Twin Paradox 101

I did some reading on this experiment.
The corpuscular model for light explain simply the result of the experiment. The wave model for light introduce the medium of propagation complicating the explaination. Electron are known to be corpuscule and they behave like wave in certain conditions.
Other way to mesure c...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Reference frame, prefered frame, aether, ... come from the "theory" that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In nature, the speed of waves of all types is always independent of the speed of the source, whereas particles depend on the speed of the source. Physics today teaches that light has a dual nature; but the two experiments (photoelectric effect and compton effect) that have particle properties also have wave interpretations, whereas a dozen or so wave properties have no particle interpretations. So it is more reasonable that light is a pure wave than that it is any kind of particle.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In a train going with speed v the light beam of the locomotive does not go at v + c but at c. These idea come from the Michelson experiments. But I have a problem with this experiment. Maybe I miss something but I don't see there a prouf that c is constant.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The speed of light relative to the observer is not subject to measurement independent of assumptions. If we adopt the Einstein postulate for clock synchronization, the speed of light will be c because the postulate guarantees that. If we adopt Lorentz clock synchronization, as in the GPS, then the speed of light is c+v or c-v, again because the postulate requires that. No confirming experiment is possible because measuring a speed requires dividing a distance traveled by a time interval elapsed, and measuring the latter requires two clocks (one at each end of the interval). So the measurement necessarily depends on how the two clocks are synchronized, which in turn determines the result of the measurement.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So is the Lorentz tranformation necessary?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The gamma factor in the Lorentz transformation is necessary to predicting real phenomena and the behavior of clocks. However, the rest of the transformation (the "time slippage" term and the space transformation equation) are unnecessary, and are generally not used in practical applications anywhere. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>whereas a dozen or so wave properties have no particle interpretations <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Are those wave proprieties been observed for electron?
How does Einstein and Lorentz synchronise their clocks?

Thank you for your patience!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Are those wave properties observed for electron?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Examples of wave properties possessed by lightwaves: periodicity, wavelength, frequency, intensity, amplitude, refraction, diffraction, coherence, interference, polarization, absence of mutual collisions, radiation pressure, transverse/longitudinal vibrations.

Electrons (especially "photo-electrons") have many of these wave properties.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How does Einstein and Lorentz synchronise their clocks?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In Einstein SR, clock synchronization is done by exchange of light signals under the <i>assumption</i> that light always travels at the same speed in all inertial frames. A signal sent from clock A to clock B and back is used to set clock B at reflection to the average of clock A at transmission and final reception.

In Lorentzian relativity, clocks are all synchronized to a "universal time". If light signals are used, they are assumed to have speed c only in the local gravity field, but not in any other frame. GPS clocks, for example, are all set in time and rate to agree with an imaginary, co-located clock at rest in the Earth-centered inertial frame. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Electrons (especially "photo-electrons") have many of these wave properties.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Why don't we tell that the electron is a wave? What is the criteria that determine if something is a wave or a particule?
Also I have the image of waves produced by a stone thrown in a pound. Can we see the photon this way but in 3-D ? If yes then when a photon interact with an atom only a small part of it is in contact with the atom, but I read many time thing like "... the photon is absorbed...".
Can you help me clarify this notion?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Why don't we say that the electron is a wave? What are the criteria that determine if something is a wave or a particle?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Electrons probably are waves. The most telling point in this regard is that electrons apparently cannot collide with one another and have a "zero" cross-sectional area for collisions, as is normally true only for waves. However, it remains possible that electrons are solid particles surrounded by a thick "atmosphere" of elysium (aether) so that they have many wave properties and avoid collisions only because of their repulsion forces.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also I have the image of waves produced by a stone thrown in a pond. Can we see the photon this way but in 3-D ?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If yes then when a photon interacts with an atom, only a small part of it is in contact with the atom, but I read many time things like "... the photon is absorbed...". Can you help me clarify this notion?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

An atom can absorb a bit of the energy from a spreading wave, much the way a frog on a lily pad might absorb energy from a wave in the pond, and get pushed off the pad.

In general, waves can apply force to objects they hit. The minimum energy extractable from a lightwave is E = h nu, where nu is frequency and h is Planck's constant. -|Tom|-