Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: George Dishman on 16 Jul 2005 07:17 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns9694A94BF4711WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db93ro$ogf$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: > >>> On the other hand, if you have a narrow bandwidth beam of photons and >>> you >>> 'chop' it, into small slices, mechanically, I am NOT sure that we would >>> generate sidebands, like 'normal' modulation would. [how does one photon >>> know that those ahead of it or behind it have been absorbed?] >> >> You were talking of pulse lengths of a couple >> of cycles. > > Of LESS than a couple of cycles. > >> Compared to laser coherence lengths >> of metres, we are talking of letting through >> a tiny sample of one photon :-) > > I see no reason for a photon to be longer than one cycle. That was my original point. Interference effects still exist when the path length is many wavelengths and they affect the probability of a single photon arriving at a location. > Coherence length isn't the length of the photons, it tells us how big a > chunk > of light is 'phase, frequency, polarization, coherent'. Yes, but it also affects single photons. > It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is clearly > related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the cavity, the > longer > the coherence length. > > My impression is that it usually represents the stimulated emission from a > single pass through the laser cavity. I don't think lasers with 50m coherence are necessarily 25m long. > > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect >> that to work is that you get a fractional >> probability that the photon makes it through >> the shutter. > > Why do you think that a single photon must be longer than one cycle? I think it is a 'point' particle (which might be a string at the planck length). However I also know that a single photon in the double slit experiment has a negligible probability of hitting a point where the path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the coherence length is 1000 wavelengths. >>> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of known >>> energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know its >>> exact position, however. I think time would be the expresion of >>> uncertanty. >> >> The relevant factors are dE*dt or dp*dx of course. >> >> If a shutter is used and is open for a very short >> time then you know t and x very accurately > > If I don't know, within a small fraction of a cycle, when the photon is, > then > I don't know 't' very accurately. "very accurately" is not well defined ;-) The smaller dt or dx, the larger dE or dp, but Planck's Constant is very small. >> so dE >> and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend >> on the frequency of the photon so I expect a side >> effect of the shutter operation would be to scatter >> the photons that get through in some way that adds >> a random factor to the energy/momentum and hence >> broadens the linewidth. However, I haven't used >> lasers in thirty years and never worked with very >> short pulses so I'm guessing. Perhaps the paper will >> clue me in a bit when I get a chance to read it. > > In the work we did with the optogalvanic effect induced by dye laser > pulses > in plasma, we were not working with single photons, nor with extremely > short > pulses. That was in the early 90s. I also worked with YAG and CO2 lasers > in > the early 70s, using them to cut aluminum oxide and to adjust resistors to > value. Neat, I used matched pairs of laser trimmed devices in an instrumentation amp design many years ago. > One CO2 laser was 50 W, CW, the other was 500 W, CW. The yags were > much lower average power and pulsed. > > There is a paper > http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16 > That I disagree with. They appear to believe that photons consist of > wavetrains that are millions of cycles long. Fascinating. It's something I'll have to study a bit though. Thanks again! > I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from light > photons as to the number of cycles per photon. > > If that is true, *and* IF they were right THEN there would be no way for > me > to key a 1.8 MHz transmitter at 30 wpm [where keying rate is about 12 dots > per second]. Pardon? Data at 12 dots per second is only 24Hz so could be transmitted on a 30Hz carrier never mind anything in the MHz. Have you lost a factor of 10^6? > I know for a fact that transmitters opperating at much lower > frequencies (in the long wave marine band between 200 and 500 kHz) have > been > operated with keying speed much higher than 30 wpm. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/scmp/part07.htm "The ELF frequencies used, in the 40ý80 Hz range, were selected for their long range signal propagation (i.e., global) and ability to penetrate seawater to depths several hundred feet below the surface." It is keyed I believe fairly slowly but the VLF systems are keyed at 50bps and in theory so could the ELF although the BER would be dreadful (25Hz modulation on a 40Hz carrier giving a band from 15Hz to 65Hz). > Since transmitters operating at much lower frequencies are regularly keyed > at > much higher switching rates, their claims of millions of cycles per photon > [if RF and Light photons are similar] are clearly false. Shannon's Theorem requires a certain bandwidth to convey the data. Bandwidth translates to uncertainty of the energy of any particular photon so knowing 't' to the accuracy of a bit duration (the photon is transmitted when the key is on) limits knowledge of the energy but roughly to the same as the bandwidth. Basically I am saying Shannon's Theorem in the classical view is related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty in the quantum view, though that sounds rather grandiose. George
From: bz on 16 Jul 2005 10:05 "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbaq26$9sc$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns9694A94BF4711WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db93ro$ogf$1 >> @news.freedom2surf.net: >> >>>> On the other hand, if you have a narrow bandwidth beam of photons and >>>> you >>>> 'chop' it, into small slices, mechanically, I am NOT sure that we >>>> would generate sidebands, like 'normal' modulation would. [how does >>>> one photon know that those ahead of it or behind it have been >>>> absorbed?] >>> >>> You were talking of pulse lengths of a couple >>> of cycles. >> >> Of LESS than a couple of cycles. >> >>> Compared to laser coherence lengths >>> of metres, we are talking of letting through >>> a tiny sample of one photon :-) >> >> I see no reason for a photon to be longer than one cycle. > > That was my original point. Interference effects > still exist when the path length is many wavelengths > and they affect the probability of a single photon > arriving at a location. > >> Coherence length isn't the length of the photons, it tells us how big a >> chunk >> of light is 'phase, frequency, polarization, coherent'. > > Yes, but it also affects single photons. How? > >> It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is >> clearly related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the >> cavity, the longer >> the coherence length. >> >> My impression is that it usually represents the stimulated emission >> from a single pass through the laser cavity. > > I don't think lasers with 50m coherence are > necessarily 25m long. Of course not. The cavity with mirrors happens to be [is carefully adjusted to be] the right length so that photons can make several trips. Thermal instability, vibrations, and probably many other effects reduce the coherence length from infinity. I would imagine that whenever a spontainious decay takes place, throwing in a photon that is traveling in the right direction but out of coherence with the current crowd of photons, the odd photon starts picking up 'buddies'. The probability of this happening will determine the average coherence length. > >> > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect >>> that to work is that you get a fractional >>> probability that the photon makes it through >>> the shutter. >> >> Why do you think that a single photon must be longer than one cycle? > > I think it is a 'point' particle (which might > be a string at the planck length). > > However I also know that a single photon in > the double slit experiment has a negligible > probability of hitting a point where the > path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the > coherence length is 1000 wavelengths. How do you define coherence length for a photon? Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about the experiment. I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of the slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the slit and deflecting photons passing close to the edge. >>>> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of >>>> known energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know >>>> its exact position, however. I think time would be the expresion of >>>> uncertanty. >>> >>> The relevant factors are dE*dt or dp*dx of course. >>> >>> If a shutter is used and is open for a very short >>> time then you know t and x very accurately >> >> If I don't know, within a small fraction of a cycle, when the photon >> is, then >> I don't know 't' very accurately. > > "very accurately" is not well defined ;-) The > smaller dt or dx, the larger dE or dp, but > Planck's Constant is very small. Right. :) >>> so dE >>> and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend >>> on the frequency of the photon so I expect a side >>> effect of the shutter operation would be to scatter >>> the photons that get through in some way that adds >>> a random factor to the energy/momentum and hence >>> broadens the linewidth. However, I haven't used >>> lasers in thirty years and never worked with very >>> short pulses so I'm guessing. Perhaps the paper will >>> clue me in a bit when I get a chance to read it. >> >> In the work we did with the optogalvanic effect induced by dye laser >> pulses in plasma, we were not working with single photons, nor with >> extremely short pulses. That was in the early 90s. I also worked with >> YAG and CO2 lasers in the early 70s, using them to cut aluminum oxide >> and to adjust resistors to value. > > Neat, I used matched pairs of laser trimmed devices > in an instrumentation amp design many years ago. We did active trimming of some of the resistors we made at Sprague, trimming until the pulse width or gain or whatever was correct. >> One CO2 laser was 50 W, CW, the other was 500 W, CW. The yags were >> much lower average power and pulsed. >> >> There is a paper >> http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16 >> That I disagree with. They appear to believe that photons consist of >> wavetrains that are millions of cycles long. > > Fascinating. It's something I'll have to study > a bit though. Thanks again! > >> I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from >> light photons as to the number of cycles per photon. >> >> If that is true, *and* IF they were right THEN there would be no way >> for me >> to key a 1.8 MHz transmitter at 30 wpm [where keying rate is about 12 >> dots per second]. > > Pardon? Data at 12 dots per second is only 24Hz so > could be transmitted on a 30Hz carrier Right. But look at the size of a 30 Hz photon! The idea was to falsify their thesis that photons were 'millions of cycles long'. At 1.8 MHz each dot is 74000 cycles long. Much less than 'millions'. > never mind anything in the MHz. Have you lost a factor of 10^6? No, just falsifying their thesis. Putting an upper bound on photon size, direct from my own 160 meter transmitter. >> I know for a fact that transmitters opperating at much lower >> frequencies (in the long wave marine band between 200 and 500 kHz) have >> been >> operated with keying speed much higher than 30 wpm. > > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/scmp/part07.htm > > "The ELF frequencies used, in the 40ý80 Hz range, were > selected for their long range signal propagation (i.e., > global) and ability to penetrate seawater to depths > several hundred feet below the surface." > > It is keyed I believe fairly slowly but the > VLF systems are keyed at 50bps and in theory > so could the ELF although the BER would be > dreadful (25Hz modulation on a 40Hz carrier > giving a band from 15Hz to 65Hz). I have heard stories of what can happen when they try to key the ELF transmitter at a high keying rate. The antenna swr goes up rapidly as you get away from its design frequency. When you have millions of watts of power, they have to carefully shape the keying waveform, or all hell breaks loose. >> Since transmitters operating at much lower frequencies are regularly >> keyed at >> much higher switching rates, their claims of millions of cycles per >> photon [if RF and Light photons are similar] are clearly false. > > Shannon's Theorem requires a certain bandwidth > to convey the data. Bandwidth translates to > uncertainty of the energy of any particular > photon so knowing 't' to the accuracy of a bit > duration (the photon is transmitted when the > key is on) limits knowledge of the energy but > roughly to the same as the bandwidth. > > Basically I am saying Shannon's Theorem in > the classical view is related to Heisenberg's > Uncertainty in the quantum view, though that > sounds rather grandiose. That sounds rather reasonable to me. I bet they have been compared before. We should be able to place a rather specific upper bound on photon length from ELF keying rate information. Of course, ELF communications might be considered as 'nearfield' and thus the creation of actual 3747 km long photons might not be very efficient. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Paul B. Andersen on 17 Jul 2005 15:44 Henri Wilson wrote: > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". > > If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer > moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer O3, > the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1. > > For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as c+v2. > Here is the experimental setup: > > S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._ > v2<T2 > > > > O3 > > O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a > light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1 > and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing > speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2. > > I understand that SRians agree on this. > > The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is > considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for > differently moving sources. > > Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively > moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3. > > Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. > From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have > different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit > plane is normal). > For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical > pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to > catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect > bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses > will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes. > > Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive > pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in > reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in > orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will > depend on the distance to the star. > > There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular > brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my > variable star simulation program: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe We both know that you have tested your program only once, namely on HD80715. What was the result, Henri? Everybody, notice his answer. :-) > Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE > the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this > argument. > > The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames' > may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds. > > > > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. No progress, then. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 17 Jul 2005 20:33 On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:44:08 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". >> >> If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer >> moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer O3, >> the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1. >> >> For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as c+v2. >> Here is the experimental setup: >> >> S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._ >> v2<T2 >> >> >> >> O3 >> >> O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a >> light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1 >> and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing >> speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2. >> >> I understand that SRians agree on this. >> >> The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is >> considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for >> differently moving sources. >> >> Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively >> moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3. >> >> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. >> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have >> different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit >> plane is normal). >> For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical >> pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to >> catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect >> bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses >> will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes. >> >> Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive >> pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in >> reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in >> orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will >> depend on the distance to the star. >> >> There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >> brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my >> variable star simulation program: >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > >We both know that you have tested your program only once, >namely on HD80715. >What was the result, Henri? > >Everybody, notice his answer. :-) The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by SR. How COULD it be wrong? > >> Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE >> the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this >> argument. >> >> The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames' >> may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds. >> >> >> >> >> >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > >No progress, then. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 18 Jul 2005 13:35
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:44:08 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >>>brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my >>>variable star simulation program: >>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >> >>We both know that you have tested your program only once, >>namely on HD80715. >>What was the result, Henri? >> >>Everybody, notice his answer. :-) > > > The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by > SR. > How COULD it be wrong? See? :-) Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was the one time he tested his program with measured data of a known binary. Paul |