• AFM: Apparent Wavelength, a non-QM hidden variable.

    From Ned Latham@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 5 07:29:03 2020
    [This followup replaces a poorly worded fourth paragraph in the
    original. My apologies for the bungle.]

    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 mentoning it, in my view.

    The opposite assumption however, that emission theory predicts variable wavelength when source and observer are in relative motion, is much more interesting; the accepted definitions of frequency and wavelength wrt
    streams of particles are intuitiuvely correct and are clearly congruent
    with their waveform equivalents[1], but unlike SR with its FoR magic,
    a potentially viable emission theory must account for the effect of
    relative motion between the source and the observer explicitly. The
    frequency definition does that, but the wavelength definition does not.

    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[2]:
    the quotient of the emission speed and the measured frequency.

    Given f = f[0] * (c + v) / c, that gives
    lambda = c / (f[0] * (c + v) / c)
    = c * (c / (f[0] * (c + v))
    = c / f[0] * (c / (c + v))
    = 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 shift and the frequency shift. 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] Frequency : the rate at which particles reach a given point in space;
    : the rate at which wave peaks reach a given point in space;
    Wavelength: the distance between particles in the direction of movement,
    : the radial distance between wave peaks.

    [2] The predicted wavelength measurement. It too has a waveform equivalent:
    the quotient of the propagation speed and the measured frequency.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ned Latham@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 5 06:21:14 2020
    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 mentoning it, in my view.

    The opposite assumption however, that emission theory predicts variable wavelength when source and observer are in relative motion, is much more interesting; the accepted definitions of frequency and wavelength wrt
    streams of particles are intuitiuvely correct and are clearly congruent
    with their waveform equivalents[1], but unlike SR with its FoR magic,
    a potentially viable emission theory must account for the effect of
    relative motion between the source and the observer explicitly. The
    frequency definition does that, but the wavelength definition does not.

    What the observer experiences is not the objective wavelength, it is
    instead the change in distance between source and observer while one
    wavelength passes; in other words, the wavelength experienced is the
    objective wavelength 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[2]:
    the quotient of the emission speed and the measured frequency.

    Given f = f[0] * (c + v) / c, that gives
    lambda = c / (f[0] * (c + v) / c)
    = c * (c / (f[0] * (c + v))
    = c / f[0] * (c / (c + v))
    = 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 shift and the frequency shift. 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] Frequency : the rate at which particles reach a given point in space;
    : the rate at which wave peaks reach a given point in space;
    Wavelength: the distance between particles in the direction of movement,
    : the radial distance between wave peaks.

    [2] The predicted wavelength measurement. It too has a waveform equivalent:
    the quotient of the propagation speed and the measured frequency.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)