Photons and conservation momentum (split from Pioneer anomaly)

[Strange]

It is not my invention, but just a well known fact , - for a photon (perspetive or not) no time, distant can exsist.

 

It may be well know, but it isn't a fact.

 

I don't agree that a new theory must explain why Anderson/Turyshev is wrong,

 

Well, their calculations fit the data. If there is an alternative explanation, then their calculations must be wrong. Otherwise there is no room for an alternative.

 

New physics could for example be based on new space probes experiments, which then show "something" is wrong.

Let's say you will get the exact same magnitude anomaly, and no longer have the radiation explanation to blame

What then ?

 

That's my point: if you have an alternative explanation, then their explanation based on the radiation must be wrong in some way.

 

I only show a link, which is one of many example showing that sometime we are forced to rethink what everybody thought was certain knowledge.

 

There is nothing in science that is "certain knowledge". Not even something as fundamental as Lorentz invariance (equivalent to conservation of momentum). That is why people are constantly doing more and more precise tests - because it would be really exciting to show it is wrong.

 

Science is full of histories showing that "idiots" was right.

 

Not really. But there have been many examples of very bright people coming up with new ideas. (Contrary to your claims about the nature of science.)

 

I can't think of a single answer of an "idiot" (a rather offensive term) contributing to science.

 

Another example is the WMAP data now confirm that there are gigantic holes in the BB theory.

 

I doubt that. But, if true, it shows once again that you are wrong.

 

Maybe the BB theory is wrong. Maybe there was something before the BB

 

 

Maybe the theory is wrong. That will be determined by the evidence. That is why people are looking. (Again proving you wrong.)

 

The point is, that I think not many really are prepared for “certain knowledge” to be totally wrong.

 

There is no such thing as certain knowledge. (Why do you keep saying this?) The whole basis of science is testing (attempting to break) existing theories.

 

Another point is, that we should not be so irritated (an punish) if someone ask idiotic and skeptical questions

 

We have just had an entire thread on this subject: it is not the question that is the problem. Anyone can ask questions. It is often said that there is no such thing as a stupid question.

 

It is refusing to accept answers and evidence that is irrational.

 

"What colour is the sky?"

"Blue."

"Why?"

"Raleigh scattering ... blah blah blah ..."

"OK, but what if it isn't really blue. What if it just looks blue?"

"That is what blue means."

"But maybe it isn't blue."

 

repeat ad nauseum

[Mordred]

It is not my invention, but just a well known fact , - for a photon (perspetive or not) no time, distant can exsist.

 

 

Another example is the WMAP data now confirm that there are gigantic holes in the BB theory.

 

 

 

But I am asking whether a recoil effect really is a property of emission, or rather whether it is possible that the photon get its momentum in a way we simply cannot imagine, and that have nothing with classic mechanism to do.

The only way answering this is to experientially test. Maybe this is already done, maybe not (I havent so far had time to read through the links I got yesterday, to be convinced that such (classic) recoil effect really exist.

 

Your understanding of relativity is in error. The fact that a photon has no perspective does not mean that the photon has no time or distance. The photon has no valid frame of reference. There has been numerous posts explaining that in the relativity forum. So let's leave that for that forum.

 

The WMAP data strongly supports LCDM model which is the big bang with cold dark matter and the cosmological constant. However the big bang model does not attempt to predict how the universe began. It states nothing prior to 10^-43 seconds. It's only premise is that from that point forward it began with a hot dense state. It does not attempt to state how the universe began as the physics and mathematics reaches a nonsensical state prior to that point in time.

 

As to the photon. A photon does not gain or lose momentum. It's momentum c is invarient. It's speed is always c. It can gain or lose energy but not momentum. If it had any other momentum other than c. Then it isn't a photon.

 

I fail to see why you have such difficulty with photons exerting a force. Everyone posted numerous examples of everyday numerous and practical applications as well as tests that photons exert a force due to its momentum. Any time a force is exerted an equal and opposite force is also in effect. Newtons laws tells you that.

 

Experiments showing that a photon can exert a force has been tested numerous times it's been around in our understanding since Maxwell. We have had plenty of time to disprove it. Instead of discounting the answers you were given. (Particularly since several of the repliers hold various physics degrees). Perhaps you should take the time to study the data provided. You might find your understanding is misguided and learn from it.

What is truly amusing is the fact that the photon is the electromagnetic FORCE carrier. It is the boson responsible for transferring the electromagnetic FORCE from one particle to another.

Anything that can exert a force can also exert a pressure.

PS the electromagnetic FORCE includes heat.

[Bjarne]

 

It may be well know, but it isn't a fact.

quibbling right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE#t=71

 

Well, their calculations fit the data. If there is an alternative explanation, then their calculations must be wrong. Otherwise there is no room for an alternative.

