Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

2 views

Skip to first unread message

Feb 5, 2020, 5:44:30 PM2/5/20

to

Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle

From: Ned Latham <nedl...@internode.on.net>

Subject: AFM: Apparent Wavelength, a non-QM hidden variable (3).

Organization: Democracy Supporters' League

Reply-To: Ned Latham <nedl...@internode.on.net>

Followup-To:

Keywords:

Summary:

[My apologies: I have bungled this article repeatedly. However, it's

now solid, and IMO, deserves consideration. This followup replaces

frequency and wavelength definitions echoing those of wave models with

definitions based purely on particulate properties.]

There are numerous experimental tests that purport to confirm Special

Relativity theory and/or refute what the testers and their reviewers

call emission theory, but those examining doppler shift all seem to

depend on the assumption that emission theory predicts wavelength

constancy even when source and observer are in relative motion.

That assumption is pretty thin. Any theory predicting so is falsified

by the very existence of doppler shift in light. There's no ground for

denying that; therefore no such theory is viable, and there's no reason

to bother with disproving it. Or even mentioning it, in my view.

Proceeding without that assumption however, is much more interesting.

A considered emission theory must define frequency and wavelength on

particulate properties:

Frequency : spin rate; ie, the number of revolutions per unit time;

Wavelength: linear distance travelled during one revolution

but those definitions clearly imply constancy. Neither changes as a

result of relative motion betweem source and observer, but the observer

experiences change: a considered emission theory must account for that.

What the observer experiences is the objective wavelength altered by

the change in distance between source and observer while one wavelength

passes; in other words, changed inversely as the speed. It is given by

a quantity which as far as I can tell has never been mooted before:

Apparent Wavelength[1]: the quotient of the speed and the frequency.

Given v[1] = v[0] * (c + v) / c, that gives

lambda[1] = (v[0] * (c + v) / c) / f[0]

= v[0] / f[0] * (c + v) / c

= lambda[0] * c / (c + v)

In other words, a considered emission theory must necessarily define a

wavelength doppler shift factor of c / (c + v), which is the inverse of

the speed change. The conventional assumption turns out to be false.

Doppler shift tests that purport to falsify emission theory are therefore

invalidly and incorrectly interpreted. Their results should be reexamined,

specifically to determine whether within the bounds of experimental error

they are actually consistent with the predictions of just one of SR and

emission theory.

As well, the teaching should be amended, and the hidden variable revealed.

========

[1] the predicted wavelength measurement

From: Ned Latham <nedl...@internode.on.net>

Subject: AFM: Apparent Wavelength, a non-QM hidden variable (3).

Organization: Democracy Supporters' League

Reply-To: Ned Latham <nedl...@internode.on.net>

Followup-To:

Keywords:

Summary:

[My apologies: I have bungled this article repeatedly. However, it's

now solid, and IMO, deserves consideration. This followup replaces

frequency and wavelength definitions echoing those of wave models with

definitions based purely on particulate properties.]

There are numerous experimental tests that purport to confirm Special

Relativity theory and/or refute what the testers and their reviewers

call emission theory, but those examining doppler shift all seem to

depend on the assumption that emission theory predicts wavelength

constancy even when source and observer are in relative motion.

That assumption is pretty thin. Any theory predicting so is falsified

by the very existence of doppler shift in light. There's no ground for

denying that; therefore no such theory is viable, and there's no reason

to bother with disproving it. Or even mentioning it, in my view.

Proceeding without that assumption however, is much more interesting.

A considered emission theory must define frequency and wavelength on

particulate properties:

Frequency : spin rate; ie, the number of revolutions per unit time;

Wavelength: linear distance travelled during one revolution

but those definitions clearly imply constancy. Neither changes as a

result of relative motion betweem source and observer, but the observer

experiences change: a considered emission theory must account for that.

What the observer experiences is the objective wavelength altered by

the change in distance between source and observer while one wavelength

passes; in other words, changed inversely as the speed. It is given by

a quantity which as far as I can tell has never been mooted before:

Apparent Wavelength[1]: the quotient of the speed and the frequency.

Given v[1] = v[0] * (c + v) / c, that gives

lambda[1] = (v[0] * (c + v) / c) / f[0]

= v[0] / f[0] * (c + v) / c

= lambda[0] * c / (c + v)

In other words, a considered emission theory must necessarily define a

wavelength doppler shift factor of c / (c + v), which is the inverse of

the speed change. The conventional assumption turns out to be false.

Doppler shift tests that purport to falsify emission theory are therefore

invalidly and incorrectly interpreted. Their results should be reexamined,

specifically to determine whether within the bounds of experimental error

they are actually consistent with the predictions of just one of SR and

emission theory.

As well, the teaching should be amended, and the hidden variable revealed.

========

[1] the predicted wavelength measurement

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu