Discussion: Zero Doppler effect for reflected light from a rolling wheel

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by James R, Nov 10, 2011.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Hi Pete.

    I see an implicit assumption that is not correctly applied to Tach's scenario.

    When you say "microfacet" it implies that the reflector is not ideal, as Tach's scenario implies.

    Under Tach's scenario, there need not be any "facet" of a forward velocity. And in the ideal case he presents, the microfacet has no capacity to reflect anything.

    Reflection, in the real scenario, will only occur at some scale that subdivides the mirror surface to a order of magnitude in Angstroms. Below that there is no interaction between light and the mirror material.

    Yet Tach is below that threshold in his theoretical treatment, or else he is just at the threshold. He is using rays. He is decomposing the light source into infinitesimals in a theoretical sense. He is assuming a perfect reflector which is in reality impossible.

    You can pick any microfacet you want that you assume has a forward velocity, and he can just as well posit that there is no facet, it's perfectly round, and the tangent is an infinitely thin line, not a facet, and it will reflect nothing. A zero dimensional line is advancing with forward velocity, but what of it?

    So when you say "facet" you are slipping into the real world, quantized, molecular, and a huge disparity opens between your premise and his.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    "microfacet" is a word that Tach invented and applied to his scenario himself.

    I think you're on the wrong track with ideal vs real-world scenarios.

    Everyone, as far as I can tell, is assuming ideal optics, with lossless
    and noiseless reflections and transmissions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Regardless of noise and losses which are part of the disparity, his premise remains at great disparity with you folks.

    His surface is perfectly round, perfectly continuous, and perfectly reflective, isn't it? Under those conditions, his rays cancel each other in phase. The net phase is zero. No phase, no doppler.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Question - can such a scenario exist in the real world...?
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Stop twisting my words.

    You're being dishonest, and you know it.
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Yes, and the available evidence from comparable scenarios contradicts Tach's assertions.
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    No no, I mean the "perfectly round, perfectly reflective, and perfectly continuous" that Aqueuous was talking about - can that really exist?
     
  11. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Incorrect. One of the benefits of dealing with you is that it affords multiple , different ways of proving that there is indeed zero Doppler effect of a circular wheel rolling between a source and a receiver. In the above, though you claim having done the computations in the microfacet(s) frame of reference(s) you actually keep thinking in the frame of reference of the source/receiver. No matter, I will explain in a different way.

    In frame S (the axle frame) an observer measures the angle \(\phi_v\) as \(tg(\phi_v)=\frac{y}{x}\). In any other frame S" (like the ground frame)moving with speed \(V\) wrt S, the angle is \(tg(\phi'_v)=\frac{y'}{x'}=\frac{1}{\gamma(V)}.tg( \phi_v)\)
    Since we agreed that \(\phi_v=0\) for ALL circumference points in frame S, it follows that \(\phi'_v=0\) for ALL points on the circumference in the ground frame S', thus contradicting your long held belief that \(\phi'_v=0\) ONLY for two points (the ground contact point and its polar opposite). Come to think of this, this is quite intuitive, the microfacets move tangent to a circle in the axle frame and tangent to the ellipse in the ground frame. This is enough to prove that the two angles in the calculation of the Doppler shift are equal, resulting into the cancellation of the red and blue shift.





    Fine, see above, the angle \(\phi_v\) is zero for all points on the circumference.



    In the frame of the ground, certainly. I showed you the exact equations long ago, in the "rolling wheel" thread. So does the orientation of the microfacet, so the velocity and the orientation have a zero degree angle between them (see above). Which brings us back to the zero Doppler shift.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011
  12. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Perfectly reflective mirrors do not exist but, interestingly enough, this shortcoming does not affect the result.


    Perfectly circular wheels do not exist. This affects the result of the scenario.

    We were talking about a theoretical scenario. The argument is not about the realism but about the equations describing the theory. It is already known (for more than 100 years) that the case of translation motion already exhibits zero Doppler effect. The next shoe to drop is the realization that this is also true for a (circular) wheel rolling between a source and the camera. The emotions are running very high in the opposition campus

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    To the extent that Tach refers to this as his work, he is a fraud. In addition, he has misinterpreted aspects of the very work he borrowed.
     
  14. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    This is the second time you have referred to a proof of this, 100 years in the past. Since it was far beyond the technology of the day to experimentally prove this at that time.., and perhaps even today in a laboratory, you must be referring to a mathematical proof....., a horse of quite a different color. A mathematical proof can provide the basis for a hypothesis, a model, a theory, even a discussion of logic. But without conclusive supporting observation, it cannot rise to the level of proving anything more than, a hypothesis, a model, a theory, or discussion of logic.

    Cite the experimental proof, from 100 years ago. I have been under the impression that the Doppler effect for light post dates that claim and thus could not be any part of an experimental proof at that time.

