Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

Why not?
Photons have an effective cross section that stretches to infinity. It does off
very rapidly with distance from the central axis, though.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

If you do this by reducing the brigtness of the
laser you allow a single *absorbed* photons to eject a
photoelectron.

Quantum dot emitters that will measure out a single
photon are now available.
<<The experiment and Results
This experiment proved that the following two things were possible in an
open photonic network environment such as the Internet.

1. A single photon can interfere...>>
http://www.physorg.com/news4536.html

IOW a single *emitted* photon goes through
both slits.

That doens't look favorable for BaT or
particle propagation models.

Sue...

At the same location as above,

Another interesting subject.

Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.

If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup. At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.

In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.

George

You can say that about generated radio waves but not individual photons.

No doubt about that one, George.

Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in his
frame?

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

...

Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.

Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.

George

Why? photons have cross-sections.

The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests change
or not?

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.

Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".

If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer
moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer O3,
the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.

For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as c+v2.
Here is the experimental setup:

S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._
                    v2<T2

        O3

O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a
light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1
and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing
speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.

I understand that SRians agree on this.

The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is
considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for
differently moving sources.

Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively
moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.

Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
plane is normal).
For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
pulses of light as it orbits.  Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to
catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect
bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses
will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.

Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive
pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in
reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in
orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will
depend on the distance to the star.

There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
variable star simulation program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
 
Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE
the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this
argument.

The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames'
may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.