info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Light Is Made of Particles" Implies Invariable Wavelength of Light
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Aug 18, 2022, 8:27:44 PM8/18/22
to
Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
Feynman unwittingly implies that VARIABLE wavelength of light https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M is an unrealistic wave-based concept. In Einstein-free physics the wavelength of light will be nothing more than an invariable proportionality coefficient in the formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
By the way, "light is made of particles" also implies variable speed of light as posited by Newton's theory:
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Feynman unwittingly implies that VARIABLE wavelength of light https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M is an unrealistic wave-based concept. In Einstein-free physics the wavelength of light will be nothing more than an invariable proportionality coefficient in the formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
By the way, "light is made of particles" also implies variable speed of light as posited by Newton's theory:
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 19, 2022, 1:23:11 AM8/19/22
to
The author of this text has unwittingly laid the foundations of future, Einstein-free physics:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
Two principles implied in this particular scenario are actually valid in any scenario:
(1) Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.
(2) The wavelength of light is invariable.
Clearly (1) and (2) are equivalent (either follows from the other), given the formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
Still, for practical reasons, (2) will be an axiom (the fundamental axiom of Einstein-free physics) while (1) is a direct corollary.
Other corollaries of the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable":
If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.
Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.
The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation and light deflects as per Newton, not as per Einstein.
Just an illustration of the validity of the last corollary:
"To see WHY A DEFLECTION OF LIGHT WOULD BE EXPECTED, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
Two principles implied in this particular scenario are actually valid in any scenario:
(1) Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.
(2) The wavelength of light is invariable.
Clearly (1) and (2) are equivalent (either follows from the other), given the formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
Other corollaries of the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable":
If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.
Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.
The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation and light deflects as per Newton, not as per Einstein.
Just an illustration of the validity of the last corollary:
"To see WHY A DEFLECTION OF LIGHT WOULD BE EXPECTED, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 19, 2022, 8:20:31 AM8/19/22
to
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
This, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), entails that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer as posited by Newton's theory:
"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
The constancy of the wavelength of light is not restricted to this particular scenario. Actually, the wavelength of light is invariable in any other scenario - Doppler moving emitter, gravitational redshift, Hubble redshift.
See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
This, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), entails that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer as posited by Newton's theory:
"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
The constancy of the wavelength of light is not restricted to this particular scenario. Actually, the wavelength of light is invariable in any other scenario - Doppler moving emitter, gravitational redshift, Hubble redshift.
See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages