Lazarus

Is this the reason that electrons radiate in a synchrotron? First, I must apologize to GREG H and SWANSONT for pushing my misunderstanding of the effects of momentum change in the production of radiation. In the example of a ball bouncing off of a wall the change of momentum must result in a change of the ball’s kinetic energy because the ball has to lose some energy as a result of the collision and the wall experiences a change in its kinetic energy. The work involved is equivalent to stopping the ball, then shooting it off in the opposite direction. The same effect of energy transfer occurs in a synchrotron when an electron’s path is changed by the magnetic field in the synchrotron. The electron must lose energy and slow down which causes it to radiate to compensate for the energy change. For an electron orbiting a nucleus, the net energy change is zero for a complete cycle. The kinetic energy of the nucleus changes in one direction during one half of a cycle, then changes in the opposite direction during the other half which zeros out the energy changes. Since the photon is much larger than the diameter of the atom, the electron has time to start emitting a photon, then suck it back in as the nucleus returns the kinetic energy from the other half of the cycle.

Good explanation!

But in the one source, indivdual attoms initiate the light, don't they?

The interference properties of light require the light to be coherent. Since the origin of the light is state changes of individual atoms the wave fronts (or individual photons) would seem to have random spacing.

It is very well agreed that the equations of Relativity have an excellent match to observed phenomena. Also agreed is that the Newtonian gravitational laws without adjustment for the behavior of light do not match the bending of the path of light passing the sun. It probably can be agreed that by introducing and adjustment for the behavior of light a correct equation can be constructed for the bending of light’s path since almost any concept can be turned into an equation. The ramifications of these concepts are where the disagreements seem to be. The excellent explanations from this forum have enabled me to visualize some of the current concepts of physics. Visualizing the 4 dimensional space-time continuum is somewhat like looking at a partial derivative. The underlying formula is v=d/t. We hold the v constant and that forces d and t to change. It is easier to think about it using a blue Ford Bronco traveling from Los Angeles to New York City and requiring the velocity of the Bronco be constant. The time and distance are forced to change to keep the v=d/t correct. The solutions in the 4 dimensional space-time arena as the Bronco moves along the road forms a bumpy surface which keeps changing as the Bronco goes along. Each point on the road is a “Frame”. For an observer in Seattle the “Frames” also change but the surface is shaped differently. An equation can be constructed by holding time constant and letting distance and velocity change with quite different results. Now for the predictions that were requested. The photon will be found to consist of interacting physical particles. All nuclei will be found to have a rotating magnetic field with the time of rotation related to the charge of the nucleus. Clocks slowing is related to the changing paths of electrons in atoms caused by gravity and speed of the nucleus along with the speed limit of matter. As annoying as I can be, I am not in any way saying the accomplishments of physics are less than amazing. I am in awe of those on this forum that demonstrate a complete understanding of the complexities of modern physics. I have been dissatisfied with the explanations of basic phenomena since the first atomic bombs were detonated and more unhappy with them as time went by. Thanks for all the patience with me.

I beg to differ. The Shapiro Delay is an experamentally observed effect. It is compatible with Reliativity but also compatible with the slowing of light.

The slowing of light is not a Relativitic effect. No time dilation, no space shrinkage or expansion, no curvature of space. The point of the question was, is there a correct calculation that does not require Relativity.

Since the Newtonian laws do not address the nuances of light, it is fair to apply the knowledge from modern experiments to the calculation, such as the Shapiro Delay of light.

The slowing of light should be equivalent to changing time itself.

If you would be satisfied that there is a correct solution to the bending of light by the sun from these assumptions which does not require the Relativistic assumptions, I will construct an equation even though I can’t even remember how to spell kaculus much less how to use it. Most of the posters on this forum could do it with these assumptions over a hot beer.

