Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Uncle Ben on 29 Jul 2010 07:52 On Jul 29, 5:31 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 29, 6:46 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > There are those saying that the speed of light depends on the speed of > > the source. This explains the MMX experiment neatly, but the theory > > has now been refuted experimentally. > > It was already discredited (or, "refuted", but that's in the eyes of > the beholder) in the 19th century with the experiments of Fizeau on > "Fresnel drag". > > Regards, > Harald > > > > > Let the speed of light emitted by a source moving at speed v be c + > > kv, where k is to be determined experimentally. The theory propounded > > by Androcles, NoEinstein and others in this newsgroup implies that > > k=1. Einstein proposed that k=0. > > > The following account is copied from the collection of experimental > > papers on SR at > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser,http://vuv-fel.desy.de/. > > > A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to > > the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region > > that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light > > emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), > > then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is > > k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before > > light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, > > v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as > > short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5×10-7. Optical > > extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high > > vacuum. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > k <= 0.00000025 > > > Einstein wins decisively. > > > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Of course, but you must admit that k < 0.00000025 is noteworthy. UB
From: Androcles on 29 Jul 2010 07:58 "Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:ae8ec65f-621e-42c0-b79a-096a3660f579(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Jul 29, 3:17 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 28, 11:46 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > > > There are those saying that the speed of light depends on the speed of > > the source. This explains the MMX experiment neatly, but the theory > > has now been refuted experimentally. > > > Let the speed of light emitted by a source moving at speed v be c + > > kv, where k is to be determined experimentally. The theory propounded > > by Androcles, NoEinstein and others in this newsgroup implies that > > k=1. Einstein proposed that k=0. > > > The following account is copied from the collection of experimental > > papers on SR at > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------��------------------ > > Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser,http://vuv-fel.desy.de/. > > > A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to > > the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region > > that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light > > emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), > > then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is > > k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before > > light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, > > v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as > > short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5�10-7. Optical > > extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high > > vacuum. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------��------------- > > > k <= 0.00000025 > > > Einstein wins decisively. > > > Uncle Ben > > It is not necessarily obvious to casual readers why generation > of ultra-short X-ray pulses disproves ballistic theory. > > Consider a 10 fs pulse of electrons * traveling through the > undulator at v=0.9999997 c, with X-rays |||| being continually > emitted by the electrons as they wiggle through the undulator. > > Let k=1, i.e. photons are being emitted at 2c > > E----------------------------F > *| electrons have traveled 1m, front of X-ray beam 2m > *|| electrons have traveled 2m, front of X-ray beam 4m > *||| electrons have traveled 3m, front of X-ray beam 6m > *|||| electrons have traveled 4m, front of X-ray beam 8m > etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. > *|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > *||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > *|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > Difference between front and rear of 2c X-ray beam = 30 m > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 30 m/(2c) = 50 ns > > ======================================================= > > Let k = 0.1, i.e. photons are being emitted at 1.1c > > E----------------------------F > *||| > Difference between front and rear of 1.1c X-ray beam = 3 m > Total x-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 3 m/(1.1c) = 9.1 ns > > ======================================================= > > Let k = 0, i.e. photons are being emitted at c > E----------------------------F > *| > Since the electrons are traveling at 0.9999997c, the difference > between front and rear of the 1c X-ray beam = 9 um > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 9 um/c = 40 fs > > Jerry- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks for the explcation. ====================== Explcation? Hmm... Why do those electrons wait until they hit something stationary before they emit the x-rays?
From: Uncle Ben on 29 Jul 2010 08:35 On Jul 29, 7:58 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Uncle Ben" <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote in message > > news:ae8ec65f-621e-42c0-b79a-096a3660f579(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 29, 3:17 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 28, 11:46 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > There are those saying that the speed of light depends on the speed of > > > the source. This explains the MMX experiment neatly, but the theory > > > has now been refuted experimentally. > > > > Let the speed of light emitted by a source moving at speed v be c + > > > kv, where k is to be determined experimentally. The theory propounded > > > by Androcles, NoEinstein and others in this newsgroup implies that > > > k=1. Einstein proposed that k=0. > > > > The following account is copied from the collection of experimental > > > papers on SR at > > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#.... > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser,http://vuv-fel.desy.de/. > > > > A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to > > > the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region > > > that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light > > > emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), > > > then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is > > > k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before > > > light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, > > > v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as > > > short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5×10-7. Optical > > > extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high > > > vacuum. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > k <= 0.00000025 > > > > Einstein wins decisively. > > > > Uncle Ben > > > It is not necessarily obvious to casual readers why generation > > of ultra-short X-ray pulses disproves ballistic theory. > > > Consider a 10 fs pulse of electrons * traveling through the > > undulator at v=0.9999997 c, with X-rays |||| being continually > > emitted by the electrons as they wiggle through the undulator. > > > Let k=1, i.e. photons are being emitted at 2c > > > E----------------------------F > > *| electrons have traveled 1m, front of X-ray beam 2m > > *|| electrons have traveled 2m, front of X-ray beam 4m > > *||| electrons have traveled 3m, front of X-ray beam 6m > > *|||| electrons have traveled 4m, front of X-ray beam 8m > > etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. > > *|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > *||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > *|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > Difference between front and rear of 2c X-ray beam = 30 m > > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 30 m/(2c) = 50 ns > > > ======================================================= > > > Let k = 0.1, i.e. photons are being emitted at 1.1c > > > E----------------------------F > > *||| > > Difference between front and rear of 1.1c X-ray beam = 3 m > > Total x-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 3 m/(1.1c) = 9.1 ns > > > ======================================================= > > > Let k = 0, i.e. photons are being emitted at c > > E----------------------------F > > *| > > Since the electrons are traveling at 0.9999997c, the difference > > between front and rear of the 1c X-ray beam = 9 um > > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 9 um/c = 40 fs > > > Jerry- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Thanks for the explcation. > ====================== > Explcation? > Hmm... Why do those electrons wait until they hit something > stationary before they emit the x-rays?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - They don't. They lase while in motion. UB
From: Androcles on 29 Jul 2010 13:07 "Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:905b1768-2bd2-4d74-87a0-71bdadb13b20(a)g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Jul 29, 7:58 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Uncle Ben" <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote in message > > news:ae8ec65f-621e-42c0-b79a-096a3660f579(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 29, 3:17 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 28, 11:46 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > There are those saying that the speed of light depends on the speed of > > > the source. This explains the MMX experiment neatly, but the theory > > > has now been refuted experimentally. > > > > Let the speed of light emitted by a source moving at speed v be c + > > > kv, where k is to be determined experimentally. The theory propounded > > > by Androcles, NoEinstein and others in this newsgroup implies that > > > k=1. Einstein proposed that k=0. > > > > The following account is copied from the collection of experimental > > > papers on SR at > > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------���------------------ > > > Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser,http://vuv-fel.desy.de/. > > > > A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to > > > the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region > > > that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light > > > emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), > > > then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is > > > k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before > > > light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, > > > v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as > > > short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5�10-7. Optical > > > extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high > > > vacuum. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------���------------- > > > > k <= 0.00000025 > > > > Einstein wins decisively. > > > > Uncle Ben > > > It is not necessarily obvious to casual readers why generation > > of ultra-short X-ray pulses disproves ballistic theory. > > > Consider a 10 fs pulse of electrons * traveling through the > > undulator at v=0.9999997 c, with X-rays |||| being continually > > emitted by the electrons as they wiggle through the undulator. > > > Let k=1, i.e. photons are being emitted at 2c > > > E----------------------------F > > *| electrons have traveled 1m, front of X-ray beam 2m > > *|| electrons have traveled 2m, front of X-ray beam 4m > > *||| electrons have traveled 3m, front of X-ray beam 6m > > *|||| electrons have traveled 4m, front of X-ray beam 8m > > etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. > > *|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > *||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > *|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > Difference between front and rear of 2c X-ray beam = 30 m > > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 30 m/(2c) = 50 ns > > > ======================================================= > > > Let k = 0.1, i.e. photons are being emitted at 1.1c > > > E----------------------------F > > *||| > > Difference between front and rear of 1.1c X-ray beam = 3 m > > Total x-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 3 m/(1.1c) = 9.1 ns > > > ======================================================= > > > Let k = 0, i.e. photons are being emitted at c > > E----------------------------F > > *| > > Since the electrons are traveling at 0.9999997c, the difference > > between front and rear of the 1c X-ray beam = 9 um > > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 9 um/c = 40 fs > > > Jerry- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Thanks for the explcation. > ====================== > Explcation? > Hmm... Why do those electrons wait until they hit something > stationary before they emit the x-rays?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - They don't. They lase while in motion. UB ========================================= Oh, I see. Spontaneous emission of electronic x-rays (SPEEX). Makes you wonder what the "external laser overlaps with the electron beam to seed the SASE process" is for, doesn't it? I'm sure you can explcation it, Father Bonehead. Teach me the Relativity Catechism so that I can speex it too. BTW, have you measured the speed of soft x-rays lately? Ever?
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 29 Jul 2010 18:19
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:46:41 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote: >There are those saying that the speed of light depends on the speed of >the source. This explains the MMX experiment neatly, but the theory >has now been refuted experimentally. > >Let the speed of light emitted by a source moving at speed v be c + >kv, where k is to be determined experimentally. The theory propounded >by Androcles, NoEinstein and others in this newsgroup implies that >k=1. Einstein proposed that k=0. > >The following account is copied from the collection of experimental >papers on SR at > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#terrestrial > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/. > >A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to >the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region >that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light >emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), >then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is >k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before >light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, >v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as >short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5�10-7. Optical >extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high >vacuum. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >k <= 0.00000025 > >Einstein wins decisively. > >Uncle Ben Pathetic....as usual. The X-rays are emitted when the electrons interact with occasional gas molecules.....whose v>>0 wrt the apparatus frame. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |