According to the attached paper, dated 1977, in the American Journal of Physics, by Professor P.D. Gupta of Purdue University, a Lorentz transformation analysis of the longitudinal Doppler shift in light, over a two-way path, is equivalent to two separate classical analyses.
Are we sure that we can definitely use the Lorentz transformation analysis over a one-way path?
Article Exact derivation of the Doppler shift formula for a radar ec...
Frederick David Tombe , First we must understand what the LT really is, & that Christian Dopplers shift was of the real scalar; 'wavelength' not time derivative f. Gupta didn't find a physical mechanism. Maths is OK but can't 'explain' things! I offer a coherent physical explanation in the link below, solving a tranche of problematic findings. Also see the power input curve approaching c in the LHC! Electron TZ density nearing 'optical breakdown' density 10^23/cm^-3 is key.
http://www.academia.edu/3715747/The_Optical_Breakdown_Density_Limit_Gamma_giving_the_Lorentz_Transformation_Mechanism
Dr. Jackson, Yes, Gupta's maths is correct, and that's all that matters at the moment. The implication is that the Lorentz transformation Doppler analysis over a return path is equivalent to two separate classical analyses.
If such an analysis only operates over a return path, then we won't have any of the conundrums associated with what the speed of light is measured relative to. It will be relative to the luminiferous medium.
Your remedial theory about the light slowing down after the collision was designed to address a conundrum which may not exist.
So the title question is "do we have any experimental evidence confirming the LT Doppler shift analysis over a one-way path?"
That would mean experiments where the Doppler effect in light is measured first with the receiver moving relative to the source, and then with the source moving relative to the receiver to see if the result is any different. Have any experiments like this ever been performed to any degree of accuracy? It would have to involve very high terrestrial speeds in order to reveal any significant effect.
The fact that Gupta has shown the LT Doppler analysis over a two-way path to be equivalent to two separate classical analyses, is quite persuasive that maybe it only holds over a two-way path, and that we have both been until now trying to solve a conundrum that does not exist.
Frederick David Tombe , No. See my post on 'Dingle..'. One way c and speed change IS found, and is the key to that way ahead! The LT and Doppler just follow. Did you not read the paper. It's useless discussing if you wont read! I thought you had the big unifying answer but you're distracted so seem to have lost it.
Dr. Jackson, That wasn't the question. I know that the speed of light will change when the ray strikes a medium.
But we're talking here about the Lorentz Transformation Doppler shift analysis which uses the pre-collision speed which is said to always be 'c'.
The question is, has this analysis ever been tested experimentally over a one-way path?
It's important to know the answer to this.
Frederick David Tombe , Yes I understand, but the assumption it's a PRE-'collision' speed is the error. Think hard, that speed in c in the ' background medium ' frame 'NOT 'a moving observer frame! Once understood the LT & Doppler effects make perfect sense, at last! And THAT analysis of course HAS been tested a thousand times without realising it, and always confirms c is in LOCAL PROPAGATION media, not any other system in relative motion it may or may not meet!
Dr. Jackson, How can a Doppler analysis not relate to the pre-collision speed? It's the pre-collision speed that determines the Doppler effect.
Do you believe in a luminiferous medium, yet dissociate it from the speed of the waves? It's the density and elasticity of the medium that determines that speed.
All I want to know is whether an experiment has ever been done that confirms the LT Doppler analysis over a one-way path.
I also heard yesterday that a Dr. Frankl has shown how the LT analysis over a one-way path is equivalent to two separate classical analyses, but I haven't seen the derivation yet.
Frederick David Tombe , No pre-interaction speed is available to us unless we're at rest in the medium. See my 'Dingle' response. If you and I are at rest and decide to measure it but I decide to move I'll get a DIFFERENT FINDING!! to you. THINK!!!!
Also please read more carefully; I didn't "dissociate" the medium from the speed of the waves just from direct responsibility for the SPEED CHANGE mechanism on arrival. It's THAT which overcomes the logical failure of your and doctrinal beliefs.
