The light invariance principle is valid for the light in vacum. From it follows that the light is unaffected from the source movement, it lives in a space that can be properly called 'absolute space'. During its path light is unaware of anything that happens around it.

What about of the light in a medium? In certain mediums, like Bose - Einsten condensate, the speed of light can decrease to an order of meters per second. Is invariance principle valid for light in a medium? Or light will act just as a part from the body?

The light invariance principle is valid for the light in vacum. From it follows that the light is unaffected from the source movement, it lives in a space that can be properly called 'absolute space'. During its path light is unaware of anything that happens around it.

What about of the light in a medium? In certain mediums, like Bose - Einsten condensate, the speed of light can decrease to an order of meters per second. Is invariance principle valid for light in a medium? Or light will act just as a part from the body?
The principle of relativity states that c is invariant, Not as the speed of light but as a geometric property of space-time. Light in vacuum has a velocity of c, so its velocity will be invariant (it will be the same in all reference frames).
In a medium, light has a velocity different from c, so it will not be invariant.

As I understand it, the speed of light is still c (it has to be), in a medium. The thing is, that if light is not moving through vacuum, it will run into particles, that will absorb the photon and then emit it from the other 'side', so the photon will move in the same direction. The time between the absorbtion and emission, although very small, makes the speed seem smaller, even though the photons are not moving slower then c.

As I understand it, the speed of light is still c (it has to be), in a medium. The thing is, that if light is not moving through vacuum, it will run into particles, that will absorb the photon and then emit it from the other 'side', so the photon will move in the same direction. The time between the absorbtion and emission, although very small, makes the speed seem smaller, even though the photons are not moving slower then c.

Yes, and since atoms from the substance are moving with the reference frame light will become 'desorientated'.

You says that "the photon will move in the same direction", interesting, directioin wrt what kind of coordinate system? Can I presume that he had the same direction wrt absolute space? If momentum of the photon do not changes during the absortion and emission process, there is no reason it direction to change!

If momentum of the photon do not changes during the absortion and emission process, there is no reason it direction to change!

I was just making sure everybody understood it. I didn't want anyone to think i was talking about reflecting light from a surface.

Fo3,
allow me to correct your explanation a little to make it sound as it is in the Physics:
"The thing is, that if light is moving through medium, it will be absorbed by the particles of medium, then re-emit by those particles, etc, etc. Although the time delay between the absorption and re-emission is very small, those processes make the speed of photons seem smaller, even though between interactions with particles of medium the photons are moving with the same speed c".

In such form it is exactly what constitutes the theoretical base of whole physics of propagation of light into the media.

Fo3,
allow me to correct your explanation a little to make it sound as it is in the Physics:
"The thing is, that if light is moving through medium, it will be absorbed by the particles of medium, then re-emit by those particles, etc, etc. Although the time delay between the absorption and re-emission is very small, those processes make the speed of photons seem smaller, even though between interactions with particles of medium the photons are moving with the same speed c".


This post is addressed to the forum:

Can you respond to the statement that the light in a moving medium will become disoriented? If a medium is spinning around some arbitrarily oriented axis as well as moving through space wrt some arbitrary reference frame at .9c will the exit trajectory of the light be co-linear with the trajecory of the light before entering the moving medium?

To make the problem clearer let us assume that the medium is a flat circular diamond plate with radius 1 meter, 1 cm thick spinning around the axis of the plate at 100 rpm. A short burst of photons, say 10^-6 sec long, enters the edge of the plate perpendicular to the plate axis directed at the axis. The axis of the plate is moving along the trajectory of light at .5c away from the (case 1) and toward the beam (case 2) and any other arbitrary angle wrt the photon beam (case 3).

What will be the trajectory of the beam after exiting from the spinning plate?

I am not asking for an accurate calculation. A general dioscription will do?

Geistkiesel

I guess, your friend MacM can answer on your question better than me...

I was wondering, if and how can we talk about a photon, when the light is going from one medium to another, and changes its direction a bit. I know that the fraction of light is explained using an example with a lightbeam, but how does a single photon act?

I was wondering, if and how can we talk about a photon, when the light is going from one medium to another, and changes its direction a bit. I know that the fraction of light is explained using an example with a lightbeam, but how does a single photon act?
I suppose that the regenerated light is a "different photon". If we use the standard model as described it assumes the newly emitted photon will move in the same direcion as the incoming photon which assume that the reemission process is momentum based.

geistkiesel

Dear fo3,
I was wondering, if and how can we talk about a photon, when the light is going from one medium to another, and changes its direction a bit. I know that the fraction of light is explained using an example with a lightbeam, but how does a single photon act?

The answer is very simple: do you recall as the photons are passing screen with two small holes in it? Each photon goes randomly through one of hole, but the ensemble of photons (no matter is it completed from many gathered photons, or from many singled coming each after another) passes screen as ... a wave. The same with passing of any material piece...just as classic Physical and Geometrical Optics require.
Keeping this my notice in mind, I am sure, you can answer your question ...by yourself.

As I understand it, a single photon will produce the interference pattern without other photons following; indicating that the single photon goes through both slits and interferes with itself.

The spinning disk would be an interesting experiment. I can't guess the outcome.

Vern,
you understand it wrong (though you understand the many things in Physics wrong...)

I guess, your friend MacM can answer on your question better than me...

Ha. I think it is an excellent question. I may even do that test (not using a 1 meter diamond of course).

My expectation is that your hunch suggested here is that light will infact show some disorientation and become deflected as a function of the rotational velocity to the speed of light in the medium.

I am unaware of any such test or observation and I could be wrong but I don't think so.

I hope, Geistkiesel, you got the best answer on your question....

As I understand it, a single photon will produce the interference pattern without other photons following; indicating that the single photon goes through both slits and interferes with itself.

Read an introductory quantum mechanics text. Some mathematical statistics wouldn't hurt either.

As I understand it, a single photon will produce the interference pattern without other photons following; indicating that the single photon goes through both slits and interferes with itself.

The spinning disk would be an interesting experiment. I can't guess the outcome.
Me either at least not at the present, but look at the statement you made. "The photon interferes with itself".

What can this mean? Feynman catagorized light coming in two types:
1) Horizontal polarized and
2) Vertical polarized. T

This model suffers from an extreme case of unbelievability.

Two kind of light were proposed to explain the observation of poalrization of the photons? But what if we have only one kind of light? Would this mean the light would be both H and V simultaneously? Absolutely not. The phopton would be, for a an instant an H then V then H then V etc. In other words the state generation of the photon is an intrinsic attribute of the photon. Whatever the current state happens to be upon "polarization" , that state becomes permanently the observed state while the other nonobserved is simply, nonlocal.

A photon crashing diown upon a screen with two holes doesn't interfer with itself nor does the photon go into a "wave state", the photon enters a polarized state. However the polarization process does not turn the nonobserved state "off" like a light switch.

The overly obvious reality regarding nonlocal force centers or entanglement processes is the physical fact of local /nonlocal force exchanges. The nonlocal attributes of an entity must have local/nonlocal interfaces in order that one affects the other. Otherwise, why even discuss entanglement and nonlocality?

The passage through the holes is not as a wave. The local attribute iof he photon goes through one hole the nonlocal attribute goes through the other. While transitioning through the holes the local/nonlocal acitivty orders the photon vibration mode, or limits the mode as seen on the scintillation screen, the diffradtion pattern. This pattern is differentiated from a smudged pattern on the scinitllation screen with the diffraction pattern after transition through two holes.

In the poalrized case some points on the screen are denied access to the photons. The polarization process lowers the photon entropy as demonstration of this affect. The local/nonlocal force exchanges during transition through the holes is a true and simplest action-at-a-distance (aaad) phenomenon AKA local/nolocal force exchanges.


Interference, translated into the words of physical reality is the ordering of the photon vibration modes otherwise occuring randomly in space.

Polarization determines the minmum state of equilibruium for the photon's projected or predicted future positon in space. The photon can take a limited and quantized number (8, 16 32 etc) of angles of exit from the hole detrermined by the current polarized state transition structure involving the erstwhile V and H attributes of the photon. The limited exit trajectory defines overall volumes of trajectories of any one two-hole experimental arrangement.


There isn't any wave-particle duality, a model contrived to answer the enigmatic puzzle of two-hole diffraction quantum mechanically.

Geistkiesel

Read an introductory quantum mechanics text. Some mathematical statistics wouldn't hurt either.

Ok; Lets see; Here's one: Quantum theory represents one of the great and most beautiful structures
in all of physics. Still, after 70 years we have no real clue as to how
and when the theory will break down (but break down it must--that is the
tragedy of the human condition) from the Preface of Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory, A conference held in honor of Professor John A Wheeler. Held at UMBC. I was there :)

I've studied QM; it is just not my faith :)

Vern,
you understand it wrong (though you understand the many things in Physics wrong...) Maybe so; that understanding came from a couple of hours of Google research beginning with "Single Photon interference"

Yuriy: I've serfed your web site many times and find it very interesting. You seem capable of study in field theory as well as quantum theory; a rare talent that few people can muster.

In your field theory expereience: Would a universe built only of vacuum fluctuations demand relativity phenomena in classic space-time? Most other scientists see that it would; you seem to think that it would not?

I am interested to know your view.

Vern

geistkiesel,

A photon crashing diown upon a screen with two holes doesn't interfer with itself nor does the photon go into a "wave state", the photon enters a polarized state. However the polarization process does not turn the nonobserved state "off" like a light switch.

Wow, your last post about light interference is really complicated, you seem to understand it very deep. I had always tought that this thing about a photon that interfere with itself is bullshit. I am trying to understand what you mean with my limited physics education...

I know from QM that it is not nessecary photon to be simultaneosly wave and particle. If a photon is transmitted infinity number of times through the holes it will be produced probability distribution which corresponds to the interference patern, so the 'wave' only determines the 'future' of the photon, it most probable path, it is not a reality. The photon is all the time discrete particle.

Anyway this is not conserned to the tooic, who started this debate about the light interference ..., oh ..yes... Yuriy. He very much likes to answers questions for one thread in another thread. Probably if we start a thread 'light interference', Yuriy will explain us the relativity in a medium...

Can you respond to the statement that the light in a moving medium will become disoriented? If a medium is spinning around some arbitrarily oriented axis as well as moving through space wrt some arbitrary reference frame at .9c will the exit trajectory of the light be co-linear with the trajecory of the light before entering the moving medium?

Your hypotetical experiment with the moving medium is just what I was woundering. I dont know about the rotation but the linear velocity of the diamond plate should not change the direction of photons, because (in my opinion) ohotons will remain with the same direstion WRT the Absolute space at the moment they had been emitted. While absorbed photons are in 'frozen' state inside the particle. The emitted photon is an exact copy of the absorbed. So the light should 'bend' in the direction of Earth move around the Sun, and if its velocity is really slow it should be noticeable even with a simple eye...

(Please, don't be too strict about my physics understandings, after all I had received education in a third world country, compared to my lectors Yuriy would seems as a genious...,)

There isn't any wave-particle duality, a model contrived to answer the enigmatic puzzle of two-hole diffraction quantum mechanically.
Geistkiesel

As a related side note of interest. I have seen a movie made of a test where individual photons were generated and projected on to a screen after passing a thin stretched wire.

Amazingly a compilation of the photon impacts shows a statistical build up on the screen of an exact replica of the interferance pattern, instead of an anticipated bell curve distribution.

It caused me to imagine that the pattern must be somehow related to quantum probabilities.

I'm reading Feynman's notes reguarding photon interactions when passing through different thicknesses of glass plate. His description suggests the photons enter, do a little dance with the atoms, then exit. He doesn't say "absorbed and re-emitted". I wonder if the test with the spinning material would show a photon is absorbed, or simply "does a little dance."

If the path follows the spin; it would favor "absorbed". If not, maybe just "does a little dance".

I'm reading Feynman's notes reguarding photon interactions when passing through different thicknesses of glass plate. His description suggests the photons enter, do a little dance with the atoms, then exit. He doesn't say "absorbed and re-emitted". I wonder if the test with the spinning material would show a photon is absorbed, or simply "does a little dance."

If the path follows the spin; it would favor "absorbed". If not, maybe just "does a little dance".

As I envision this "dance" it would be a sizemic pertabation of the electron orb (an oscillation). It would seem two possible results from such a test.

1 - Light is disoriented and is displaced by the rotating medium. In which case I do not think it would dictate which process is at work.

2 - It is not displaced which would suggest it was merely a dance and the orb is gyroscopic and not rotating with the atom as the disk rotates. However, that result should show a lateral displacement of the beam.

Does not Sagnac address this issue? The relative motion of the medium does infact reflect the (c+v) and (c-v) issue.

In the field theory concept that you (MacM) seem to support and I do support; the future position of a photon's center point must be determined by (as if pushed by) the fields radiating out from it. This should favor the photon passing through and not following the spin of the medium. The field theory concept easily explains the double slit and the thin wire experimental results, of course.

if light is moving through medium, it will be absorbed by the particles of medium

But shouldn't certain molecules be able to absorb and emit only photons with a certain frequency/wavelenght/energy? If a particle can have only certain energy states, then how does it act when it collides with a photon, that has a different quanta of energy, than the particle can absorb?

Fo3,
But shouldn't certain molecules be able to absorb and emit only photons with a certain frequency/wavelenght/energy? If a particle can have only certain energy states, then how does it act when it collides with a photon, that has a different quanta of energy, than the particle can absorb?

1. There are a lot of possibilities (we call it as "channels of interaction" of interactions of photons and particles; notice - not only charged ones!). All depends on what channel is responsible for light passing through the matter. Different matter has its own specific channels; we are studying all of them and it is a subject of the Physical Optics.
2. Molecules have very complex spectrum of the possible energetical states; mostly it is so called "strip-like spectrum" (transcription of Russian name, I'm not sure that it exactly reflects the English name of this spectrum): the set of strips separated by "restricted" areas and inside strip there are areas with continual distribution of possible energies. So, commonly speaking, molecules can absorb photons with continually spectrum of energies too, not only with a specific discrete spectrum, as orbital electrons do.
3. Do not forget that at propagation of light inside matter the effects of photons scattering also play a significant role. For instance, the scattering of photons from the free electrons into metals is the dominant process at reflection of EM radiation by metallic surfaces…
4. Do not forget that photon can scatter not only from (or on) a single particle, but from the ordered row of particles - recall Braggs' scattering.
And so on, and so on...
Therefore, speaking on photon's propagation in matter we should study the structure of each concrete matter and accordingly - the channels of photon's interactions possible in it...
My advice is - in each case find reliable scientific source devoted to study of the optical properties of each specific matter you are interested in.

I hate to do this, but...

Relativity in a Medium is when you go to a seance and find that the Meduim is your long lost sister...

Ha speaking of mediums, I have a large almost perfectly spherical glass crystal ball.
When shining a red laser into this ball and spinning this ball no change in direction of the laser light is noticeable. Nil....

If Light was being absorbed and re-emitted by particles some distortion to the direction of the light should be obsevrved I would assume. Which of course is not the case.

The dot on the wall behind the ball should elongate proportionally to the spin of the ball yes??

We are diverting from the main problem - what would be light direction after it leaves the medium?

Ha speaking of mediums, I have a large almost perfectly spherical glass crystal ball.
When shining a red laser into this ball and spinning this ball no change in direction of the laser light is noticeable. Nil....

If Light was being absorbed and re-emitted by particles some distortion to the direction of the light should be obsevrved I would assume. Which of course is not the case.

The dot on the wall behind the ball should elongate proportionally to the spin of the ball yes??


I hope you are not spinning it by hand or are looking for change after a few feet where the laser hits the wall. :D Any deflection would be in proportion to rotational velocity vs c.!

Ammended freudian typo "radial" to "rotational" to match two prior postings on this subject.

Any deflection would be in proportion to radial velocity vs c.!
which by definition is equal to zero at any rotation!

So, QQ, you are advised to find ZERO EFFECT!
This is price for deal with cranks!

which by definition is equal to zero at any rotation!

So, QQ, you are advised to find ZERO EFFECT!
This is price for deal with cranks!

Zhear nonsense on both counts. Technically unresponsive. This is what you get when you deal with zealots with less than total integrity.

I hope you are not spinning it by hand or are looking for change after a few feet where the laser hits the wall. Any deflection would be in proportion to radial velocity vs c.!

Of course the elongation is proportional to radial velocity and 'c'. But I get the impression that if we do the math the dynamics are considerable. In that a small rpm would prove a significant impact on the straightness of the laser line. Mind you the change may still be too small to see with the naked eye...

What I see about this issue is shown in the followng two diagrams:

http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/RV1.jpg

http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/RV11.jpg

A while ago I posed a similiar question about how light seems to retain it's straight line direction as it travels through our atmosphere regardless of the velocity of the wind speed that ittravelled through.
For example if youi are watching a sunset on teh horizon and the wind speed is say 50 kph at 90 degrees to the lights vector you would expect to see a heap of visual distortion if in deed light was absorbed and re- emitted by the particles it impacts on.
Of course this is not observed and the arguement was that the shift in direction is too small to be seen, however I woudl doubt this assessment as 100 kms of moving air is more than enough to see a change in light direction.

Funnilly enough if one looks at a heat haze over a red hot electric stove one can see the distortion of light and this haze is a lot less than 100 kms in depth.

My assessment then is that light passes by particles and not actually hits them, [ passing throught the space between particles] but of course this fails to describe why light speed slows in a medium other than vacuum.

So I see problems with current ideas about light that are yet to be addressed.

IN another thread it has been clearly stated that emitted light does gain momentum by veloicities othogonal to the vector of the lights source. [according to conventional scientific thought]

So as the ball spins it must impart a change in direction to the light as the light is absorbed and re-emitted by those orthgonally moving particles within the ball.

As far as I can observe this does not apprear to be the case.
As regardless of my prisms RPM the light retains it's straight line. [as shown in diagram 1 above]
This of course, is far from conclusive.

QQ:
Of course the elongation is proportional to radial velocity and 'c'.

Did you read my post? What size of letters I should chose to bring to your attention that "radial velocity" at rotation is equal to zero by definition!

I am sorry Yuiry, I was under the mistaken impression that your comment about radial velocity being equal to zero was a sarcastic remark about MacMs earlier post. In other words directed at MacM and not so much me.

So you are saying that regardless of the prisms RPM it's radial velocity equals zero. Is this because the velocity of the near side neutralises the effect of the velocity of the far side? [ Both sides of the sphere rotating in opposite directions equally thus the net effect is zero?]

which by definition is equal to zero at any rotation!

So, QQ, you are advised to find ZERO EFFECT!
This is price for deal with cranks!

It is easy to see my mistake in that I thought that I was being advised to disregard MAcM's post as he [MacM] was suggesting a zero effect.

When in fact what was actually being said was that I should ignore MacMs post as it suggested an actual effect......it's amazing how communiction can get thoroughly stuffed up when emotions are at play.

Yuiriy if my earlier post was incorrect:
So you are saying that regardless of the prisms RPM it's radial velocity equals zero. Is this because the velocity of the near side neutralises the effect of the velocity of the far side? [ Both sides of the sphere rotating in opposite directions equally thus the net effect is zero?]


Maybe you could care to inform the readers as to why radial velocity generates zero effect?

QQ,
if some solid body rotates around any axis, its points do not have any radial velocities in respect to each other. They have only an angular velocities! The rotation, by definition, is the motion with zero radial velocities!
Now rephrase all your statements with this fact in mind...
What MacM was saying actualy was "Any deflection would be in proportion to .. zero"!
I thought you should recognize such a stupidity. Was I mistaken?

QQ,
if some solid body rotates around any axis, its points do not have any radial velocities in respect to each other. They have only an angular velocities! The rotation, by definition, is the notion with zero angular velocities!
Now rephrase all your statements with this fact in mind...
What MacM was saying actualy was "Any deflection would be in proportion to .. zero"!
I thought you should recognize such a stupidity. Was I mistaken?

You have once again fallen off the tulip truck and landed on your head. The only thing "Stupid" going on these days is your continued annoying and unresponsive posts.

lethe was right once saying that speaking with those cranks anybody becames stupid too...
I guess, it will be better for me to stop react on any of parade of stupidity in this forum, answering only on the direct question to me of normal people here...

QQ,
if some solid body rotates around any axis, its points do not have any radial velocities in respect to each other. They have only an angular velocities! The rotation, by definition, is the motion with zero radial velocities!
Now rephrase all your statements with this fact in mind...
What MacM was saying actualy was "Any deflection would be in proportion to .. zero"!
I thought you should recognize such a stupidity. Was I mistaken?

ok i see your point Yuiry. And thanks for clarifying the definition of terms.

I guess this is where there is continuous angst and that is terminology and the learning associated.

In your lingo you are saying that relative radial vleocity of two points rotating around an axis is zero. This is quite logical I think. Unfortunately MacM's use of radial velocity was in reference to one point only I think and not two points....but maybe MacM could clarify this for himself.


I thought you should recognize such a stupidity. Was I mistaken?
I had to chuckle at this Yuiry....really......if you ask yourself why is it you are continuously mistaken then maybe you will not make that error of judgement so often......

I do mean this in a light way Yuriy as I really don't think mistakes in communication are worth getting too upset about....as you have said they happen all the time.....

ok i see your point Yuiry. And thanks for clarifying the definition of terms.

I guess this is where there is continuous angst and that is terminology and the learning associated.

In your lingo you are saying that relative radial vleocity of two points rotating around an axis is zero. This is quite logical I think. Unfortunately MacM's use of radial velocity was in reference to one point only I think and not two points....but maybe MacM could clarify this for himself.



I had to chuckle at this Yuiry....really......if you ask yourself why is it you are continuously mistaken then maybe you will not make that error of judgement so often......

I do mean this in a light way Yuriy as I really don't think mistakes in communication are worth getting too upset about....as you have said they happen all the time.....

Thank you QQ. I was about to post a statement that I have never used the term "radial velocity" but thought perhaps I should first review my posts. To my surprise I found that in three post on this issue the first two I properly stated "Rotational" but indeed in the third I made a freudian typo and actually wrote "radial"

That is clearly nonsense and I have corrected it with a notation about the original error.

Unfortunately in his usual manner Yuriy took the opportunity to exaggerate this fact rather than clearly and simply note the error. Had he responded "MacM are you sure you meant "radial" or did you mean "rotational" I would have immediately understood him and corrected that error.

But that is not Yuriy's style. He would rather attempt to make it appear one is stupid; completely of course disregarding that the two prior posts had used the proper term "rotational".

I retract my comments towards Yuriy in respect to the correctness of his response technically but do not retract my charge that he is being an A.H. by not simply noting the miss use of the term.

I damn well know the meanings of "Radial" and "Rotational". It is laughable that he would pick on such an issue when his useage of words is so badly garbled.

Unfortunately due to his language barrier it is more difficult to pin such lables on him for doing so.

So, all this stupidity was only ... "a typo".
Well, how about that:
1. Term "rotational velocity" is the same stupid as any other mark of crank...
It does not exist in Science, at all. There is only "the velocity (or speed) of rotation” and it is ... the angular velocity I'm speaking all the time. But MacM does not know about it. He does not know that velocity he and QQ are speaking is called the azimuthal or linear velocity of the rotating point (of body); that this velocity is a vector product of the angular velocity and radius-vector of this point (from the center of rotation, and that is why this velocity is always ... in respect of two points of the rotating body!). He does not know that angular velocity is measured in radian/sec, but azimuthal velocity - in cm/sec, just as radial velocity. Etc, etc, etc...
In other words, this thread proves one more "side" of the gigantic expertise of our crank-Master: he does not know even the elementary theory of the rotational movement!
So, it is not a typo - it is feature of ... member of crank-Museum.

lethe was right once saying that speaking with those cranks anybody becames stupid too...
I guess, it will be better for me to stop react on any of parade of stupidity in this forum, answering only on the direct question to me of normal people here...
Normal like yourself of course.
Geistkiesel

unfortunately none of this answers the question about light in a medium.

Would a spinning crystal ball impart a change in the direction of light due to it's RPM.?

And if not why not?

or maybe i should rephrase teh question and ask:
Why doesn't spinning the crystal ball at high rpm effect the image seeen through that crytsal ball? [and no i am not talking about sooth either - ha]

or maybe i should rephrase teh question and ask:
Why doesn't spinning the crystal ball at high rpm effect the image seeen through that crytsal ball? [and no i am not talking about sooth either - ha]
Not talking about "sooth either"? Then why the disclamer QQ? Hmmmm.

Geistkiesel

So, all this stupidity was only ... "a typo".
Well, how about that:
1. Term "rotational velocity" is the same stupid as any other mark of crank...
It does not exist in Science, at all. There is only "the velocity (or speed) of rotation” and it is ... the angular velocity I'm speaking all the time. But MacM does not know about it. He does not know that velocity he and QQ are speaking is called the azimuthal or linear velocity of the rotating point (of body); that this velocity is a vector product of the angular velocity and radius-vector of this point (from the center of rotation, and that is why this velocity is always ... in respect of two points of the rotating body!). He does not know that angular velocity is measured in par/sec, but azimuthal velocity - in cm/sec, just as radial velocity. Etc, etc, etc...
In other words, this thread proves one more "side" of the gigantic expertise of our crank-Master: he does not know even the elementary theory of the rotational movement!
So, it is not a typo - it is feature of ... member of crank-Museum.

The only thing your post proves is your gross ignorance and ego. BTW welcome to the Cranks club. :D

What about if the light source is inside an empty rotating cylinder. If the light passed through only one side of a sphere, in this case the wall of the cylinder, the effect shouldn't be zero?

http://www.zone.ee/killerbunnies/rotate.jpg

Lets say the thickness of the cylinders wall is 25cm. The refractive index of the glass is 2. The cylinder is rotating at 6000 rpm.
Since the refractive index is 2, it takes light twice the time to get through the glass as it would take for the same distance passed in vaccuum. The time it takes longer is the time that is between the absorbtion and re-emission of the light in the glass molecules. During that time the movement of the glass should have an effect to the movement of the light. In the given conditions, the extra time taken is 8.3*10^-10s. During that time the cylinder will have turned about 0.00003 degrees. So the light coming out of the rotating cylinder will have departed from its original direction.
On a screen 100m away from the cylinder, the 0.00003 degrees will cause a shift of 0.05 mm.
This should be an observable shift, if I am correct with my calculations and logic?

What about if the light source is inside an empty rotating cylinder. If the light passed through only one side of a sphere, in this case the wall of the cylinder, the effect shouldn't be zero?

http://www.zone.ee/killerbunnies/rotate.jpg

Lets say the thickness of the cylinders wall is 25cm. The refractive index of the glass is 2. The cylinder is rotating at 6000 rpm.
Since the refractive index is 2, it takes light twice the time to get through the glass as it would take for the same distance passed in vaccuum. The time it takes longer is the time that is between the absorbtion and re-emission of the light in the glass molecules. During that time the movement of the glass should have an effect to the movement of the light. In the given conditions, the extra time taken is 8.3*10^-10s. During that time the cylinder will have turned about 0.00003 degrees. So the light coming out of the rotating cylinder will have departed from its original direction.
On a screen 100m away from the cylinder, the 0.00003 degrees will cause a shift of 0.05 mm.
This should be an observable shift, if I am correct with my calculations and logic?

You could inject the laser beam through a central hollow channel onto a reflector. But I see several difficulties pragmatically.

Mostly getting a concentric set up and possible vibration could swamp the 0.05 mm deviation.

so get it spinning at triple the 6000rpm and so what if there is vibration any change n direction would prove the point. But I bet 10 Wonderland dollars that you will not get any deviation regardless of how fast she spins......which defies current explanation of photon absorbtion and re-emission.


Not talking about "sooth either"? Then why the disclamer QQ? Hmmmm.

Ha, my crystal ball has many properties not able to be described by conventional thought. [ground quartz crystal, almost perfect and is an amazing magnifying glass]

seriously though I have used it before in other posts and the issue of sooth came up then.....ha

Mostly getting a concentric set up and possible vibration could swamp the 0.05 mm deviation.

Using a material, which has a higher refractive index, making the cylinder thicker, making it spin faster and increasing the screens distance would all proportionally increase the deviation. It seems to me, that this shouldn't be too difficult to test.

Using a material, which has a higher refractive index, making the cylinder thicker, making it spin faster and increasing the screens distance would all proportionally increase the deviation. It seems to me, that this shouldn't be too difficult to test.

Anything you do to enhance the deviation will also amplify vibrational displacement. I'm not being negative to your suggestion. I am only pointing out anticipated serious problems with getting useable results.

It would not be difficult to envision a cm of deviation over 100m due to affects other than any possible light absorbtion affect you are looking for. If you have 1 cm of wiggle and are looking for 0.05mm of signal, you have your job cut out for you.

The only way to use such information would be to actually look for an shift in the average location of the beam. That is the average would shift off center. If it vibrates but the average is still null then you have no absorbtion affect.

But trying to advocate such results you would find they would not be easily accepted.

If the laser would be attached independently from the cylinder, then the vibrational displacement shouldn't be effected by the rotation of the cylinder, so the main cause would be the 100m distance to the screen.
Not that was gonna do the test or anything, but still.


Deviation = tan[ 6*L*(n-1)*rpm/c ] * s

where L is the glasses thickness, n is the refractional index, and s is the screens distance.

fo3 if what we are proposing with this test is serious then wouldn't you expect to see some distortion when looking at light through a windstorm traveling at 60kmh with a depth of 100 kms? Wouldn't this provide a similar test?

If the laser would be attached independently from the cylinder, then the vibrational displacement shouldn't be effected by the rotation of the cylinder, so the main cause would be the 100m distance to the screen.
Not that was gonna do the test or anything, but still.


Deviation = tan[ 6*L*(n-1)*rpm/c ] * s

where L is the glasses thickness, n is the refractional index, and s is the screens distance.

Again I'm not trying to knock your test but to give concerns to insure results are of a quality to be useful either way the results might go. I had envisioned the light source indpendantly mounted as well as the reflector inside the channel.

Due to the curvature of lthe surface your reflector would need to have a compensating curvature to pre focus the light since hitting the curvature the light will defocus (disperse vertically).

Any vibration therefore becomes amplified due to the curvature the light strikes.

fo3 if what we are proposing with this test is serious then wouldn't you expect to see some distortion when looking at light through a windstorm traveling at 60kmh with a depth of 100 kms? Wouldn't this provide a similar test?

Refractive Indexs:

http://schools.matter.org.uk/SchoolsGlossary/refractive_index.html

Air is 1.0008 100 km transit time = 3.34E-4 sec
Diamond = 2.417 transit time = 8.06E-4 sec

Assuming the diamond has an average circumferance of 10 cm and runs at 6,000 Rpm = 10 m/sec = 22.36 Mph. vt = 1.8E-2.

Air at 60 km/hr = 16.67 m/sec, vt = 5.57E-3.

1.8E-2/5.57E-3 = 3.23.

My guess is that the diamond is almost 3.25 times better than 100km or air.

The following appeared in my e-mail as a post from fo3 but doesn't show here, I think it should.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/4/1/018

Look up the Huygens-Fresnel principle. It should explain what classical wave mechanics predicts.

fo3,
are you serious think to make the test? I think that before you must be very clear about the theory of scattering and refraction of light in medium. I think that it should be used such kind of medium for which the scattering and the refraction had the smallest possible effect. Why not using Bose condensate at mK temperatures? In such way it can be examined how the photons interact with the purest possible medium and the speed of light can be decreased million times.

Anyway the discussion was about the relativistic behavior of the light in medium, not about refraction, scattering, interference and so on. Do you remember the lasers principle of opperation? First, photons coming from all direction from a lamp, are absorbed from the atoms of the medium. Then a beam in a given direction is released , the beam forces the atoms to emit the previously absorbed photons , and they are emitted in the same direction as the incoming photons. Something similar can happens and when light passes through arbitrary homogeneous medium, a photon is absorbed but later another photon forces the atom to return to its zero state and the atom emits the photon in direction determined by the second photon.
However this effect can become significant only at very low temperatures when the lmean lifetimes of the excited states are big enough and the probability for 'forced' transmition prevails over the probability for spontaneous transition (caused by T).

This is a question to all, is there forced transitions while light passes through arbitrary mediums ?

fo3 if what we are proposing with this test is serious then wouldn't you expect to see some distortion when looking at light through a windstorm traveling at 60kmh with a depth of 100 kms? Wouldn't this provide a similar test?

how would you measure the effects in this test?

fo3,
are you serious think to make the test?

Not that was gonna do the test or anything

I was just suggesting a possible test.

Due to the curvature of lthe surface your reflector would need to have a compensating curvature to pre focus the light since hitting the curvature the light will defocus (disperse vertically).

It should give the same effect, if we used a rotating disc in the laserbeams way. Then the surface wouldn't be curved, and i assume it would be easier to make a diamond disc, then a cylinder :D

Why not using Bose condensate at mK temperatures? In such way it can be examined how the photons interact with the purest possible medium and the speed of light can be decreased million times. ?


Now this sounds like an excellent idea. One could project a laser beam orthogonal to a flowing condensate. That would be very interesting indeed. Good show Xgen.

“ Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
fo3 if what we are proposing with this test is serious then wouldn't you expect to see some distortion when looking at light through a windstorm traveling at 60kmh with a depth of 100 kms? Wouldn't this provide a similar test? ”


how would you measure the effects in this test?

I would have anticipated that the distortion would be seen with the naked eye when watching a sunset during a major storm with wind velocities in excess of 40 kmh.

The clarity of what you see would be obscured and the sunset would be blurrey or appear out of focus.

But as has already been suggested the distortion would be too small to see with the naked eye, however I still have reservations about that position. especially given that winds are never perfectly stable thus distortion to what you would see would be inevitable I would think. Not unlike looking through a heat haze.......

Shouldn't the air blur the sunset anyway? Even if there is no wind?

I dunno, certainly refract I guess.

The point is if we subscribe to the particle absorbtion and emmission theory then in a mass of air say 100 kms deep moving at 40 kms orthogonal to the lights vector the number oif particles involved with orthogonal movement would be what?
Obviously an enormous number of particles involved. If the theory is correct then how could itbe possible to see anything in focus except close up?

Any way that's my take and I know there is an explanation for it. maybe it's just another of those wow facts about light ....ha

The thing is, that with wind the light gets "carried away" a little, by the air molecules, but the direction remains the same. This way the effect is so small, that I don't think it would be observable.
But in the test with the rotating cylinder, the light would be turned also, so that the shift of light gets proportionally bigger when you move away from the cylinder.

Lets assume, that the 100km thick mass of air moves 60kph, then the light is shifted in the winds direction for 1mm (just a rough estimation. in reality it would be a lot smaller, i don't have time right now to do calculations) over the distance of 100km. Would you be able to notice if an object has shifted 1mm a 100km away? I don't think so.. or?

edit:
if light passes a mass of air 100km thick, moving at 60kmh, it will be shifted 0,004 mm. This surely is a too small shift to notice over such a distance.

to compare with: a 10cm thick glass cylinder with a refraction index of 2, rotating at 6000 rpm would cause the light to shift 20cm over the distance of 100km.

The thing is, that with wind the light gets "carried away" a little, by the air molecules, but the direction remains the same. This way the effect is so small, that I don't think it would be observable.

There is and another problem. We just register a photon with specuified direction with our eyes or telescopes. But we cant say where this photon had passed from. So I think that to detect wind effect on the light it should be used a laser which emits beam to a known direction from a orbital satelite, the if wind carries away the light it should be easily detected. While if light just come from the Sun, which emits photons in all direction I think that no such effect can be observed.

None of you commented the question about the spontaneous and forced emitions of atoms. It is important because "desorientation" , i,e making coherent light uncoherent, of light is caused by the spontaneous emision of atoms, if all emisions are 'forced', then there should be no desorientation and light should perserve its direction WRT the Absolute Space . The light will seems moving not on a straight line but on a curve bended toward the linear velocity of Earth.

I know that this kind of logic is unordinary but I cant see any kind of error. The only unclear thing are the nature of th 'forced' transitions. I think that they are very interesting phenomenon, even as they are widely used - for lasers and etc, its nature had been very scarsely explained in modern physics, I just need to know what means the text from my textbook -"when a forced transition to the ground state happens the emitted photon has the same direction as the incoming photon forcing the transition", or something like that. Direction WRT what?

wrt to the atom, that was forced to emit the photon?

wrt to the atom, that was forced to emit the photon? ]

No. WRT what is determined the direction of the photon? If the atom velocity do not matters then it should be the same direction as when it had been absobed WRT the Absolute Space. Because light is totaly indifferent to the velocity of the medium while it moves, it is clear that in this way the momentum and direction of the light will be the same as when it enters the medium. So WRT what, means in what frame of reference we will determine the direction of the forced photon. In the frame of the moving medium (the Earth, laboratory etc) or WRT Absolute Space? Because what will be straight line in the second may seems as a curve in the first(caused by many emissiona and absorbtions).

oh.. Now I undestand what you ment.. beats me, though..

]

No. WRT what is determined the direction of the photon? If the atom velocity do not matters then it should be the same direction as when it had been absobed WRT the Absolute Space. Because light is totaly indifferent to the velocity of the medium while it moves, it is clear that in this way the momentum and direction of the light will be the same as when it enters the medium. So WRT what, means in what frame of reference we will determine the direction of the forced photon. In the frame of the moving medium (the Earth, laboratory etc) or WRT Absolute Space? Because what will be straight line in the second may seems as a curve in the first(caused by many emissiona and absorbtions).

Excellent point. I believe the deviation of sunlight is inherently +/-0.25 degrees. that would be far more than the affect QQ is looking for.

I guess what I am feeling is that I don't believe deviations will be evidenced. As the absorbtion re-emmision idea is fundamentally flawed.

I guess what I am feeling is that I don't believe deviations will be evidenced. As the absorbtion re-emmision idea is fundamentally flawed.

Not sure that is true. What I see is the amount of deviation is to small, especially as pointed out the deviation of sunlight is already greater than the affect.

However, I saw fo3's condensate idea as having testable merit.

None of you commented the question about the spontaneous and forced emissions of atoms. It is important because "disorientation" , i,e making coherent light uncoherent, of light is caused by the spontaneous emission of atoms, if all emissions are 'forced', then there should be no desorientation and light should perserve its direction WRT the Absolute Space . The light will seems moving not on a straight line but on a curve bended toward the linear velocity of Earth.

I know that this kind of logic is unordinary but I cant see any kind of error. The only unclear thing are the nature of th 'forced' transitions. I think that they are very interesting phenomenon, even as they are widely used - for lasers and etc, its nature had been very scarsely explained in modern physics, I just need to know what means the text from my textbook -"when a forced transition to the ground state happens the emitted photon has the same direction as the incoming photon forcing the transition", or something like that. Direction WRT what?
The logic is not unordinary. The theory of l;ight transmission in solid, liquid or gaseous materials assumes the light is absorbed and reradiated. The absoption-reradiation process must necessarily take some t > o. During this time the particles remain moving. The light has to bend with the moving host material.

I am not quite convinced that the disorientation of spontaneously emtted light affects the direction of light. Were you referring to direction changes after emission? Remember the postulates of light that tell us the motion of light is independent of the source motion and further that lateral motion of the light does not impart any lateral momentum component to the light

Geistkiesel

just an idea floating around in my head that i thought would have some relevance.

in spacetime terms the amount of distance in a vacuum is considerabley less that the distance in say our atmosphere or even more so in a crystal of glass.

the idea premised on the notion that there is more space inside an atom than outside the atom.

the atmosphere is let's say dense space time. the distance of 1 meter of space time in a vacuum is reduced to a visable 10 mm for example in our atmosphere. [abstract numbers]

So light of course takes longer to travel the same 'apparent' distance in the atmosphere than in a vacuum of outer space.

the same would apply for a glass crystal in that space time is compressed so much that a light second of distance in a vacuum may be reduced considerably.

Just a thought [no claim to oiriginality intended] :)

just an idea floating around in my head that i thought would have some relevance.

in spacetime terms the amount of distance in a vacuum is considerabley less that the distance in say our atmosphere or even more so in a crystal of glass.

the idea premised on the notion that there is more space inside an atom than outside the atom.

the atmosphere is let's say dense space time. the distance of 1 meter of space time in a vacuum is reduced to a visable 10 mm for example in our atmosphere. [abstract numbers]

So light of course takes longer to travel the same 'apparent' distance in the atmosphere than in a vacuum of outer space.

the same would apply for a glass crystal in that space time is compressed so much that a light second of distance in a vacuum may be reduced considerably.

Just a thought [no claim to oiriginality intended] :)

Good see my "q" term and variable distance consequences. :D

The logic is not unordinary. The theory of l;ight transmission in solid, liquid or gaseous materials assumes the light is absorbed and reradiated. The absoption-reradiation process must necessarily take some t > o. During this time the particles remain moving. The light has to bend with the moving host material.

I am not quite convinced that the disorientation of spontaneously emtted light affects the direction of light. Were you referring to direction changes after emission? Remember the postulates of light that tell us the motion of light is independent of the source motion and further that lateral motion of the light does not impart any lateral momentum component to the light


Well, ok lets be more precize. It is called "stimulated emission of radiation" and that is the principle that laser is based on. I called simulated photons ''forced" which is not correct..., I will give some precize definitions which can be found in various textbooks and websites concerning quantum electrodynamics, lasers and etc.


The process of returning from the excited state to the ground state with the emission of a photon in phase with the exciting electromagnetic field is referred to as stimulated emission,

If transitions in optical systems were caused by absorption and stimulated emission then we would expect the equilibrium populations of the two states to be equal since the rate constants are equal. We know that this is not the case for visible spectroscopy, thus there must be other mechanisms for the excited state to return to the ground state. One mechanism is spontaneous emission of the excited atom. In contrast to stimulated absorption and emission, spontaneous emission does not require the existence of an electromagnetic field at the resonance frequency. The rate of spontaneous emission is given by the Einstein A coefficient. Spontaneous emission from the excited state is one mechanism which limits the lifetime of the excited state.

B - Einstein coefficient for the stimulated emission.
A - Einstein coefficient for the spontaneous emission.

The Einstein A and B coefficients do not concern us ..... , except that A becomes very low at low temperatures and the main emission comes from the simulated emission, also A is proportional to the cube of the frequency which means that if energy of the emitted photons is low A can be neglected

Another explanation of the spontaneous emission:

Atoms in the excited state can decay without the presence of an external light field due to stimulation due to "zero-point fluctuations." Zero-point fluctuations are the dynamic variations in the shape of an electronic orbital at any instant in time. These instantaneous orbitals can be described by a linear combination of the wavefunctions of the system, which provides the mechanism for transitions between different states of the system

which I am not sure that understand.

I am rather interested what means in phase in " returning from the excited state to the ground state with the emission of a photon in phase" ?

see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/qualig.html link for simple explanation, note the text:

Since a common stimulus triggers the emission events which provide the amplified light, the emitted photons are "in step" and have a definite phase relation to each other. This coherence is described in terms of temporal coherence and spatial coherence, both of which are important in producing the interference which is used to produce holograms.

However at this (http://chemweb.ucc.ie/courses/RPB/CM4002/CM4002_L1.htm) link it is explained even better:

All the photons (produced by simulated radiation) have the same direction, polarisation, frequency, phase – they are coherent.

The same direction? WRT what? And I see it exactly the mechanism behind slowing down the light when it passes through the medium. If there are no spontaneous radiation (which produces photons with random direction) there should be no desorientation. The light will precerve alll its properties, including its direction WRT the Absolute Space. That is what I think.

I am pretty much interested what will say SRTst's now? WRT what frame of reference light will preserve its direction? What if the medium rotates? Would the emitted photon ditrection be rotated WRT the initial direction of the light (before to enter the medium) ?

I expected someone to ask me: How light at all reaches from point A to point B if it is drifted away from the moving medium?

Just to be sure that i had oresented my ideas correctly and comletely i will try to explain that. The answer is the nature of the simulated radiation and the statement:

All the photons (produced by simulated radiation) have the same direction, polarisation, frequency, phase – they are coherent.

if the primary mechanism for emission is the simulated radiation, then light will adjust its direction during its movement through the medium, in another words the accual path of the light wrt the absolute space is a curve....

it can be exolained like that:
Suppose that at a time t1 we emit photon p1. At a time t2 it is absorbed from an atom.
in order p1 to emerge again it is nessecary either some another photon to pass nearby or the atom to emit spontaneously. in the second case the light will desorient and will not pass through the medium at all.
But if we emit another photon p2 at time t3, and it reaches the atom at time t4, it will cause it to emit the first photon - p1 with direction and phase of p2, which means that p1 direction had been adjusted from the p2. And because p2 had been produced at time t3 from a light source also moving with the medium the velocity v of the medium had been 'carried' by p2.

in this way the accual path of the light wrt the absolute space is a curve which we will observe as a straight line. Amazing, isn't it ?