Curving light waves

reply to post by chr0naut




The question was:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I see the member associated with the last post of the thread has a line drawn over his/her name. Does that mean the person was banned?

Originally posted by primalfractal
Well, it's posted on physicsforums.com, wonder how we will go?

"What happens to a photon wave packet when half out of a moving device?"

Linky

Yes, that is what I am asking as I do not know what would happen in that case.

That was posted October 14. Why is there no response?

Because no one knows the answer?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by primalfractal
Well, it's posted on physicsforums.com, wonder how we will go?

"What happens to a photon wave packet when half out of a moving device?"

Linky

Yes, that is what I am asking as I do not know what would happen in that case.

That was posted October 14. Why is there no response?

Because no one knows the answer?

The four subsequent posts after the OP in that forum answered the question.

The experiment cannot be done because you cannot 'catch' a Photon half way out of the emitter. The Photon either has, or has not been emitted. There's no 50% of a photon, no half way event. This is part of the "quantumness" of the elementary particles, they simply cannot be divided.

Calling a Photon a "wave packet" is a misnomer as the "Quantum Wave Function" (determined via Schroedingers equation) does not describe an actual wave but is, rather, a graph of probabilities (which happens to look like a wave-like curve when plotted).

Similarly, a Photon may have oscillations of several cycles (several full wavelengths) or only a partial segment of a wavelength (the actual wavelength being determined by the frequency of the electromagnetic signal). Frequency and wavelength, therefore are largely immaterial to the Photon which is actually a minimum size of a particular packet of energy.

reply to post by chr0naut

The experiment is to put the source in motion and see what effect that has on the distribution of photons relative to the source. If the distribution of photons from the source is something like a bell curve when the source is stationary, then when the source is in motion, either the distribution will get wider due to the motion of the source, or it won't (after adjusting for experimental error).

It wouldn't be easy to do the experiment, and you could call it hard, but I don't see anything impossible about it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by chr0naut

 

The experiment is to put the source in motion and see what effect that has on the distribution of photons relative to the source. If the distribution of photons from the source is something like a bell curve when the source is stationary, then when the source is in motion, either the distribution will get wider due to the motion of the source, or it won't (after adjusting for experimental error).

It wouldn't be easy to do the experiment, and you could call it hard, but I don't see anything impossible about it.

I don't believe that there would be any positional divergence (relative to the position of the emitter) from the bell curve until the emitter was moving at close to relativistic velocities.

Then there would be a slew to the bell curve that would cause the whole curve to lag behind the emitter (due to time dilation and the vector addition of velocities being constrained to 'c') this would not cause a change in the profile of the bell curve, it would be a positional offset.

Also, if the emitter had mass, then moving at close to light speed would make it more massive, hence there would likely be further curvature to space-time but this also would not necessarily alter the profile of the probability curve due to the spatial distortion being located toward the emitter from the detector in a linear path.

Originally posted by chr0naut
Then there would be a slew to the bell curve that would cause the whole curve to lag behind the emitter (due to time dilation and the vector addition of velocities being constrained to 'c') this would not cause a change in the profile of the bell curve, it would be a positional offset.

I have seen what I believe to be a credible challenge to time dilation. I posted it on another thread in this post.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

PESWiki has links to a 12 part video series of a Coast-to-Coast interview of Eugene Mallove that took place February 3, 2004. I'm on part 5; it's a very informative interview: Videos

I'm reading a .pdf right now that brought back to mind for me something Mallove said in the above series of videos. The .pdf is entitled "Albert in Relativityland," it is published in The General Science Journal, and the author is Raleigh Amesbury. This is one well-written and thought-provoking document.

The part that reminds me of Mallove is Amesbury's account of the wrong turn science took with relativistic time dilation, which is discussed beginning on page 4. Amesbury references, among other things, Irish engineer Alphonsus G. (Al) Kelly's thorough analysis of the famous Hafele-Keating (H & K) experiment of 1972, using the four atomic clocks. Kelly is the author of a 2005 book, Challenging Modern Physics.

The comment Mallove made in Part 8 of the 12 part series was, "Time dilation is not part of the universe."

What if, in reality, there is no such thing as time dilation?

Originally posted by chr0naut
I don't believe that there would be any positional divergence (relative to the position of the emitter) from the bell curve until the emitter was moving at close to relativistic velocities.

