DOCSLIB.ORG

CRITICISM of the FOUNDATIONS of the RELATIVITY THEORY the Present Book Is Devoted to Systematic Criticism of the Fundamen- Tals of the Relativity Theory (RT)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CRITICISM of the FOUNDATIONS of the RELATIVITY THEORY the Present Book Is Devoted to Systematic Criticism of the Fundamen- Tals of the Relativity Theory (RT) S. N. Arteha CRITICISM OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE RELATIVITY THEORY The present book is devoted to systematic criticism of the fundamen- tals of the relativity theory (RT). The main attention is given to the new logical contradictions of RT, since presence of such contradictions brings ”to zero” the value of any theory. Many disputable and contradictory points of this theory and its corollaries are considered in detail in the book. The lack of logical and physical grounding for fundamental con- cepts in the special and general relativity theory, such as time, space, the relativity of simultaneity etc., is demonstrated. A critical analysis of experiments that resulted in the generation and establishment of relativ- ity theory is presented in the book. The detailed criticism of dynamical SRT concepts is also given in the book. The inconsistency and ground- lessness in a seemingly ”working” section of the relativity theory – the relativistic dynamics – is shown. The given book can be of interest to students, post-graduates, teach- ers, scientists and all mans, that independently meditate on fundamental physical problems. Contents Preface 5 1 Kinematics of special relativity theory 11 1.1 Introduction.......................... 11 1.2 Relativistictime . .. .. .. .. .. .. 14 1.3 Relativity of simultaneity . 33 1.4 TheLorentztransformations . 38 1.5 Paradoxes of lengths shortening . 41 1.6 The relativistic law for velocity addition . 51 1.7 Additional criticism of relativistic kinematics . 60 1.8 ConclusionstoChapter1 . 70 2 The basis of the general relativity theory 73 2.1 Introduction.......................... 73 2.2 Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory . 74 2.3 Criticism of the relativistic cosmology . 99 2.4 ConclusionstoChapter2 . .104 3 Experimental foundations of the relativity theory 106 3.1 Introduction. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .106 3.2 Criticism of the relativistic interpretation of series of ex- periments ...........................108 3.3 ConclusionstoChapter3 . .134 4 Dynamics of the special relativity theory 135 4.1 Introduction. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .135 3 4 CONTENTS 4.2 Notions of relativistic dynamics . 137 4.3 Criticism of the conventional interpretation of relativistic dynamics ...........................152 4.4 ConclusionstoChapter4 . .183 Appendixes A On possible frequency parametrization 185 B Possible mechanism of the frequency dependence 194 C Remarks on some hypotheses 200 Afterword 206 Bibliography 212 Preface This book is dedicated to my kind honest wise parents Though the technology achievements have been quite impressive in the elapsed century, the achievements of science should be recognized to be much more modest (contrary to ”circumscientific” advertising). All these achievements can be attributed, most likely, to efforts of the experimenters, engineers and inventors, rather than to ”breakthroughs” in the theoretical physics. The ”value” of ”post factum arguments” is well-known. Besides, it is desirable to evaluate substantially the ”losses” from similar ”breakthroughs” of the theorists. The major ”loss” of the past century is the loss of unity and interdependence in physics as a whole, i.e. the unity in the scientific ideology and in the approach to various areas of physics. The modern physics obviously represents by itself a ”raglish blanket”, which is tried to be used for covering bound- less ”heaps” in separate investigations and unbound facts. Contrary to the artificially maintained judgement, that the modern physics rests upon some well-verified fundamental theories, too frequently the ad hoc hypotheses appear (for a certain particular phenomenon), as well as science-like adjustments of calculations to the ”required result”, sim- ilarly to students’ peeping at an a priori known answer to the task. The predictive force of fundamental theories in applications occurs to be close to zero (contrary to allegations of ”showman from science”). This relates, first of all, to the special relativity theory (SRT): all prac- tically verifiable ”its” results were obtained either prior to developing 5 6 PREFACE this theory or without using its ideas, and only afterwards, by the ef- forts of ”SRT accumulators”, these results have been ”attributed” to achievements of this theory. It may seem that the relativity theory (RT) has been firmly inte- grated into the modern physics, so that there is no need to ”dig” in its basement, but it would be better to finish building ”the upper stages of a structure”. One can only ”stuff the bumps” when criticizing RT (recall the resolution of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sci- ences, that equated the RT criticism to the invention of the