What is the relative speed of photons?

[quantumdude]

OK plot a circle in front of you with a diameter with arrows pointing outward, in the direction of expansion, just like we discussed. Now draw a radius rotated say 4 degrees from one of the radii already drawn.

OK, so let the radius along the +y-axis be:

r₁(t)=ctj,

and let the radius along the -y-axis be:

r₂(t)=-ctj.

Then let a third radius be rotated from the first one by an angle θ, so it is:

r₃(t)=(ct)sin(θ)i+(ct)cos(θ)j.

Connect this rotated radius tip to the radius tip farthest back (should look like a shortened diameter).

The vector joining r₂ and r₃ is:

r₃₂(t)=r₂(t)-r₃(t)=
r₃₂(t)=-(ct)sin(&theta)i-ct(cos(θ) +1)j.

What is the expansion rate of these radii?

The rate of change of this vector is:

r₃₂'(t)=-c(sin(θ))i-c(cos(θ)+1)j

and the norm is:

|r'₃₂(t)|=[2cos(θ)+2]^1/2c, which for small angles is slightly less than 2c, as expected.

If oppositely directed radii are expanding at a 2c rate then slightly off "direclty opposite" radii should conform to the same logic should it not?

Yes, indeed it does.

Aren't all radii expanding with the same logic even though the velocity of expansion, v(e) < c for nonparallel radii? Are we still outside the Lorentz transformaion tho v(e) < c?

We would still be outside the domain of applicability of SR if we tried to Lorentz boost to one of the photons' rest frames, because SR says that photons don't have rest frames.

If so when, if ever , does SR enter this scenario?

It enters when we switch from one frame to another.

 

[geistkiesel]

We would still be outside the domain of applicability of SR if we tried to Lorentz boost to one of the photons' rest frames, because SR says that photons don't have rest frames.

prove the statement above with more than 'because SR says . . .'


Regarding the question of when SR is applicable:

It enters when we switch from one frame to another.

Ditto here - prove the ,'switching frames' statement.

 

[quantumdude]

prove the statement above with more than 'because SR says . . .'

It is outside the realm of applicability of SR because the LT is undefined at v=c.

Regarding the question of when SR is applicable:



Ditto here - prove the ,'switching frames' statement.

SR only enters when switching frames because relativistic effects only turn up when an observer looks at the other guy's rods and clocks.

Geistkiesel, why don't you crack open a book every once in a while? It would help you out immensely. This is such basic information that I can't even believe you're asking me for it.

And as to your first question: It is just plain silly.

The domain of applicability of SR is determined precisely by "what SR says".

 

[geistkiesel]

It is outside the realm of applicability of SR because the LT is undefined at v=c.



SR only enters when switching frames because relativistic effects only turn up when an observer looks at the other guy's rods and clocks.

Geistkiesel, why don't you crack open a book every once in a while? It would help you out immensely. This is such basic information that I can't even believe you're asking me for it.

So SR comes into play, a physical dynamic, a reality 'turns up', "when an observer looks at the other guy's rods and clocks." AAAmazzzing!

Why don't I crack a book so I can believe that I can make reality turn up by looking at someone's 'clocks and rods'? I know what SR says, Mattson. Why do not you see that? Deduce your own answer from the silliness you just posted in the guise of science. Grounded has you Tom_mattson, and you sense the end is near, don't you?

Someone in your life made a big mistake when they convinced you that you knew what you were talking about.

 

[quantumdude]

Why don't I crack a book so I can believe that I can make reality turn up by looking at someone's 'clocks and rods'?

No, you should crack a book open so that you can see how SR fits into the "big picture" of physics.

I know what SR says, Mattson. Why do not you see that?

Uhhh, because you have yet to show that you understand anything about it, and you have been very clear about not wanting to change that.

Deduce your own answer from the silliness you just posted in the guise of science. Grounded has you Tom_mattson, and you sense the end is near, don't you?

This is just dumb. Neither you nor grounded understands electrodynamics well enough to see why the pro-SR arguments are correct. That's why you both continue to use simple-minded arguments about counting wavefronts and clocks on trains. Neither of you has the knowledge to look at Maxwell's equations and see the deep problems that physicists saw at the turn of the last century, problems that only find their solution in the Lorentz transformation. And I don't know about grounded, but as for you, you don't seem to want to change your state of ignorance, which is a pity.

Someone in your life made a big mistake when they convinced you that you knew what you were talking about.

Look in the mirror.

 

[geistkiesel]

Squash, terminate and put to rest SR Theory.

No, you should crack a book open so that you can see how SR fits into the "big picture" of physics.



Uhhh, because you have yet to show that you understand anything about it, and you have been very clear about not wanting to change that.



This is just dumb. Neither you nor grounded understands electrodynamics well enough to see why the pro-SR arguments are correct. That's why you both continue to use simple-minded arguments about counting wavefronts and clocks on trains. Neither of you has the knowledge to look at Maxwell's equations and see the deep problems that physicists saw at the turn of the last century, problems that only find their solution in the Lorentz transformation. And I don't know about grounded, but as for you, you don't seem to want to change your state of ignorance, which is a pity.

Look in the mirror.