But it is of course indirectly responsible as it's compression is what propagates the dense (e+/- pair) Maxwell Transition zone (TZ gives the LT) '2-fluid' plasma we find. lease just stop being lazy and read the papers for gods sake Frederick! There's are nice sample based cross sections through the shocks in a couple of them which are entirely conclusive evidence!
Good science is about doing research not stating beliefs!
Dr. Jackson, I haven't expressed a final belief yet, so I can hardly be wrong. I'm asking a question which you obviously can't answer. I'm asking whether or not the LT Doppler analysis for light has ever been confirmed experimentally for a one-way path.
You seem to be assuming the the LT Doppler analysis is fact. And in order to explain the ensuing absurdity, you have shifted the Doppler analysis to the post collision context, and that is absurd too.
If it can be agreed that the LT Doppler analysis only applies to a return path, then we don't need to deviate from classical Doppler analysis as is used in the case of sound waves in the air.
Frederick David Tombe , Running sterio strings is pointless. I CAN answer and have now done so twice on the other topic Viz;
"If you insist on adhering to your beliefs about what Dopplers finding is and isn't 'about', then no evidence or logical analysis can help.
I pointed to what you asked for but you ignored it. I'll do it just once more, but think hard;; In a glass case of BEC c = c/n = say 30mph. Roll the case across the stage and it remains 30mph =c/n propagation speed in the case. All at rest SEE c+/- v. Same if they file past at v.
Now it makes NO DIFFERENCE to that if the emitter and receiver are fixed to the case OR each side of the stage!! But in the LATTER case the light can be seen to CHANGE SPEED and have a DOPPLER SHIFT on entry. That's 'ON' interaction Frederick. NOT before, when that light doesn't even know the case exists or which way it's going.
If you can't grasp that then I have to give up on showing you the beauty of the consequences. Sorry."
Dr. Jackson, I know what you are saying, but now I need some additional information regarding your wider point of view.
(1) Do you believe in the existence of an aether pervading all of space and being a physically real medium that is involved in electromagnetic behaviour?
(2) If yes, do you believe that this is the medium for the propagation of light waves?
(3) If yes, do you believe that the speed of light is measured relative to this medium?
(4) Do you believe that this medium is stationary relative to the Earth, within the Earth's gravitational field?
Until I know where you stand on these questions, I can't ask any more questions.
Dear Frederick David Tombe ,
concerning the LT in a one way path, in principle it should not be possible to apply them unless assuming the speed of light as c one way which is not possible to demonstrate.
In any case the problem is not to have c one-way or 2-way I don't see much difficulties in accepting the LLI (LOCAL LORENTZ INVARIANCE). The measurement of light as c in a inertial frame of reference is a fact but it is also a fact that in other conditions like static gravitation you don't have anymore c constant.
Preprint SHAPIRO TIME-DELAY, Curved 4D space-time or Variable speed of light
this is not the only situation where c is not constant globally, the other situation is in centrifuges and in general in dynamics but this has to be shown carefully.
Dear Stefano, Thank you for your answer. I accept Lorentz invariance of electromagnetic fields, and I accept the involvement of the Lorentz transformation in the longitudinal Doppler effect in EM radiation, but only providing it is over a return path. Have you seen Gupta's demonstration that an LT analysis of the longitudinal Doppler shift in EM radiation, over a return path, is equivalent to the sum of two classical analyses? The relevant excerpt is in the attached file.
Frederick David Tombe , I don't use 'beliefs', just relative consistency with data, but;
(1) Yes. But a SUB matter scale condensate without the influences of the old one.
(2) Yes, But similar to at sea, the medium does not itself 'set' propagation speed.
(3) Yes, but only LOCALLY within each e+/- system boundary Transition Zone.
(4) No. It's very well established (i.e. NASA telemetry) that IRF or Near/Far field transitions occur between the rotating (ECRF) and non-rotating orbiting media system, (ECI frame), then also the Barycentric (Solar System/Sun) rest frame, and at the heliosheath, so the change to the suns speed through the local galaxy arm rest frame. Our gravity of course theoretically goes further but if so it's trivial.
Dr. Jackson, OK, so you believe in the existence of a physical medium for the propagation of light waves, but you don't believe that the speed of these waves is measured relative to the medium!
How then do you connect this medium to the equations of electromagnetism? Where does displacement current fit into the mechanism of the EM wave equation?
As it stands, you have not properly applied the aether to its main purpose, which is to serve as the medium which contains the mechanism for EM induction.
It defies all logic to have a physical medium to enable waves, but that the wave speed relative to the medium can vary according to the motion of a receiver. A wave always has a speed, relative to its medium of propagation, as determined by the medium's density and elastic constant.
Frederick David Tombe , Interesting. I answer Q(3) 'Yes' and you read 'No.' It's no wonder your comprehension is so far out. The old aether is falsified and I reject it. The job of the CONDENSATE is to condense fermion 'particles' (at compression zones due to motion) large enough to 'couple with' EM, so modulating it's speed to LOCAL c. The condensate is then just the carrier or 'stuff of' EM waves, far to small to change their speed.
I don't say what you believe, either at the start or finish of your post. I've written it quite enough times. Read the papers.
Dr. Jackson, Your local 'c' idea hints at the concept of entrainment which you have rejected, or at least your answer at (4) would have led me to believe so. Had you said that, for example, when light from a distant star enters the Earth entrained aether zone, it will slow down to 'c' within that zone, then I would have followed that, and in fact, that is what I believe does happen. But even then, there would still be a Doppler shift of c + v at the interface if the Earth and its entrained zone had together been moving a v in the wider aether beyond through which the starlight had been travelling.
We cannot hide the Doppler calculation inside the entrained zone. The calculation is based on the motion and relative speed just prior to the starlight entering the entrained zone.
Frederick David Tombe , That's almost exactly what I have said, but Stokes 'dragged aether' was falsified quite rightly as it was flawed ('wrong'). By Lorentz specifically! I set all this out, and the correction which overcomes the flaw, in my papers. I also show where his main objector, Oliver Lodge, made an error of experimental analysis of his spinning glass discs to kill off ALL of Stokes model. It's all here;
https://www.academia.edu/9564214/Inertial_Frame_Error_Discovery_derives_Stellar_Aberration_and_Paradox_Free_Special_Relativity_via_Huygens_Principle
Dr. Jackson, OK then, you don't agree with the entrained aether concept. So where is this boundary that you keep talking about where the light changes speed? And what medium is the light propagating in on either side of the boundary?
Frederick David Tombe , I only pointed out it's logical failure and the small flaw causing that. The 'boundaries' are at all changes in medium or medium speed. So a train or car window has TWO speed change factors at the refractive plane if in motion v in the local background system, by both relative n AND v. The smallest case is a single electron. All lens surfaces, at the rotating atmosphere limit, at the orbiting plasmasphere limit ('bow shock'), a comet's Coma, the suns heliosheath, the rotating galaxy halo, etc, etc.
Once we know what to look for look we easily find the denser electron transition zones. NASA telemetry also confirms them. You only need to ask any antenna engineer where Maxwell's Near/Far field TZ's are. Long waves take longer to be 'extinguished' (changed) than short. Look up 'Ewald-Oseen extinction' distances. J.D Jackson the old EM bible is a good source.
The light propagates in the 'condensate'. Call it what you wish, but not the OLD 'aether' as it doesn't do the speed change job directly (it's fatal flaw). Maybe Dirac's 'New Ether', 'dark energy, or I prefer the 'Higgs Condensate', from whence matter condenses to 'couple with' the mediums fluctuations. (Free fermions have the highest coupling potential of any matter particle).
Dr. Jackson, You said that a ray of light approaching an object that is moving towards it at speed 'v' will slow down when it gets inside the zone of the object, such that the light will now be travelling at c relative to the object.
This means that we have a boundary. What is on each side of the boundary and where is the boundary?
Frederick David Tombe , No. I said there are NO 'rays' of light. I can't keep on repeating myself because you're to lazy to read things. The DFM papers clearly identify the boundary zone structure, which is the '2-fluid plasma' at shocks, and the surface 'fine structure' electrons at refractive planes. I also already told you our 'Cluster probes' plotted the cross section at Earths shock & where to find it.
