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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408723

Re: The constancy of light

Show all headers | View raw

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/

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web