Is the Speed of Light variable?

[jamesfairclear]

Is red shifted light travelling at a speed less than c?

 Light emitted from a light source moving away from an observer at a speed v would intuitively be expected to be travelling at a speed c – v but is in fact still measured to be moving at a speed of c. The measurement of speed is based on the time interval between the light being emitted and the light being detected at the destination.

The difference between light detected from a stationary source and light detected from a receding source is that the latter is red shifted which means that its wavelength has increased and consequently that it is less energetic. But what does that really mean?

One can visualise it as follows:

A Quanta of light  (Photon) is released from moving light source. The next quanta (Photon) is released at a distance d from the first. Thus a relatively stationary observer will observe a greater distance between each quanta than an observer in the same inertial frame of reference as the moving light source; this is manifested as an increase in wavelength or decrease in frequency.

If the wave from a stationary light source has a length L then the wave from a moving light source has a length L + n.

If we consider that the full energy of the photon only arrives at the crest of the wave then the amount of energy arriving per second from the moving light source is less than that from the stationary light source.

It takes longer for a FULL quanta of light to reach a point A where the light source is moving in a direction away from A than light from a relatively stationary source.

Although energy from each quanta of light will arrive in a continuous stream as its waveform unfolds it cannot accurately be said to have arrived until the whole packet of energy has been absorbed at the destination point. As an analogy a locomotive leaves station A and collects one mile of carriages in front of it on its way to station B. The first carriage being pushed by the locomotive may arrive at a station B at 09:00 but the locomotive doesn’t arrive until 09:03.

The speed of each quanta should be more accurately calculated as distance/time where time is the interval between the FULL quanta being discharged at source and the FULL quanta being fully absorbed at the destination. As its wavelength increases there can be a considerable interval between the arrival of the front of the wave and the back of the wave.

In conclusion red shifted light from a receding light source can be measured in terms of the quantity of energy transmitted and received per second as travelling at a speed less than c.

[Bufofrog]

10 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

A Quanta of light  (Photon) is released from moving light source. The next quanta (Photon) is released at a distance d from the first. Thus a relatively stationary observer will observe a greater distance between each quanta than an observer in the same inertial frame of reference as the moving light source; this is manifested as an increase in wavelength or decrease in frequency.

The distance between photons is not the frequency of light.  Each photon has a wavelength and the decrease in frequency of a light source moving away is seen in the each photon.  

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Move to Speculations. Please note that this section of the forum requires you to support your claims with either evidence or a mathematical model.

As you are saying that special relativity is wrong, and therefore all of modern quantum theory, you have a bit of an uphill struggle. Good luck.

 

!

Moderator Note

Having read though your post in more detail, it is so full of errors and misunderstandings that there seems little (no) chance that you can defend this.

I will leave the thread open in the hope that you are willing to treat this as a learning opportunity. Please don't disappoint me.

 

[jamesfairclear]

On the basis that a receding light source causes the wavelength of light to be increased when measured at a relatively stationary destination how would you explain this effect if not in terms of increased distance between photon emissions? 

[Bufofrog]

6 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

On the basis that a receding light source causes the wavelength of light to be increased when measured at a relatively stationary destination how would you explain this effect if not in terms of increased distance between photon emissions? 

Take a look at this.  This is plenty of other information on this, just google it.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

On the basis that a receding light source causes the wavelength of light to be increased when measured at a relatively stationary destination how would you explain this effect if not in terms of increased distance between photon emissions? 

Wavelength is the distance between peaks of the wave, not photons.

Individual photons have an associated wavelength (or frequency), which changes with relative speed between source and observer.

[jamesfairclear]

27 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The distance between photons is not the frequency of light.  Each photon has a wavelength and the decrease in frequency of a light source moving away is seen in the each photon.  

Ok, but I assume it is reasonable to state that the quantity of energy absorbed per second at the destination is less than the quantity of energy emitted per second at the receding light source?

[Bufofrog]

6 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

Ok, but I assume it is reasonable to state that the quantity of energy absorbed per second at the destination is less than the quantity of energy emitted per second at the receding light source?

Yes, I believe this correct.

[jamesfairclear]

Is it reasonable to characterise light as a continuous waveform whereby there will be less peaks of the waveform detected per second by a measuring device at the destination than the number of peaks per second detected by a measuring device at the receding light source that is co-moving with the source?  

[Ghideon]

Hello. 

2 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

Is red shifted light travelling at a speed less than c?

 

2 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

In conclusion red shifted light from a receding light source can be measured in terms of the quantity of energy transmitted and received per second as travelling at a speed less than c

Ok. Does that mean that per your idea, that blue shifted light is traveling at a speed faster than c?

How does your idea work for explaining observed wavelength of moving emitters and detectors of single photon? 

 

[jamesfairclear]

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Hello. 

 

Ok. Does that mean that per your idea, that blue shifted light is traveling at a speed faster than c?

How does your idea work for explaining observed wavelength of moving emitters and detectors of single photon? 

 

Yes it would also imply that blue shifted light is traveling at a speed faster than c.

The main thrust of my point is that the rate of energy transmission for a moving light source will be r whereas the rate of energy absorption at a relatively stationary destination will be r - x or r + x depending on the relative direction of travel.

[Strange]

58 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

Is it reasonable to characterise light as a continuous waveform whereby there will be less peaks of the waveform detected per second by a measuring device at the destination than the number of peaks per second detected by a measuring device at the receding light source that is co-moving with the source?  

Yes.

Or, as an alternative, you can describe it in terms of photons with lower energy. But you cannot mix the two descriptions.

[Mordred]

Look at the equation

[math]E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}[/math]

Both h and c are both constants, as the wavelength changes the energy varies. However the speed of light does not.

 There has been numerous tests of the constancy of light. One of the more commonly known is the one eay/two way speed tests of the Michelson Morley tests. However modern tests took that to incredible precision using inferometers etc.

 The speed of light is far too important not to diligently test it in any method imaginable. So you really have your work cut out for you to prove those tests wrong.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Mordred

[Ghideon]

37 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

The main thrust of my point is that the rate of energy transmission for a moving light source will be r whereas the rate of energy absorption at a relatively stationary destination will be r - x or r + x depending on the relative direction of travel.

But what has that to do with a variable speed of light in vacuum? 

 

(I see that your post was post no 5 on first day, so I'll check for answers tomorrow.)

[MigL]

Mixing up models ( like mixing frames ) will always get you in trouble.
Photons and EM waves are different models, and the peaks of the wave are not equivalent to the photon.

Easiest to 'visualize' is the case of a source and detector, separated by a sine wave.
Moving the source away or towards the detector, lengthens or shortens the time-base ( along x axis ) of the sine wave.
( in spatial expansion the whole wave will be affected, in relative motion, however, the effect will start from the source and move at c towards the detector; one is cosmological, the other is dopler )

Wavelength increases/frequency decreases or Wavelength decreases/frequency increases respectively for motion away/towards the detector.
IOW red shift for motion away, and blue shift for motion towards.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

Is red shifted light travelling at a speed less than c?

 Light emitted from a light source moving away from an observer at a speed v would intuitively be expected to be travelling at a speed c – v but is in fact still measured to be moving at a speed of c. The measurement of speed is based on the time interval between the light being emitted and the light being detected at the destination.

The difference between light detected from a stationary source and light detected from a receding source is that the latter is red shifted which means that its wavelength has increased and consequently that it is less energetic. But what does that really mean?

One can visualise it as follows:

A Quanta of light  (Photon) is released from moving light source. The next quanta (Photon) is released at a distance d from the first. Thus a relatively stationary observer will observe a greater distance between each quanta than an observer in the same inertial frame of reference as the moving light source; this is manifested as an increase in wavelength or decrease in frequency.

If the wave from a stationary light source has a length L then the wave from a moving light source has a length L + n.

If we consider that the full energy of the photon only arrives at the crest of the wave then the amount of energy arriving per second from the moving light source is less than that from the stationary light source.

It takes longer for a FULL quanta of light to reach a point A where the light source is moving in a direction away from A than light from a relatively stationary source.

Let’s see your calculation of the effect.

 

[studiot]

9 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

Ok, but I assume it is reasonable to state that the quantity of energy absorbed per second at the destination is less than the quantity of energy emitted per second at the receding light source?

No.

Here I think we have the novice's attempt to establish a universal time and single frame.

 

The 'second' is different for the emitting source and the receiver because of their relative velocity places them in different intertial frames.
You must choose one to measure in and then you will see that the time rate of energy flow difference is compensated for by the difference in their 'seconds'.

[MigL]

Good catch Studiot.
I had alluded to it in my post, but totally forgot to elaborate.

[jamesfairclear]

On 4/5/2020 at 11:57 AM, jamesfairclear said:

To clarify my post:

Is red shifted light travelling at a speed less than c?

 Light emitted from a light source moving away from an observer at a speed v would intuitively be expected to be travelling at a speed (c – v) but is in fact still measured to be moving at a speed of c. The measurement of speed is based on the time interval between the light being emitted and the light being initially detected at the destination.

The difference between light detected from a stationary source and light detected from a receding source is that the latter is red shifted which means that it is less energetic. But what does that really mean?

Measured over a period of T seconds the light received is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the light that has been transmitted over a period of T seconds.

 We can characterise light as a continuous waveform whereby there will be less peaks of the waveform detected per second by a measuring device at the destination than the number of peaks per second detected by a measuring device at the receding light source that is co-moving with the source.

Quantitatively there is less energy per second arriving at the destination from a receding light source than light from a relatively stationary light source.

Energy emitted per second = E

Energy received per second = (E – e)

Eventually the total quantity of energy emitted in T seconds will arrive at the destination but with a portion of that energy (e) delayed by t seconds.

Energy emitted in T seconds = ET

Energy received in T seconds = (E – e) x (T)

Energy received in T + t seconds = ET

 Energy from the emitted light will start to arrive at the destination at a point in time T1 commensurate with a measured speed of c from the receding source. However a quantity of Energy E emitted cannot accurately be said to have arrived at the destination until the same quantity of energy E has been absorbed at the destination at time T2 resulting in (by this definition) an effective measured speed of light less than c.

As an analogy a locomotive leaves station A and collects one mile of carriages in front of it on its way to station B. The first carriage being pushed by the locomotive may arrive at a station B at 09:00 but the locomotive doesn’t arrive until 09:03.

In conclusion red shifted light from a receding light source can be characterised in terms of the respective rates of energy transmitted and received as travelling at a speed less than c.

 

[MigL]

And again, no.
The received light is actually less energetic as its frequency has decreased, and its wavelength increased.
And as Studiot explained, energy is frame dependent.

[jamesfairclear]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

And again, no.
The received light is actually less energetic as its frequency has decreased, and its wavelength increased.
And as Studiot explained, energy is frame dependent.

You state "The received light is actually less energetic as its frequency has decreased, and its wavelength increased.". Yes I agree that's correct and that's what I have said. 

You state "energy is frame dependent". How does this alter the fact that the red shifted light at the destination is less energetic than the light emitted from the receding light source?

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

You state "The received light is actually less energetic as its frequency has decreased, and its wavelength increased.". Yes I agree that's correct and that's what I have said.

I think the problem is this part.

2 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

Eventually the total quantity of energy emitted in T seconds will arrive at the destination but with a portion of that energy (e) delayed by t seconds.

That is not right.  Less energy is received than was transmitted.  He thought you might think, "isn't energy conserved?"  So he answered your presumed question by stating, "energy is frame dependent".

[jamesfairclear]

10 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I think the problem is this part.

That is not right.  Less energy is received than was transmitted.  He thought you might think, "isn't energy conserved?"  So he answered your presumed question by stating, "energy is frame dependent".

Perhaps yes.

Just to further clarify my point:

Light received from a relatively stationary emitter A is more energetic than light received at a receding destination from the same emitter A.

It follows that it will take longer for a given quantity of light energy (E) emitted by A to arrive at the receding destination than it does for the same given quantity of light energy (E) to arrive at the relatively stationary destination.

The measured time from the start of light emission (throwing the switch) to the first moment when light is detected (arrival of the first photon) at either destination results in a calculated speed of c.

I am proposing that the standard measurement of speed resulting in c is not accurate where there is relative motion between the emitter and the destination because the light received (red shifted or blue shifted) is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the light that was emitted. In other words apples are being compared with oranges.

Imagine a 100 metre race where a competitor leaves the start line with an average chest to back measurement of 40cm which then increases to 40 metres by the time the front of his chest trips the photoelectric cell at a measured time of 11 elapsed seconds. If his back crosses the line 5 seconds later than his chest it raises considerable doubt as to whether he has run the race in 11 seconds or 16 seconds or indeed if he is really the same competitor that started the race.

 

[Ghideon]

18 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

Light received from a relatively stationary emitter A is more energetic than light received at a receding destination from the same emitter A.

It follows that it will take longer for a given quantity of light energy (E) emitted by A to arrive at the receding destination than it does for the same given quantity of light energy (E) to arrive at the relatively stationary destination.

Relatively stationary according to whom? Stationary in what frame of reference? I could say that I move and receive energy at some rate or that the emitter moves and transmits energy at some rate. 

 

18 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

In other words apples are being compared with oranges.

What happens when you apply the relativity theories from the mainstream physics, that predicts effects and matches observations?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Ghideon

[jamesfairclear]

15 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Relatively stationary according to whom? Stationary in what frame of reference? I could say that I move and receive energy at some rate or that the emitter moves and transmits energy at some rate. 

"Light received from a relatively stationary emitter" means that the emitter and the receiver are stationary relative to each other.

 

What happens when you apply the relativity theories from the mainstream physics, that predicts effects and matches observations?

My proposition is based on the observations from mainstream physics. is there a specific issue that you are thinking about?