That may indeed be true, and that was my first guess actually, but we don't really know if we can't find any experimental confirmation of this. The experimental result may even depend on some factors involving the geometry and configuration of the source.

Then there would be a slew to the bell curve that would cause the whole curve to lag behind the emitter (due to time dilation and the vector addition of velocities being constrained to 'c') this would not cause a change in the profile of the bell curve, it would be a positional offset.

Also, if the emitter had mass, then moving at close to light speed would make it more massive, hence there would likely be further curvature to space-time but this also would not necessarily alter the profile of the probability curve due to the spatial distortion being located toward the emitter from the detector in a linear path.

In the context of the early posts in this thread about earth to moon photons, if you aim a laser pointer at the moon and sweep it across the moon's surface, it's pretty easy to achieve superluminal progression of the photons striking the moon's surface while moving the pointer pretty slowly, so from this conceptual basis, the motion of the source need not be relativistic. For a small earth-based lab experiment however, it might be another story.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The .pdf is entitled "Albert in Relativityland," it is published in The General Science Journal, and the author is Raleigh Amesbury.

What if, in reality, there is no such thing as time dilation?

What if you learned enough to make a technical assessment of these claims yourself? You have demonstrated and I think admitted that you lack such qualifications.

Until you have them, you have to rely on others to make them and the peer review process is one way of getting some expert opinions not to say whether the paper is correct or incorrect but at least to certify that there aren't any gaping holes in the methods used, analysis, etc.

If Raleigh Amesbury had a paper worth publishing that could pass peer review, why wouldn't he get it peer reviewed and published in a real journal, one that has some standards of credibility?
I see there's a peer reviewed paper saying that that we might all be living in a giant black hole. I doubt it's true, but it shows me that the peer review process is not as restrictive as some people promoting fringe ideas like to claim, because this is clearly not a mainstream idea.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

1. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated your lack of understanding of how things actually work in the world.
   
2. "This is clearly not a mainstream idea"? So what?
   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

1. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated your lack of understanding of how things actually work in the world.
   
2. "This is clearly not a mainstream idea"? So what?
   

the idea that time dilation doesn't exist is not mainstream either. So the point is, it's not a requirement for your idea to be mainstream to get peer reviewed.

PhysicsForums has a forum section called "against the mainstream", where they consider peer-reviewed papers that don't conform to mainstream ideas. So if there was anything to this idea of time dilation not existing, this is where you would find it being discussed.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So the point is, it's not a requirement for your idea to be mainstream to get peer reviewed.

Peer review is one of the techniques used by the power structure I allude to in my first point. It's another topic in itself, and really off-topic for this thread.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In the context of the early posts in this thread about earth to moon photons, if you aim a laser pointer at the moon and sweep it across the moon's surface, it's pretty easy to achieve superluminal progression of the photons striking the moon's surface while moving the pointer pretty slowly, so from this conceptual basis, the motion of the source need not be relativistic. For a small earth-based lab experiment however, it might be another story.

Yes, I was thinking more in the context of a lab. I'm not sure how you'd distribute photon counters across the surface of the Moon

I still can't see how we'd get any blurred out semi-photons at the receptor.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In the context of the early posts in this thread about earth to moon photons, if you aim a laser pointer at the moon and sweep it across the moon's surface, it's pretty easy to achieve superluminal progression of the photons striking the moon's surface while moving the pointer pretty slowly, so from this conceptual basis, the motion of the source need not be relativistic. For a small earth-based lab experiment however, it might be another story.

Yes, I was thinking more in the context of a lab. I'm not sure how you'd distribute photon counters across the surface of the Moon

I still can't see how we'd get any blurred out semi-photons at the receptor.

edit on 24/10/2012 by chr0naut because: addition of thoughts

Hes not provided a solid hypothesis for his experiment, so unless I am mistaken he's not implying any longer that that the photons themselves are blurring or that even the wave function would be angled if location was graphed. If I understand him right, he has evolved to saying the vector potential would be partial-ed which tho is a trivial problem with the propagation of light currently trying to be solved with quantum theories of gravity, is as im sure even an individual with minor education in particle/wave propagation could state. It introduces no currently testable predictions unknown to science, so useless in this context. I have tried to bait him onto other inquiries from his experiment but he has not bitten.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So the point is, it's not a requirement for your idea to be mainstream to get peer reviewed.

