave only model of emr. For example: a source emits 10 photons at an energy x per photon. (total energy 10x) Observor who doesnt move relative to source gets 10 photons (10x) of energy. So far no free energy. But if the observor moves towards source at speed where observed wavelength halves and energy per photon doubles then if its still 10 photons, the total energy observed doubles. I think thats fabians argument. Something for nothing. But if emr is modeled as waves only quantized at detectors as I have often argued, then there is no "something for nothing".... Now take the same example ...In a certain time period the source emits a burst of energy of 10x amount in wave only emr. If the observor isnt moving they see 10x energy, quantized into what appears to be 10 'photons' worth at their detector. But if they move towards the source at such a speed that the observed wavelength halves then the observor sees the same burst 10x of emr but in half the time. The incoming blueshifted emr is double the energy per second, but because its only observed for half the time, the total observed energy is the same as for when the observor wasnt moving relative to the source. At the detector this higher frequency , shorter wavelength emr is qauntized into only 5 'photons'. (But importantly...5 higher energy 'photons'.) No something for nothing in a wave only model of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 19:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mssdpr$lt6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520089 |
On 09/10/2015 10:58 AM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
> For example: a source emits 10 photons at an energy x per photon. (total energy
> 10x) Observor who doesnt move relative to source gets 10 photons (10x) of energy.
> So far no free energy.
> But if the observor moves towards source at speed where observed wavelength halves
> and energy per photon doubles then if its still 10 photons, the total energy
> observed doubles. I think thats fabians argument. Something for nothing.
Not for nothing.
In the frame where the source is moving,
the source does not provide the same energy to the photon
as if is in the rest.
- quantum energy level differences slightly increase for moving source,
as they belong to different source masses
( and therefore different kinetic energies at the same speed.
- additional energy is added/subtracted to/from a photon
in case of decelerating approaching
or accelerating departing source.
--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 19:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mssfb3$soq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520114 |
On 09/10/2015 07:16 PM, Poutnik wrote: > - additional energy is added/subtracted to/from a photon > in case of decelerating approaching > or accelerating departing source. As if a source is moving toward you, emission of a photon toward you decelerates it and the energy is added to the photon energy. OTOH, if the source is moving away of you, emission of a photon toward you accelerates it and the energy is subtracted from the photon energy. In both cases, the extra energy increases with the source speed. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web