Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 3 Aug 2010 17:00 On Aug 3, 1:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere..no> > wrote: > > > > > > >On 01.08.2010 00:31, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:13:28 -0700 (PDT), blackhead<larryhar...(a)softhome.net> > >> wrote: > > >>> On 30 July, 23:38, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0500, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> > >>> A wiggler has a length of the order of meters, with electrons > >>> travelling around 1 meter per 3ns, yet the pulse width is of the order > >>> fs. This would imply the X-rays travel close to the speed of the > >>> electrons, don't you think? > > >> Pathetic > > >> You seem to be suggesting that the x-rays have a preferred direction. > > >How come a fully qualified physicist and Doctor of science can > >be ignorant of the fact that synchrotron radiation is emitted > >in a narrow cone along the direction of motion of the charged > >particle? > > >Pathetic indeed. > > Hahahahha! > > Is that charged particle moving inertially? If it is, why should anything it > emits have a 'preferred direction'? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Emmision has always been stochastic as in a light bubble of direction. Mitch Raemsch
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Aug 2010 17:09 On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:00:57 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Aug 3, 1:53�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 01.08.2010 00:31, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:13:28 -0700 (PDT), blackhead<larryhar...(a)softhome.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> On 30 July, 23:38, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0500, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> >> >>> A wiggler has a length of the order of meters, with electrons >> >>> travelling around 1 meter per 3ns, yet the pulse width is of the order >> >>> fs. This would imply the X-rays travel close to the speed of the >> >>> electrons, don't you think? >> >> >> Pathetic >> >> >> You seem to be suggesting that the x-rays have a preferred direction. >> >> >How come a fully qualified physicist and Doctor of science can >> >be ignorant of the fact that synchrotron radiation is emitted >> >in a narrow cone along the direction of motion of the charged >> >particle? >> >> >Pathetic indeed. >> >> Hahahahha! >> >> Is that charged particle moving inertially? If it is, why should anything it >> emits have a 'preferred direction'? >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Emmision has always been stochastic as in a light bubble of direction. Anything inertial has no 'direction' in its own frame >Mitch Raemsch Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Darwin123 on 3 Aug 2010 19:01 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? Rays are the noncommittal word between waves and photons. If someone says the electron emits electromagnetic waves, he is saying that the electron is emitting electromagnetic energy in certain directions. We can avoid some of the usual name calling if we restrict discussion to "electromagnetic rays." According to classical electrodynamics, electric charges emit electromagnetic rays when they accelerate. It isn't that the electrons emit xrays when they "hit something". As moving electrons come closer to the electrons in the material, they slow down. The accelerate in a direction opposite their motion. It is because of the acceleration that the electrons emit light rays, or radio waves. It isn't the "hitting a stationary object" per se that causes the electrons to emit electromagnetic rays. Anything that causes the electrons to change velocity (speed or direction) causes the electron to emit electromagnetic energy. As to why an accelerating charge emits electromagnetic rays. An antennae also emits radio rays when electrons accelerate. The electrons in the antennae move back and forth, changing both the speed of motion and the direction. Electric charges that accelerate generate electromagnetic rays. It isn't hitting per se that does anything. The electric fields accelerate the electrons, and the accelerating electrons emit electromagnetic rays.
From: Jerry on 3 Aug 2010 19:09 On Aug 3, 3:59 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > The Wilson model says that when a charge is accelerated, its affest on the > applied field causes THAT FIELD to release a quantim of energy. It is easy to demonstrate that the Wilson "model" is false. 1) The more a charge distorts the applied field, the more the field should radiate. 2) Heavier objects should shove around any applied fields more than lighter objects do. 3) Protons are heavier than electrons. 4) Therefore, WFT predicts that a beam of protons passing through an undulator at 99.99999% of the light should generate more synchrotron radiation than a beam of electrons passing through the undulator at the same speed. This being -completely- contrary to fact, WFT is falsified. Jerry
From: Jerry on 3 Aug 2010 20:50
On Aug 3, 3:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere..no> > wrote: > >How come a fully qualified physicist and Doctor of science can > >be ignorant of the fact that synchrotron radiation is emitted > >in a narrow cone along the direction of motion of the charged > >particle? > > >Pathetic indeed. > > Hahahahha! > > Is that charged particle moving inertially? No. Jerry |