On Sunday, 28 August 2022 at 12:14:05 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The following two texts are mutually exclusive, so either the variation of the wavelength is unrealistic or "light is made of particles" is refuted by the Doppler effect:
Yes the wavelength never changes, just the frequency for the observer.
(As long as the observer is moving relative to the source)
But, How does an invariable wavelength mean light must be made of particles? You can have an invariable wavelength in a wave only model of light too.
And Feynman is wrong too in his quote below. PMTubes do not supply evidence for particles. Wave only light is quantised at the detector plane by the detector atoms.
Explained perfectly well by resonance of the atom responding to wave light
that is at or near the atoms resonant frequency.
Then this energy is amplified by an “ electron cascade”, processed digitally and sent to
a pc monitor where software fabricates an imaginary dot for idiots like Feynman
to kid themselves they saw a photon.
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us,
so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."
http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
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
If Feynman is correct, then the variation of wavelength is unrealistic and the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Variable wavelength of light https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77 contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the (varying) wavelength inside his spaceship - so he would know his speed without
looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.
In future, Einstein-free physics the wavelength of light will be nothing more than an invariable coefficient in the formula
Yes. And Incidentally this is why deSitter got it wrong when he lied and said a non relativistic model would have light from a double star “piling up” which
isn’t observed.
DeSitter initially and correctly admits at the beginning of his moronic argument for
relativity, that yes in a classical non relativistic model (which he calls emission)
light travels at c in the source frame.
But then in a absurd and illogical u-turn he calculates the speed
of light for this emission model by assuming light in this model travels at
a variable speed in the star/source towards earth!
What a load of tosh. MMX proves him wrong. Light always travels
away from any source at c. Never at a variable speed.
And if one correctly calculates the deSitter double star by having
light always travel at c in the source frame. Light doesn’t pile up
in the observer frame after all. Another lying relativist claim debunked.
For those who don’t believe me...try doing the calculation yourself.
Put the source in the rest frame. Have the other star and earth rotate
in eliptical orbits relative to the source. (Yes believe it or not in the star/source
frame everything else moves, not the source/star)
Now have light leave the source at c. Does the observer on earth see
a Doppler shift ? Yes.
Does the light pile up in the star/source frame as DeSitter erroneously claim? No.
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)