Peer review is one of the techniques used by the power structure I allude to in my first point. It's another topic in itself, and really off-topic for this thread.

Another laymen misconception. Peer review is one of the only parley democratic system still widely in place across the world today. You people just don't understand how determined many main stream scientists are to prove current or existing theories wrong. We want nobel prizes, and one sure fire way to win a nobel peace prize in physics is to provide evidence or proofs that a currently established theory is incorrect. And it only takes the smallest inconsistency to throw a theory in the trash. I believe this is due to the majority of the science community having liberal mindsets.
Now as countless professionals before me have stated "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Do you think that if Einstein hadn't provided enough evidence to support his theory of how the movement of small particles suspended in stationary liquids required by the Molecular-Kinetic theory of heat is evidence of fundamental matter(then atoms) as particle would be accepted without observed Brownian motion? No, it would have been a controversial theory until more work was done. But luckily for Albert our experimental discipline were way behind our theoreticians at the time(as they still are) so naturally accruing and observable brownian motion was enough to prove his theorem worthy to the scientific community. Not all idea are as lucky and will not be validated with observations for many years. That does not imply that nuts like primalfractal or rose have the same level of comprehension, it just means these loons cant be proven wrong for awhile. Source.

I had an idea for a way to do the experiment. I guess it might be wrong and I was wanting someone to point out why please.

Spinning a fluorescent molecule with lasers.

There seems to be no limit to what you can do with a laser. Lasers have been used to move microscopic particles, to trap and cool atoms, and even to stretch biological cells. Now a team of physicists has used lasers to set individual molecules spinning -- so fast that the molecules get pulled apart

TVilleneuve's team looked at what happens at very high rates of rotation, so fast that the chlorine molecules spin 6 thousand billion times a second.

www.nature.com...

Molecules that fluoresce are usually very stiff, stable molecules. Stable molecules do not usually lose energy through rotation, and lose less energy through vibration than unstable molecules. This allows the molecules to store the energy long enough to emit it as a photon.

wikis.lawrence.edu...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Amesbury references, among other things, Irish engineer Alphonsus G. (Al) Kelly's thorough analysis of the famous Hafele-Keating (H & K) experiment of 1972, using the four atomic clocks. Kelly is the author of a 2005 book, Challenging Modern Physics.

Got my copy in the mail yesterday.

Here is the Amazon Book Description:

Publication Date: July 15, 2005 | ISBN-10: 1581124376 | ISBN-13: 978-1581124378

Newton's Laws held for 300 years until Einstein developed the 'special theory of relativity' in 1905. Experiments done since then show anomalies in that theory. This book starts with a description of the special theory of relativity. It is shown that Einstein was not the first to derive the famous equation E = mc2, which has become synonymous with his name. Next, experimental evidence that cannot be explained by special relativity is given. In the light of this evidence, the two basic postulates of the special theory of relativity on the behaviour of light are shown to be untenable. A new theory (universal relativity) is developed, which conforms to the experimental evidence. The movement of a conductor near a pole of a magnet and the movement of that pole near the conductor does not always give the same result. It has been claimed that this contradicts relativity theory. Experiments described in this book show that it is not special relativity but another basic law of physics that is contradicted - Faraday's Law. The Big Bang theory of the beginning of the universe is questioned and an alternative proposed. The source of much of the mysterious missing 'dark matter' that has been sought for decades by astronomers is located. An explanation of the shapes of some galaxies is proffered.

It will be interesting to read this book and compare its contents to:

Originally posted by primalfractal
. . . light, in wave form, curves when emanating from a moving position.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

www.gsjournal.net...

Please, please read the above paper before you take any stock in the poincare/ Einstein conspiracy.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Amesbury references, among other things, Irish engineer Alphonsus G. (Al) Kelly's thorough analysis of the famous Hafele-Keating (H & K) experiment of 1972, using the four atomic clocks. Kelly is the author of a 2005 book, Challenging Modern Physics.

The publisher of this book is BrownWalker Press.

In chapter 3 "Time and Motion" Kelly states:

. . . Let us now discuss some key tests of relativity theory. Hafele and Keating (1972) carried out experiments that purported to prove that moving macroscopic clocks run slow. Hafele and Keating's results are examined here in detail because they are quoted in most university physics textbooks as proof that the SR forecast for the slowing of moving clocks is correct. . . .