 

Ohh no, this is not beutifull

And NASA know it

Quote

"We still have an uncertainty in our study of less than 18 percent. But for me, this is the answer.

Some may argue it is not final, but in my mind we did a good job, and it's very clear what happened"

 

Boasting?

 

And as i wrote why did the anomaly first started when passing Saturn ?

We cannot sweep this under the blanked.

Doing so is coward sceince.

 

That's my point: if you have an alternative explanation, then their explanation based on the radiation must be wrong in some way.

 

I have, but I know that doesn’t matter how good, ice-cold and perfect it is, it is not popular to attack "certain knowledge"

So I better prove it first, or do you think it will be taken serious if I ice-cold could describe which simple and cheap experiments must be done to reveal what dark matter really is (and how this at the same time solve every orbit anomaly discovered.)

 

 

There is nothing in science that is "certain knowledge".

 

I think it is certian that Venus orbit the Sun

 

Not even something as fundamental as Lorentz invariance (equivalent to conservation of momentum).

That is why people are constantly doing more and more precise tests - because it would be really exciting to show it is wrong.

It is often really hard to see that science really is tolerant / open to new thought..

 

Not really. But there have been many examples of very bright people coming up with new ideas.

And what about before their thoughts was accepted? Its the human nature you is up against

For exsample If I am right they will say I am a German, if I am wroing they will say I am a jew.

 

(Contrary to your claims about the nature of science.)

What excatly is wrong with that?

 

I can't think of a single answer of an "idiot" (a rather offensive term) contributing to science.

Call them "strange" if this helps, or crackpots.

Since the first days of science a "strange idiot" (crackpots) suggested the earth was round, and another crackpot that Venus not orbit the Earth and this is how it went. We also had a crackpot Dane (Tycho brahe) here, the king deported him to a desert island, you know this is how we always have treatment such strange idiotic crackpots, that refused to subservience “certain (almost fanatic) knowledge”

 

I doubt that. But, if true, it shows once again that you are wrong.

 

No it shows that the unthinkable is many time possible

 

 

Maybe the theory is wrong. That will be determined by the evidence. That is why people are looking. (Again proving you wrong.)

 

People are in general not willing to cooperate, to bring "certain knowledge" down, - Even if they get paid for it

It is almost forbidden to deal with such crackpot business, at least not very popular..

New controversial science is many times discovered accidental

 

There is no such thing as certain knowledge. (Why do you keep saying this?) The whole basis of science is testing (attempting to break) existing theories.

 

This is why I ask whether it ever really is tested especially whether the radiation recoil effect ever really is confirmed and not only speculation. I have got some links and will read it,

But maybe you could beforehand tell me which experiment is the best to read , to understand the radiation recoil , - is true?

 

We have just had an entire thread on this subject: it is not the question that is the problem. Anyone can ask questions. It is often said that there is no such thing as a stupid question.

 

OK then tell me in your own simple words, how is the radiation recoil effect tested (experimental).

We will forget the other part, - as mean the impact effect (solar sails etc) - I think I have to admit this part is certain science, after reading just alittlke about it..

 

 

It is refusing to accept answers and evidence that is irrational.

 

Many of my simple questions were first answered late in this thread.

One link had nothing with the queston to do

Another I did a wrong google (image) search.

Still I have not had time to read all the links you finally gave me, and off course I will.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Bjarne

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

A reminder that the topic under discussion is conservation of momentum.

[Bjarne]

Your understanding of relativity is in error. The fact that a photon has no perspective does not mean that the photon has no time or distance. The photon has no valid frame of reference. There has been numerous posts explaining that in the relativity forum. So let's leave that for that forum.

 

As to the photon. A photon does not gain or lose momentum. It's momentum c is invarient. It's speed is always c. It can gain or lose energy but not momentum. If it had any other momentum other than c. Then it isn't a photon.

 

I fail to see why you have such difficulty with photons exerting a force. Everyone posted numerous examples of everyday numerous and practical applications as well as tests that photons exert a force due to its momentum. Any time a force is exerted an equal and opposite force is also in effect. Newtons laws tells you that.

 

Experiments showing that a photon can exert a force has been tested numerous times it's been around in our understanding since Maxwell. We have had plenty of time to disprove it. Instead of discounting the answers you were given. (Particularly since several of the repliers hold various physics degrees). Perhaps you should take the time to study the data provided. You might find your understanding is misguided and learn from it.

What is truly amusing is the fact that the photon is the electromagnetic FORCE carrier. It is the boson responsible for transferring the electromagnetic FORCE from one particle to another.

Anything that can exert a force can also exert a pressure.

PS the electromagnetic FORCE includes heat.

 

As I wrote it is not my invention

Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE#t=71

 

Your understanding of relativity is in error. The fact that a photon has no perspective does not mean that the photon has no time or distance. The photon has no valid frame of reference. There has been numerous posts explaining that in the relativity forum. So let's leave that for that forum.

 

The WMAP data strongly supports LCDM model which is the big bang with cold dark matter and the cosmological constant. However the big bang model does not attempt to predict how the universe began. It states nothing prior to 10^-43 seconds. It's only premise is that from that point forward it began with a hot dense state. It does not attempt to state how the universe began as the physics and mathematics reaches a nonsensical state prior to that point in time.

 

As to the photon. A photon does not gain or lose momentum. It's momentum c is invarient. It's speed is always c. It can gain or lose energy but not momentum. If it had any other momentum other than c. Then it isn't a photon.

 

I fail to see why you have such difficulty with photons exerting a force. Everyone posted numerous examples of everyday numerous and practical applications as well as tests that photons exert a force due to its momentum. Any time a force is exerted an equal and opposite force is also in effect. Newtons laws tells you that.

 

Experiments showing that a photon can exert a force has been tested numerous times it's been around in our understanding since Maxwell. We have had plenty of time to disprove it. Instead of discounting the answers you were given. (Particularly since several of the repliers hold various physics degrees). Perhaps you should take the time to study the data provided. You might find your understanding is misguided and learn from it.

What is truly amusing is the fact that the photon is the electromagnetic FORCE carrier. It is the boson responsible for transferring the electromagnetic FORCE from one particle to another.

Anything that can exert a force can also exert a pressure.

PS the electromagnetic FORCE includes heat.

 

The BB theory predicts a isotropic univers 13,4 mia years ago. It is NOT

[Strange]

Quote

...

Boasting?

My general policy is to assume that unreferenced quotes have been invented. So I will ignore this.

 

And as i wrote why did the anomaly first started when passing Saturn ?

 

I think you should ask that in the Pioneer thread. You might find someone who knows or cares about the answer.

 

I have, but I know that doesn’t matter how good, ice-cold and perfect it is, it is not popular to attack "certain knowledge"

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE".

 

So I better prove it first

 

You had better provide some supporting evidence. That is all that is required.

 

It is often really hard to see that science really is tolerant / open to new thought..

 

And that is why it hasn't made any progress, I suppose.

 

What excatly is wrong with that?

 

You keep saying that science will not accept anything contrary to "certain knowledge"; and yet there are plenty of examples of science accepting radically new ideas (including several just in my lifetime).

 

Since the first days of science a "strange idiot" (crackpots) suggested the earth was round, and another crackpot that Venus not orbit the Earth and this is how it went. We also had a crackpot Dane (Tycho brahe) here, the king deported him to a desert island, you know this is how we always have treatment such strange idiotic crackpots, that refused to subservience “certain (almost fanatic) knowledge”

 

So you agree that there is no such thing as "certain knowledge" and that science does accept new ideas? Make your mind up.

 

But you are also appealing to a fallacy known as the "Galileo Gambit"; just because someone's ideas were initially rejected but turned out to be right does not mean that your ideas must be right because they are rejected. Or, as Carl Sagan put it: They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 

No it shows that the unthinkable is many time possible

 

Obviously. That is how science progresses.

 

People are in general not willing to cooperate, to bring "certain knowledge" down

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE".

 

New controversial science is many times discovered accidental

 

Indeed. As Asimov said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

 

But maybe you could beforehand tell me which experiment is the best to read about the radiation recoil test?

 

See post 39: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86724-photons-and-conservation-momentum-split-from-pioneer-anomaly/page-2#entry839932

 

OK then tell me in your own simple words, how is the radiation recoil effect tested (experiential).

 

See post 39: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86724-photons-and-conservation-momentum-split-from-pioneer-anomaly/page-2#entry839932

[Bjarne]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE".

I think it is because you dont understand the difference between "CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE". and CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE.

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE".

I think it is because you are not willing to understand the difference between "CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE". and CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE.

 

You had better provide some supporting evidence. That is all that is required.

Ohh yeahh, You are completely right . I have long ago understood this.

I mean even if something is written clearly "on the sky"and even in capital letters (which can not be larger) experience shows it can be hard to see (like for example this Galileo saw his binoculars)

 

And that is why it hasn't made any progress, I suppose.

Yes you surpose.

 

You keep saying that science will not accept anything contrary to "certain knowledge"; and yet there are plenty of examples of science accepting radically new ideas (including several just in my lifetime).

My friend, many times we have only speculation as basis for what could be the cause of a phenomena. For example dark matter

If I would suggest a controversial solution, - that could be correct, - it is ignored without any reason. Only because it is controversial

Also even though it would be simple and cheap to prove

 

So you agree that there is no such thing as "certain knowledge" and that science does accept new ideas? Make your mind up.

As I wrote controversial research is easy reaching a wall of intolerance.

This have always been like that.

 

But you are also appealing to a fallacy known as the "Galileo Gambit";

As I wrote controversial research is easy reaching a wall of intolerance.

This have alsways been like that.

But sometime the answer is based on a controversal understanding.

 

That is how science progresses.

Sometimes, yes - and sometimes intolerance makes it impossible, except when one single man will refuse to give up, and do all the research alone.

 

And now please get back to the subject of this thread.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

 

As I wrote it is not my invention

Watch this

 

 

The BB theory predicts a isotropic univers 13,4 mia years ago. It is NOT

Sorry mate I've been studying cosmology since Allen Guthrie first proposed false vacuum . Back when the arguments of Universe geometry was still unknown and the words Higgs dark energy and dark matter was met with scorn.

 

This was also before WMAP which determined the universe geometry question. LCDM is a result of WMAP data. Prior to WMAP they were still debating hot or warm or cold dark matter and quintessence and MOND over LCDM. So your understanding of the importance of the WMAP is in error.

 

As far as photons and conservation of momentum is conserved. We have supplied enough data to show that it is. It's up to the OP to prove that it isn't.

 

In any process conservation of momentum is conserved.

If you like I could show you an article where virtual particle production affects the angular momentum of a blackhole. Yes in the form of virtual photons. See my signature look for the black hole accretion disk article.

 

I would post it but you have more important articles to study. That article is highly technical. Also over 900 pages.

[imatfaal]

As I wrote it is not my invention

Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE#t=71

 

...

This is not the place for a discussion on the concepts of relativity and if you wish to discuss this video then please open a new thread; but as you are clearly keen to read and learn about these matters I feel I must make a few points. The discussion of special relativity in that video is highly flawed and in some parts simply incorrect; the misuse frame of reference of a photon, the lack of understanding of the reciprocity of time dilation and length contraction, the mistake of thinking that time is changed in one's own frame ...

 

But please - if you want to discuss this video start a new thread.

 

NB

Mordred has some great resources on his site - maybe he could point you towards a video which more closely represents the current state of knowledge.

[elfmotat]

It is not my invention, but just a well known fact , - for a photon (perspetive or not) no time, distant can exsist.

 

As I wrote it is not my invention

Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE#t=71

 

I never said it was your invention, just that it was bogus. The video is also bogus. Apparently Pamela Gay is giving him and his audience the standard popsci treatment, where concepts are oversimplified to the point that they're practically meaningless.

 

If you have any specific questions about relativity then feel free to ask them in the relativity section. I'm sure nobody would mind answering, as long as you don't ignore the answers you receive like you've been doing in this thread.

 

In my mind it was always the point, but yes I didn’t write it. It is really difficult to suggest or imagine what a photon maybe does and not does. It will only be speculation.

But I am asking whether a recoil effect really is a property of emission, or rather whether it is possible that the photon get its momentum in a way we simply cannot imagine, and that have nothing with classic mechanism to do.

The only way answering this is to experientially test. Maybe this is already done, maybe not (I haven’t so far had time to read through the links I got yesterday, to be convinced that such (classic) recoil effect really exist.

 

There is no known "mechanism" by which a photon can be produced with no momentum. (Except for the trivial case of an infinite-wavelength photon.) If you want to invent one, go right ahead. Just know that it isn't going to agree with experiment. Go ahead and try if you want, really, nobody is going to stop you. When you're done, report back and we'll see if my prediction came true.

 

As far as the "mechanism" behind photon production, it will probably help to think of photons as "really" being tiny wave-packets moving through a photon field. The photon field can interact with other fields, for example the electron field (or any charged field). Wave packets in the electron field can transfer some of their energy/momentum into wave packets in the photon field, and vice versa. However, the photon field is massless, so disturbances in the field will always propagate with velocity c. As for why photons carry energy/momentum, that's a bit like tossing a pebble into a pond, watching the waves it produces, and then wondering "why do the waves carry enery/momentum?"

Edited December 3, 2014 by elfmotat

[Ophiolite]

Have you read all the links that have been provided to you? If not, then you have absolutely no grounds upon which to continue expressing disbelief.

[Bjarne]

 

I never said it was your invention, just that it was bogus. The video is also bogus. Apparently Pamela Gay is giving him and his audience the standard popsci treatment, where concepts are oversimplified to the point that they're practically meaningless.

So many even at high level education, - teaching student bogus. Welll it is possible. But this is not the only bogus they are told.

 

 

If you have any specific questions about relativity then feel free to ask them in the relativity section. I'm sure nobody would mind answering, as long as you don't ignore the answers you receive like you've been doing in this thread.

 

 

Listen now, - I do not have concrete in my ears, - but I did not knew anything about radiation pressure.

 

And here is what happen.

 

If you go through the context you will discover that I all the time was asking for hard evidence and experimental facts

 

First I got a link to some university math that had nothing to do with experiments or hard evidence I was asking for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Radiation_pressure_by_emission

 

Then I got a link to the radio meter (more confusion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer

I read that thermal motion was the cause of rotation, and was confused when I right after also got a link to Nichols radiometer, I tried to google images Nichols radiometer and saw most radio meters I just had read about.

 

Then I got a link to more advanced math, I not a ‘was asking for http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node429.html

Then I got a link to alternative theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Alternative_theoriesAlso something I not have ask for

Then this link, also something else I haven’t ask for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

 

So I thought Ok this is all only speculation, no hard fact seems to exsist.

 

First in swanson post 27, it was a link – that was worth a little but still not what I ask for.

And first in post 37 Strange finally got the point and send me several links – what was I asking for

 

I was not asking for university math headache .

 

I never said it was your invention, just that it was bogus. The video is also bogus. Apparently Pamela Gay is giving him and his audience the standard popsci treatment, where concepts are oversimplified to the point that they're practically meaningless.

 

If you have any specific questions about relativity then feel free to ask them in the relativity section. I'm sure nobody would mind answering, as long as you don't ignore the answers you receive like you've been doing in this thread.

 

There is no known "mechanism" by which a photon can be produced with no momentum. (Except for the trivial case of an infinite-wavelength photon.) If you want to invent one, go right ahead. Just know that it isn't going to agree with experiment. Go ahead and try if you want, really, nobody is going to stop you. When you're done, report back and we'll see if my prediction came true.

 

As far as the "mechanism" behind photon production, it will probably help to think of photons as "really" being tiny wave-packets moving through a photon field. The photon field can interact with other fields, for example the electron field (or any charged field). Wave packets in the electron field can transfer some of their energy/momentum into wave packets in the photon field, and vice versa. However, the photon field is massless, so disturbances in the field will always propagate with velocity c. As for why photons carry energy/momentum, that's a bit like tossing a pebble into a pond, watching the waves it produces, and then wondering "why do the waves carry enery/momentum?"

 

Well it is still hard to imagine that a piece of atomic garbage in space will travel to a distance galaxy, due to radiation pressure, it sounds like science fiction- but well we shall never say never.

There are several reasons to attack the latest NASA report regarding the "Pioneer Anomaly Closed” conclusion, - ( i have my own) .

If the theroy of radiation pressure is OK, the answer could maybe be here http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.0537.pdf

Edited December 3, 2014 by Bjarne

[swansont]

So I thought Ok this is all only speculation, no hard fact seems to exsist.

 

First in swanson post 27, it was a link – that was worth a little but still not what I ask for.

And first in post 37 Strange finally got the point and send me several links – what was I asking for

 

I was not asking for university math headache .

 

That is an incredibly lame excuse. You did not ask for specific citations to experiments, you asked if there was experimental confirmation, and people provided you with links to examples of that.

 

You can't legitimately complain about Strange's first link, because that was a response to a different question that you had asked, about the process itself — you asked how it can happen, and it was answered.

 

You were waved off of the Crooke's radiometer as an example within 10 minutes of that post, and given the Nichols link at that time. Boom. Right there was experimental confirmation, including a link to an experiment, at the end of a very short wikipedia page. There was also mention of solar sails. And then the Yarkovsky effect. And then more.

 

"is there hard evidence" is adequately answered by naming the experiment or effect. That you did not bother to follow up, or check any further in the links you were given is more a complaint that you have not been spoon-fed the answers, especially considering you turned your nose up at the mention of math. You were the one asserting that radiation pressure was not real. You have an obligation to put a little effort into this, since you weren't doing anything to back up your claim that the physics was wrong.

[Strange]

We have just had a timely update to the forum rules reminding us all to be polite. However, Your gross dishonesty is truly offensive and makes it quite hard to write this response. But, in short, ALL of the links I provided were to answer specific points that you made.

 

Anyone can look back at your previous posts and see exactly how dishonest your are being. It does not look good.

 

First I got a link to some university math that had nothing to do with experiments or hard evidence I was asking for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Radiation_pressure_by_emission

 

From that page: "The momentum of the radiation causes a reactive force, expressed as a pressure across the radiating surface." How hard is that to understand? No "university math" required. And, being Wikipedia, it included links where you could check that the statement was correct.

Then I got a link to the radio meter (more confusion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
I read that thermal motion was the cause of rotation, and was confused when I right after also got a link to Nichols radiometer, I tried to google images Nichols radiometer and saw most radio meters I just had read about.