    It seems you have a great deal of difficulty in separating mathematical proofs and logic from experience, observation and that which has been experimentally confirmed and/or proven.
     
  15. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Contradicting yourself is a bad sign.
    The diagram and explanation I posted is in the microfacet frame. I'm also able to think in the ground frame and axle frame when appropriate.

    Please define which angle you're talking about. You appear to be referring to a different \(\phi_v\) than is defined in my diagram.

    It seems you've given up thinking altogether. A simple application of common sense immediately shows that the microfacets do not move tangent to the ellipse in the ground frame.
    Immediately next to the ground contact point, for example, the almost horizontal facets move almost vertically.
    The vertical facets at the leading and trailing extremities of the ellipse have a horizontal compenent to their velocity.

    Try again.
    The angle between the all the mirror surfaces and the camera velocity is not zero in any reference frame.

    Rubbish. The orientation of the leading microfacet is vertical, otherwise it would not be leading.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    I majorly edited the previous post in the twenty minutes after first posting it.
    Apologies to anyone who read it in between.
     
  17. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The above sketch has only one light source, only one camera, and only one wheel rolling between the two.

    Do you notice how the length of the optical path changes from 5.829 to 5.656 between the first and second slides? As the length of the optical path becomes shorter, the frequency of the reflected light must become greater. Surely you must agree with that simple principle?

    Then do you see how the length of the optical path changes from 5.656 to 5.829 between the second and third slides? As the length of the optical path becomes longer, the frequency of the reflected light must become lower, surely?
     
  18. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Who told you anything about the angle between the camera a velocity and and the mirror surface being zero?
    The relevant angle is the angle between the plane of the facet and its velocity (once again, see H. Bateman and W. Pauli). You , of all people, know about that. This is the angle we have been arguing about all along. If this angle is zero, then there is no Doppler effect off the moving window. The rim of a circular, rolling wheel is one such example. So is a mirror whose velocity is embedded in its plane.

    The nice thing about your stubbornness is that it allows me to provide fresh rebuttals to your errors. Here is the final one:

    Theorem: Given a function defined parametrically as :

    \(x=f(t)\)
    \(y=g(t)\)

    where f and g are continuous with continuous first order derivatives and \(\frac{df}{dt}\ne 0\) and \(\frac{dg}{dt}\ne 0\) then any elementary mirror moving tangent to the above curve has the same direction as its velocity along the curve in any point. This means that any ray of light reflected off the elementary mirror as it traces the curve between a light source and a receiver exhibits a zero Doppler effect. This is a generalization of the previous discussions about Doppler effect produced by moving mirrors, now you have been given the generalization to arbitrary trajectories. Thank you for your persistence.

    Particular case: Any point on a circular wheel rolling without slipping along a straight line describes a cycloid. The cycloid satisfies the conditions set above (with the exception of one point) so, the Doppler effect as explained above is null.


    Proof:

    The tangent to any point \(x_0,y_0\) of the curve has the equation:

    \(y-y_0=\frac{dy}{dx}(x-x_0)=\frac{dy/dt}{dx/dt}(x-x_0)\)

    Thus:

    \(\frac{y-y_0}{dy/dt}=\frac{x-x_0}{dx/dt}\)

    On the other hand:

    \(v_x=\frac{dx}{dt}\)
    \(v_y=\frac{dy}{dt}\)

    The above proof is frame-independent and you already know what happens when the elementary mirrors move parallel to their own planes (for the people not familiar with the outcome, see the paper by H.Bateman and the chapter in the Pauli book). It was nice interacting with you despite your occasional rudeness.Thank you for providing the occasion to prove you wrong so many different ways.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2011
  19. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    You have made this same error several times before, the outcome has nothing to do with "length of the light path". Pete will explain this to you.
     
  20. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    If the proof stands , then you should make the effort to learn it.
    Since it clearly stands, you will need to learn the math that allows you to understand it.
     
  21. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548

    If the total length of the optical path changes, that is equivalent to the light source moving relative to the camera. This is basic stuff. For example, if the total optical path becomes shorter, that is equivalent to the light source getting closer to the camera.

    However, I am not surprised that you disagree with this basic concept.
     
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Tach, I know the difference between a mathematical proof and physics.

    I come from a deep family background in mathematics and I studied mathematics and physics, in the late 60s. A mathematical proof can be rigorous and logically compelling and still not represent any description of the "real" world or "physics".

    I asked for the reference or citation, because I was interested in seeing what you were referring to.
     
  23. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    You sure about that?


    What in "the mirror moves away from the light source and towards the camera" do you not understand? The total length of the light path may vary from point to point and from wheel position to wheel position, it has nothing to do with the resultant effect.
     

Share This Page