Look in the mirror.|. rorrim eht ni kooL

Tom, what we need is not pro-SR arguments, we need pro-SR book burners.

So what? Tom, do you want to travel to the stars, the farthest stars I mean? Do want to leave your children and grandchildren with the ability to really explore the cosmos? Your answer is yes, of course.

Then Tom, you had better change your ways and take a close, close analytic lookat SR as this theory, believed by the public, bureaucrat and scientist alike, has the manifest effect of limiting space exploration to an insignificant number of inhabitants of the planet earth.

Tom, would you like to go, or is arguing theory more appealing to your wandering sense of exploration? Synchronize your watches everyone.

Convince yoursel Tom, then convince your colleagues

 

[ahrkron]

So what? Tom, do you want to travel to the stars, the farthest stars I mean? Do want to leave your children and grandchildren with the ability to really explore the cosmos? Your answer is yes, of course.

Then Tom, you had better change your ways and take a close, close analytic lookat SR as this theory, believed by the public, bureaucrat and scientist alike, has the manifest effect of limiting space exploration to an insignificant number of inhabitants of the planet earth.

Regardless of how strongly Tom, you or I wish to "go to the stars", nature will follow the same patterns. The only thing we can do is learn what those patterns are and work within them.

And those patterns do include what SR predicts, so we better take it into consideration. You would be much better starting from it. But that's your choice.

Just be aware (as every person that works for real in experimental physics would be able to tell you) that rejecting SR is a poor choice.

 

[geistkiesel]

Regardless of how strongly Tom, you or I wish to "go to the stars", nature will follow the same patterns. The only thing we can do is learn what those patterns are and work within them.

And those patterns do include what SR predicts, so we better take it into consideration. You would be much better starting from it. But that's your choice.

ahrkron: be advised Grounded, for instance, has made some seios progress even though he isn't attacking SR.

Do you want to go to the stars.

Just be aware (as every person that works for real in experimental physics would be able to tell you) that rejecting SR is a poor choice.[/QUOTE]
Scientific evolutionary theory and observation proves you wrong: There has never been an invariant theory.

Therefore, why sit around waiting for someoen else to discover the next evolved state step: , giant or baby.

 

[Hurkyl]

And where in history has any progress been made by denying existing theory without strong theoretical or experimental justification?

 

[quantumdude]

ahrkron: be advised Grounded, for instance, has made some seios progress

No, he isn't. He is just re-hashing the physics of the 19th century. And if we all did what he is doing, we'd all be making some serious anti-progress.

even though he isn't attacking SR.

I'll agree that he isn't attacking SR. He's simply denying it.

Do you want to go to the stars.

This is irrelevant! Despite your beliefs to the contrary, the outcome of real experiments cannot be changed as capriciously as those of thought experiments.

Scientific evolutionary theory and observation proves you wrong: There has never been an invariant theory.

That does not imply that it is correct to go backwards, which is in fact what you are advocating.

 

[geistkiesel]

No, he [Grounded] isn't. He is just re-hashing the physics of the 19th century. And if we all did what he is doing, we'd all be making some serious anti-progress.
I'll agree that he isn't attacking SR. He's simply denying it.

This is irrelevant! Despite your beliefs to the contrary, the outcome of real experiments cannot be changed as capriciously as those of thought experiments.

Note:To investigate/re-hash what Grounded is saying is "anti-progress", investigating/re-hashing, is anti-progress?

Here is a simple thought experiment that has been discussed in various forms over the years.

1. In the Einstein stationary platform and moving train experiment an observer O' on the train located at M' on the the train heading to a photon source at B, arrives at the midpoint M of A and B, two light sources, just as the sources emit photons along the line of motion of the train. M, A and B are on a stationary frame. The observer determines her v' wrt M, and t'1 (the time from when she passed through M, say t'0) detects a photon emitted from B and later detects a photon from A at t'2. SR tells us the photons emitted in the stationary frame were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. This is a given.

From the information in front of you, t'0, t'1 and t'2, v', the spatial location of M' at t'0, or M'(t'0), determine if M'(t'0) was at the midpoint of the photons at t'1, when the B photon was detected on the moving platform. All values are moving frame values. You may use the given information that when M'(t'0) was colocated with M in the stationary platform that the photons were emitted from A and B simultaneously.

2. In the Michelson-Moeley experiment virtually all descriptions I have seen have the photons moving transverse to the photon moving 'parallel' with the motion of the source reflected at an angle, as if the photon were bounced ahead.However, the photon is directed, or should be directed, at an angle of 90 degrees wrt the transverse moving photon. Therefore, the reflected photon will arrive behind the moving photon and will pass through the half-silvered mirror above the point from which it was originally reflected downward.

In capturing the reflected photons in the eye piece (now moving parallel to each other) the photons upward moving parallel photons should be separated by an amount vt, the distance the sources moved during the time t, the time of roundtrip of the downward moving photon. Both photons interfer orthogonally before their final passage through the silvered mirror on their path to the eye piece. The silvered mirror is at 45 degrees to the direction of motion of the downward, tranverse, photon.

From this, calculate the optical path length difference expected from a given range of V, the velocity of the source for a.) any 24 hour period and, b). anyone year period. To combine the calculations you may plot t(years) exponentilly using real hours for the 24 hour period.