 

At this point, I pointed out that the Crooke's radiometer was not relevant and I gave you the link to the Nichol's radiometer because it gave exactly the "hard evidence" you were requesting. You can't blame anyone else but yourself if you were unable to read that very short Wikipedia page.

Then I got a link to more advanced math, I not a ‘was asking for http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node429.html

 

This is not a link to "advanced math". This was another example of the "hard evidence" you requested. The page is about OBSERVED line widths in spectroscopy and the effects that cause it. One of the effects, from that page: "When an atom emits a photon, the atom must recoil to conserve momentum." I quoted that sentence before, and pointed out that it is OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. There is no advanced math involved in reading one short sentence.

 

Again, the failure is yours.

 

Then I got a link to alternative theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Alternative_theoriesAlso something I not have ask for

 

You may not have asked for it but it was in response to your claim that the existence of dark matter was not questioned. It very obviously is (because that is what science does).

 

Then this link, also something else I haven’t ask for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

 

Again, this was in direct response to your ignorant statement that there was no evidence for dark matter. There very obviously is.

 

So I thought Ok this is all only speculation, no hard fact seems to exsist.

 

At this point you have been given one theoretical explanation (from Wikipedia, so dumbed down to be easily understood) and at least four practical examples (you have skipped the solar sail example and the Yarkovsky effect). But you dishonestly chose to ignore all these.

 

And first in post 37 Strange finally got the point and send me several links – what was I asking for

 

I assume you mean post 39. This was where I summarised, again, all the evidence that had already been provided and that you had chosen to ignore.

I was not asking for university math headache .

 

And you weren't given it. However, if you are not smart enough or not well educated enough to understand basic science, whose fault is that? Not mine.

 

Well it is still hard to imagine

 

Lesson No. 1 in schoolboy science: what you personally find hard to imagine is irrelevant. The universe doesn't care.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Strange

[Mordred]

 

NB

Mordred has some great resources on his site - maybe he could point you towards a video which more closely represents the current state of knowledge.

Thank you for the accolade I do my best to post solid articles and resources usable by anyone without misleading them from the textbook concordance teachings on that site.

 

I rarely use video references as they typically tend to mislead and miss inform due to over symplification. However I can post a free to use entry math level textbook on relavity. The author has given me permission to add a reference link to my site. Currently building a second page of reference links.

 

Anyways the author is also an experienced forum member on another forum so his book is also geared to common misconceptions in relativity.

 

It's also why he sticks to the basic Minkowskii math forms. Download is free

 

http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

I'm surprised I didn't think of this example of photons vs conservation of energy and momentum before but one of the better examples of its applications is to look at Compton scattering.

 

As Compton scattering is a direct application of photon interactions and the two conservation laws.

 

Here is a link to a quick low math level coverage.

 

http://khuntersscience.blogspot.ca/2012/07/using-energy-and-momentum-conservation.html?m=1

 

it's a good example of how momentum is imparted onto other particles

[Bjarne]

To make this entire pretty short (as possible) here is a copy / paste of post 1

Momentum of electromagnetic radiation is the correct question.

How can radiation from the space probe towards empty space possible have a decelerating impact on the pioneer space probes.

Are there any scientific evidence for such statement ?

It sounds acceptable that the opposite, - which mean photon bombarding / hidding the space probe - could have an effect, and either accelerate of decelerate the space probe.

But photons leaving the space probe? - no, - unless there are hard evidence, - such is really difficult to believe.

 

Notice the bold text and notice I was only asking for hard evidence for whether the radiation recoil effect was evidently.

This was the question and this was the only thing I really wanted to know.

 

YES I was confused when the Nichols radiometer was mention after first to get a link to Crookes Radiometer.

Google images search, - as well contributes to such confuion.

But I am not the first, Qoute “This apparatus is sometimes confused with the Crookes radiometer of 1873.” - source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer

 

Even if I would have read this article first (without confusion), - the functionality is very sufficient described, no functionality illustration , and no specific evidence shows whether radiation pressure really is a result of a recoil effect OR only radiation impact, - and exactly THIS is and was the question. Maybe a better detailed illustrated explantion would make me change my mind, but I found nothing better at the internet.

 

Yes, after finally getting links I ask for, it seems very evident that radiation pressure impact is a fact and can be used to spacecraft propulsion (as I never denied)

But I am still not convinced that radiation recoil also is true.

 

It will at least not surprise me if not; - so long I am not sure whether specific and critical radiation recoil experiments have been done, (and compared to the impact effect) which then could confirms that the kinetic energy conversion really double.

 

Yes experiments have been done with solar sails, but only in labs.