The explanations from all the posters have been clear, logical and easy to understand but the answers to the last question don’t appear to meet that standard. But never mind, let’s see how Newton would have done the calculation if he had been informed of the results of modern experiments, that the speed of light in a vacuum had been determined to high precision, that light traveling from Earth to Venus and back took longer than expected, that mass was related to energy, that the frequency of light changed with changes in gravitation potential, that matter is constrained to the speed of light, that light can be treated as a collection of particles and that the path of light changes while passing a massive body. A reasonable assumption from the Venus experiment is that light slows as it encounters increasing gravitational potential. Since light slows while approaching a mass is opposite from what would be expected the potential energy change must be accounted for by an increase in internal energy which is reflected in the frequency. The bending of the path of light by a mass requires that the internal energy increase be twice the loss of kinetic energy of the light. The slowing of the speed of the light causes the amount of bending to be more that if the speed of the light stayed constant or increased as do masses. That should make the calculations give the same result as my friend Albert’s equations.

In the blue guy's rest frame the photons look the same to him as the red guy's do to him. Why are the blue guy's photons blue? I know this is similar to the last question but I can't see how that explains it.

swansont Posted 14 October 2014 - 02:40 AM Energy is not an invariant quantity. No "accounting" necessary. ................................................................................................. The variability of energy is an interesting but confusing concept. In the example of the two guys, one stationary and the other moving, the photons appear to each of them as arriving at the same speed. Therefore, the frequency should appear the same to both of them. But it doesn’t. One is blue shifted. So what is the reason for the blue shift?

Damn, you are good at hitting the essense of the problem. The consevation of energy is the best argument against choice number two. However, an argument can be made that conservation of energy is not violated because if speed of the photon can not be increased or decreased by gravity there is no energy required for it to escape gravity.

I wondered about that.

I failed to realize the specialized use of invariant. Does this equation give the correct path for a comet passing the sun? The Pound-Rebak experiment has two possible explanations. The photon accommodates the latent energy change by increasing its energy resulting in the observed blue shift. Or the alternatively, the resonate frequency of the iron atoms is different because of the different gravitational potential. The photon is unchanged but the resonate frequency doesn’t match.

What do you mean. Almost everything is “not an invariant quantity.”. Dust on the floor is “not an invariant quantity.”.

In trying to make sense of the light bending I wound up with a confusing example. The situation is one guy standing still and another guy running up from behind. Just as the two guys are side by side, light arrives from a distance. One guy says the light is red but the other guy says it is blue. (He runs pretty fast.) Now regardless of the “frames” the light travels at c in relation to both guys. How can we account for the blue shift?

A faster photon would have more energy as does the blue shifted photon. Does the photon maintain the same speed or does it share the energy with the blue shift or even cause the blue shift?

To accommodate the conservation of energy, when a photon moves from one gravitational level to another, something must change. The simplest solution is a change to the speed of the photon and there is evidence that it does change. The difference in the speed is hardly noticeable because the change in latent energy pales in comparison to the kinetic energy at the speed of the photon. Since the speed of photons is related to the gravitational latent energy, the only place the base speed of photons can be determined correctly is at a location with zero gravity, the value of c could have been measured wrong on Earth. We talk about the speed of light in a vacuum but did we take zero gravitational force into account?

I do like dherries. The whole article is questioning the validity of the bending of the light passing the sun as a proof of General Relitivity. Th GR equations work but apparently other equation also work.

In the article that elfmotat pointed out, C, S, Unnikrishnan said “the identification of the gravitational deflection of light as the crucial test of general relativity, in contrast to the gravitational redshift, does not seem defendable.” Unless his mathematics is wrong the bending of light passing the sun is not evidence that time dilation is a valid interpretation of the equations of Relativity.

Sorry about that. I probably can make mistakes usng the quote function. Thinking abut it, havent you guys just taught me that the bending can calculated correctly classically by puting together Newton's Laws, the constant speed of light and the consevation of energy?

Reply: That article is great. I can see why the path of a photon cannot be the same as the path of a comet. The comet compensates for the latent energy change by changing its speed. The photon can't compensate fhe same way so changes its energy by changing its wave length. The comet follows the equal area in equal time rule but the photon doesn't so its path is different. Wave theory says that accounts for the additional bending. I don't fully understand why so i need to do some research. I appreciate all the help.

Thank you for the reference but that is the Relativistic calaculation, not the "classical Newtonian" calculation that gives the wrong answer.