An algorithm is here; Article Plasma Simulation Algorithm for the Two-Fluid Plasma Model
Dr. Jackson, You now appear to be advocating entrainment. You are talking about an interface high above the Earth's surface where the light adjusts its speed when it crosses over into the Earth side of the interface.
Frederick David Tombe , "now"?!! How else could 'space in motion within a space' be seen! You also seem unfamiliar with Stokes 'aether drag'. Einstein also said "matter is not IN space but is 'spatially extended". But of course, it's not the old concept 'Luminiferous Aether' extending matter. That artifact dictated speed c, and is a falsified. What makes the DFM work are Maxwell's boundary TZ's. There are TWO around Earth, both orbiting but only the inner ECRF (atmosphere) also rotates.
Dr. Jackson, It's entrainment that you are advocating but without being clear about what exactly is being entrained.
Is it the medium for the propagation of light that is being entrained? I would expect the answer would have to be 'yes', since you say that the light readjusts its speed inside the entrained zone so that it is 'c' inside the zone.
Frederick David Tombe , It'd be nice to meet your expectations but truth is more important. You'll know that free fermions (e+/-), the smallest condensed matter, has the highest EM 'coupling co-efficient' (absorption/re-emission). The 'plasma' they constitute also uniquely has refractive index n=1. So has no detectable effect on EM waves (except 'kinetic' if in motion). Smaller scales can't 'couple', even at the shortest gamma wavelengths.
That's because the 'Higgs condensate' from which we've long known fermion pairs 'pop up' is the stuff the waves are MADE OF. As waves in the ocean are made of water molecules. No water molecule can effect or change the speed of the waves of course, but once set, by the storm or passing ship, the medium carries the (actually helical!) energy fluctuations. You can call the 'condensate' whatever else you wish (what's in a name?!) We maybe most commonly know it as 'Dark Energy' The published collaboration paper adopts 'Higgs condensate' (or 'HC') as used previously by many, i.e. Preprint The Higgs condensate as a quantum liquid
and even Wiki.What it ISN'T is the old "luminiferous aether" because that DID supposedly have the power to change wave propagation speed. It's an important change because it happens to avoid the fatal flaw in that old concept.
Dr. Jackson, We're talking about what the luminiferous medium is, not what it isn't or what it was. We're talking here about the medium for the propagation of light, and you are saying that this medium is stationary in the vicinity of the Earth, up to a certain height. And you are saying that when light from a star crosses the boundary into the Earth entrained zone, it will be travelling at 'c' within that zone. Well even if that is so, and I believe that it is, the starlight will still strike the interface at c + v.
Frederick David Tombe . No. The light will APPROACH the interface at c+v. That's very different and more intelligent thinking we require. On arrival there's then a PROCESS which ends up giving us "measurements". Look at the cross section again; The 'brain' (processor) on the RIGHT side of the central zone CANNOT KNOW what speed the light was doing on it's approach, or it's wavelength! It only has the NEW data to work with!
Dr. Jackson, The light will collide with the interface at c + v and the Doppler frequency shift will be based on this fact. Inside the entrained zone on the inner side of the interface, light will travel at 'c' relative to the entrained zone.
Frederick David Tombe , The actual shift will be based on the 'speed change', but you have no access to the approaching state so can't know what it was. To prove that just share data with an adjacent observer AT REST in the background system (as you pass him). He'll find exactly c but a different wavelength. That's what we find of course. Do check that with a friend, one of you in a fast car. Our thinking has been inadequate.
Dr. Jackson, The collision speed with the interface will be c + v. The observed frequency at the interface will be based on this speed.
Frederick David Tombe , Hmm. That adheres to the old less intelligent way of thinking keeping us in the dark Frederick. Sure it's what mainstream DOES, but it's entirely wrong, hiding the truth. How on earth could any processor have ANY access to some 'speed' beyond our possible experience? That would be belief in seeing the future! Time travel!! Sorry, to me that's metaphysical beliefs not physics.
Dr. Jackson, It's very simple maths based on the fact that wave speed is equal to the product of the frequency and the wavelength. When a wave moving at speed 'c' in its medium of propagation encounters a target moving at speed 'v', the collision speed is c + V and this will alter the perceived frequency, as it will alter the relative speed that the individual wave cycles arrive.