Test seems to fit to the theory. And this was the best I could find to read, that could looks like some kind of (hard) evidence.

 

Solar sails were mention in this thread, but the link came first in post 37.

Well I could have done a google search, but like Strange stated above, I too don’t take anything serious if there are no source.

 

Still I did not find hard evidence that really shows whether such test has been done specific to confirm the claimed recoil effect.

Maybe you will all say I am too skeptical, - maybe I am, - just keeping all doors open, - This doesn’t mean that I don’t accept FACTS.

 

I have very (personal) good reasons to be very sceptical especially in this case, - simply because there is no doubt in my mind that the pioneer anomaly is not solved. Not at all, even not 15 % is solved.

So either is it not true that the radiation did have the anisotropic deceleration impact the way NASA claims, or there is something wrong with our understanding of (recoil) radiation.

Sorry I see no other option; I trust that the Magnitude of the anomaly is more or less correct. But I don't trust NASA,s latest paper.

It seems too much is sweeped under the blanked

And agian, I am not alone. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.0537.pdf

Edited December 4, 2014 by Bjarne

[Strange]

Even if I would have read this article first (without confusion), - the functionality is very sufficient described, no functionality illustration , and no specific evidence shows whether radiation pressure really is a result of a recoil effect OR only radiation impact, - and exactly THIS is and was the question. Maybe a better detailed illustrated explantion would make me change my mind, but I found nothing better at the internet.

 

Imatfaal provided a 25 page paper on this in post #22. This explicitly shows that emitted photons cause a force.

 

But I am still not convinced that radiation recoil also is true.

It will at least not surprise me if not; - so long I am not sure whether specific and critical radiation recoil experiments have been done, (and compared to the impact effect) which then could confirms that the kinetic energy conversion really double.

 

Despite the Nichols radiometer, solar sails, spectroscopy, the Yarkovsky effect, Compton scattering, the Mossbauer effect (which are all solid, practical, hard evidence of the sort you claimed you wanted).

 

It is hard to know how to react to this sort of extreme denialism and wilful ignorance.

 

My little example conversation about the sky being blue was obviously too generous:

"What colour is the sky?"

"Blue."

"How do we know that?"

"Look: it's blue"

"Yes, but what real hard evidence do we have that it is blue?"

"Look at it. Look! It's blue!"

"But I am still not convinced. So long as I am not sure that specific experiments have been done. After all, I have personal reasons to think it might not be blue"

"Look. Just look. <sobs>"

 

Perhaps you would be happier if we admitted that you are right: it is the unicorns that did it.

 

Yes experiments have been done with solar sails, but only in labs.

 

IKAROS.

 

Solar sails were mention in this thread, but the link came first in post 37.

 

There is no link in post 37.

 

Still I did not find hard evidence that really shows whether such test has been done specific to confirm the claimed recoil effect.

 

 

The Nichols radiometer, solar sails, spectroscopy, the Yarkovsky effect, Compton scattering, the Mossbauer effect are all solid, practical, hard evidence of the sort you claimed you wanted. You just dismiss them because you don't like the results. But you are not even honest enough to say that. You pretend the information isn't there.

 

Maybe you will all say I am too skeptical, - maybe I am, - just keeping all doors open, -

 

As they say, keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

 

This doesn’t mean that I don’t accept FACTS.

 

Don't be so modest. You have done a fantastic job of rejecting facts. There should be some sort of award for this level of denialism.

 

So either is it not true that the radiation did have the anisotropic deceleration impact the way NASA claims, or there is something wrong with our understanding of (recoil) radiation.

Sorry I see no other option

 

There are many other options. But they belong in the other thread.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

The rules and guidelines requiring that members not insult other members is a good one. It is more than good it is sound, productive, sensible, important and many other positive, desirable things. As someone who has been honoured with the role of forum expert it especially behoves me to respect this rule in all circumstances.

 

The weather is very frosty in Aberdeenshire this morning.

[Bjarne]

 

Imatfaal provided a 25 page paper on this in post #22. This explicitly shows that emitted photons cause a force.

 

 

Despite the Nichols radiometer, solar sails, spectroscopy, the Yarkovsky effect, Compton scattering, the Mossbauer effect (which are all solid, practical, hard evidence of the sort you claimed you wanted).

 

It is hard to know how to react to this sort of extreme denialism and wilful ignorance.

 

My little example conversation about the sky being blue was obviously too generous:

"What colour is the sky?"

"Blue."

"How do we know that?"

"Look: it's blue"

"Yes, but what real hard evidence do we have that it is blue?"

"Look at it. Look! It's blue!"

"But I am still not convinced. So long as I am not sure that specific experiments have been done. After all, I have personal reasons to think it might not be blue"

"Look. Just look. <sobs>"

 

Perhaps you would be happier if we admitted that you are right: it is the unicorns that did it.