Hafele and Keating did not publish the actual original 'raw' test results (which would have let the cat out of the bag) but an amended 'massaged' version, which conformed to the result they had forecast. The original raw data was obtained by this author by making a phonecall to the United States Naval Observatory (USNO) following publication of his paper in 1995 that queried the test accuracy. The data was mentioned in a reference in the 1972 Hafele and Keating paper, but that reference gave no clue as to the importance of this data or that it would contradict the published conclusions of those authors. The massaging of the data was obviously a case of 'the end justifying the means' and shows that sometimes the peer review system is not a foolproof (or unbiased) as it seems.

There was some controversy before the actual tests were done, which indicated worldwide interest in the experiment. . . . Hafele (1971) replied that "substantial and subtle aspects of the theory which when ignored or misunderstood often lead to confusion". The words 'subtle', 'misunderstood' and 'confusion' appear regularly in papers on the twin paradox (see later). They are useful terms for confusing the timid or putting anyone off the scent.

The hype at the time was such that Hafele and Keating probably felt they had to get the expected result. . . .

If the evidence put forward by Hafele and Keating had been found to be convincing, the investigation by this author into the veracity of SR would undoubtedly have finished there. Ironically, having shown that those tests were fatally flawed and having proceeded from there to investigate SR further, it was later discovered that atomic clocks did really run slower at higher velocities with respect to a particular spot in our solar system (the centre of the earth). This will be discussed and a reason for it postulated later in the book.

That was a very lucky twist for this author. Had the Hafele and Keating results been believed by this author, the investigation into SR would very well have stopped there, in which case the rest of this book would never have been written.

Appendix 1 gives a blow-by-blow description of how the Hafele and Keating deception was perpetrated. Anyone interested in that saga can read the whole story there. However, for the general reader, here is a flavour of what was done.

Table 1 shows the Hafele and Keating actual raw test results and the radically altered massaged results that were published to the scientific world as the supposed results. The actual test results were never published. A study of table 1 shows that the published results bear no sensible relationship to the actual results.

The forecast results were ‒40 going eastward and +275 going westward. You can see that Hafele and Keating did a pretty good job at making the published figures line up with the forecast results! The barefaced effrontery is breathtaking. I wonder if university texts will quietly drop all references to the Hafele and Keating test, without any stated reason and without further ado? One has already done so.

Some authors quote a later test as vindicating the Hafele and Keating tests and SR. The test was done by Alley in 1979 at Chesapeake Bay, U.S.A. . . . Therefore, the test had nothing to do with confirming SR. . . .

Let us speculate as to why Hafele and Keating did what they did. Here is a guess. Before Hafele and Keating did their test, it was probably known (secretly by classified information) by the USNO authorities that atomic clocks behaved in a certain fashion. Perhaps the USNO had already discovered that the clocks ran slow with respect to the earth's centre. Perhaps they had already sent a clock into orbit? With this knowledge, Hafele and Keating would be vindicated. Remember that Hafele (1971) proposed in advance of the tests the idea that the clocks should run slow with respect to the geocentre (the earth's centre). . . .

Evidence that the Hafele and Keating tests proved nothing was published by this author in Ireland in 1996 and internationally in 2000. . . .

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I was wondering if you had seen my idea to do the experiment and what your opinion was?

Also the parabola I described was an idea for where the photon would be at various points of extraction. So if the wave is only .001 mm out of the device the photon would be in that area.

Originally posted by primalfractal
I had an idea for a way to do the experiment. I guess it might be wrong and I was wanting someone to point out why please.

Spinning a fluorescent molecule with lasers.

There seems to be no limit to what you can do with a laser. Lasers have been used to move microscopic particles, to trap and cool atoms, and even to stretch biological cells. Now a team of physicists has used lasers to set individual molecules spinning -- so fast that the molecules get pulled apart

TVilleneuve's team looked at what happens at very high rates of rotation, so fast that the chlorine molecules spin 6 thousand billion times a second.

www.nature.com...

Molecules that fluoresce are usually very stiff, stable molecules. Stable molecules do not usually lose energy through rotation, and lose less energy through vibration than unstable molecules. This allows the molecules to store the energy long enough to emit it as a photon.

wikis.lawrence.edu...

edit on 24-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)