 

 

IKAROS.

 

 

There is no link in post 37.

 

 

The Nichols radiometer, solar sails, spectroscopy, the Yarkovsky effect, Compton scattering, the Mossbauer effect are all solid, practical, hard evidence of the sort you claimed you wanted. You just dismiss them because you don't like the results. But you are not even honest enough to say that. You pretend the information isn't there.

 

 

As they, keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

 

 

Don't be so modest. You have done a fantastic job of rejecting facts. There should be some sort of award for this level of denialism.

 

 

There are many other options. But they belong in the other thread.

 

 

Which page exactly, - shows specific tested experimental hard evidence, - that objective confirms the specific radiation recoil (double impact) effect.

Test that shows that absorbed photons only converts to the half the kinetic energy compared to reflected / emiited photons.

I did NOT found anything what so ever, - only postulates.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Bjarne

[Strange]

Which page exactly

 

Sorry, as you are incapable of reading and deny the sky is blue, I have nothing else to say to you.

 

As Ophiolite noted, "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything".

Edited December 4, 2014 by Strange

[Bjarne]

 

Sorry, as you are incapable of reading and deny the sky is blue, I have nothing else to say to you.

 

As Ophiolite noted, "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything".

I wish you would have used the time on answering a specific question, - rather that teelling me about the sky is blue, - which not is true, - it is grey.

[elfmotat]

Which page exactly, - shows specific tested experimental hard evidence, - that objective confirms the specific radiation recoil (double impact) effect.

Test that shows that absorbed photons only converts to the half the kinetic energy compared to reflected / emiited photons.

I did NOT found anything what so ever, - only postulates.

 

What's wrong with the Nichols-Hull experiments? You said yourself that, "test seems to fit to the theory." Indeed they confirm the radiation pressure predictions of classical electrodynamics to an accuracy of better than 1%. If you disagree with their conclusions then at least give a reason why. All you've said is that you disagree, for weird nebulous reasons.

[Strange]

By the way, Bjarne: your thread is now in Speculations so it is time for you to stop asking questions and stop rejecting evidence.

 

It is time for you to produce evidence that conservation of momentum is violated.

 

It is time for you to produce evidence that a force is not produced by the emission of photons. (Which will, of course, require you to provide detailed alternative explanations for all the examples where this fact is observed.)

[Ophiolite]

I wish you would have used the time on answering a specific question, - rather that teelling me about the sky is blue, - which not is true, - it is grey.

Your specific questions have been answered multiple times. You have exhibited an attitude that is not conducive to learning. Without a change in that attitude you will not be able to accept what to you is currently unacceptable. I see no evidence that you even acknowledge that such an attitude change would be in order. I do see that multiple members have tried in a variety of ways to explain the matter to you, and some fell on stony ground. I see no value in continuing any personal involvement here. In interests of my own health and so you run no risk of feeling guilt were you to learn I had experienced a fatal stroke I shall now place you on ignore.

[Bjarne]

 

What's wrong with the Nichols-Hull experiments? You said yourself that, "test seems to fit to the theory." Indeed they confirm the radiation pressure predictions of classical electrodynamics to an accuracy of better than 1%. If you disagree with their conclusions then at least give a reason why. All you've said is that you disagree, for weird nebulous reasons.

 

Exactly, and this is also why I wrote that this is the strongest evidence.

The point is I was asking for and looking for test, that experimentally insulate the radiation impact and recoil effect, - to be able to confirm whether these in fact 2 predictions also fits the theory.

 

That would be even better evidence to convince such hard core skeptic, like me.

 

After reading what I was advised to, - I was searching further, to get some kind of impression, what else can justify that the Pioneer anomaly indeed deserves to be reinvestigated.

I still don’t know where the garbage is buried; only that it smells ugly, so soon I get too close to Nasa’s 2^nd research paper.

 

As you know this Radiation pressure stuff is new for me.

I am not a kind of person that closes my eyes, just after to have had a discussion at the internet, 2 days.

The possibility that misunderstood science can be found at any weak point, always exist. Even Strange seems to agree to that, and that tells a lot.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.0537.pdf

By the way, Bjarne: your thread is now in Speculations so it is time for you to stop asking questions and stop rejecting evidence.

 

It is time for you to produce evidence that conservation of momentum is violated.

 

It is time for you to produce evidence that a force is not produced by the emission of photons. (Which will, of course, require you to provide detailed alternative explanations for all the examples where this fact is observed.)

 

You know in science reseach the most important is to ask the right question

Try to ask me why I am so convinced that the Pioneer anomaly is not solved?

Edited December 4, 2014 by Bjarne