Perpetuum Mobile). The solid scientific journals are ready to consider both the hypotheses, which can not be verified in the nearest billion of years, and those hypotheses, which can never be verified. However, anything but every scientific journal undertakes to consider the principal issues of RT. It would seem the situation has to be just opposite. Because RT is being teached not only in high schools, but also in a primary school, at arising even slightest doubts all issues should be seriously and thoroughly discussed by the scientific community (in order ”not to spoil young hearts”). However, there exists (not numerous but very active and of high rank) part of scientific elite that behaves a strangely encoded manner. These scientists can seriously and condescendingly discuss ”yellow ele- phants with pink tails” (superheavy particles inside the Moon that re- mained obligatory after Big Bang, or analogous fantasies), but an at- tempt to discuss the relativity theory leads to such active centralized acts, as if their underclothes would be taken off and some ”birth-mark” would be discovered. Possibly, they received the ”urgent order to in- veigh” without reading. But any criticism, even most odious, can have some core of sense, which is able to improve their own theory. RT claims to be not simply a theory (for example, as one of compu- tational methods as applied to the theory of electromagnetism), but the first principle, even the ”super-supreme” principle capable of canceling any other verified principles and concepts: of space, time, conservation laws, etc. Therefore, RT should be ready for more careful logical and experimental verifications. As it will be shown in this book, RT does not withstand logical verification. PREFACE 7 Figuratively speaking, SRT is an example of what is called an ”im- possible construction” (like the ”impossible cube” from the book cover, etc.), where each element is non-contradictive locally, but the complete construction is a contradiction. SRT does not contain local mathemat- ical errors, but as soon as we say that letter t means the real time, then we immediately extend the construction, and contradictions will be revealed. A similar situation takes place with spatial characteristics, etc. We have been learned for a long time to think, that we are able to live with paradoxes, though the primary ”paradoxes” have been reduced by relativists rather truthfully to some conventional ”strangenesses”. In fact, however, every sane man understands that, if a real logical contra- diction is present in the theory, then it is necessary to choose between the logic, on which all science is founded, and this particular theory. The choice can obviously not be made in favor of this particular theory. Just for this reason the given book begins with logical contradictions of RT, and the basic attention is given to logical problems here. Any physical theory describing a real phenomenon can be experimen- tally verified according to the ”yes - no” principle. RT is also supported by the approach: ”what is experimentally unverifiable – it does not ex- ist”. Since RT must transfer to the classical physics at low velocities (for example, for the kinematics), and the classical result is unique (it does not depend on the observation system), the relativists often try to prove the absence of RT contradictions by reducing the paradoxes to a unique result, which coincides with classical one. Thereby, this is a recognition of the experimental indetectability of kinematic RT effects and, hence, of their actual absence (that is, of the primary Lorentz’s viewpoint on the auxiliary character of the relativistic quantities intro- duced). Various theorists try to ”explain” many disputable RT points in a completely different manner: everybody is allowed to think-over the nonexistent details of the ”dress of a bare king” by himself. This fact is an indirect sign of the theory ambiguity as well. The relativists try to magnify the significance of their theory by co-ordinating with it as many theories as possible, including those in absolutely non-relativistic areas. The artificial character of such a globalistic ”web” of interdependencies 8 PREFACE is obvious. The relativity theory (as a field of activity) is defended, except the relativists, also by mathematicians, who forget that physics possesses its own laws. First, the confirmability of some final conclusions does not prove truth of the theory (as well as the validity of the Fermat theorem in no way implies the correctness of all ”proofs” presented for 350 years; or, the existence of crystal spheres does not follow from the visible planet and stars motion). Second, even in mathematics there exist the condi- tions, which can hardly be expressed in formulas and, thus, complicate searching for solutions (as, for example, the condition: to find the solu- tions in natural numbers). In physics this fact is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Generalization of Lorentz-Poincare Ether Theory to Quantum Gravity
    Abstract We present a quantum theory of gravity which is in agreement with observation in the relativistic domain. The theory is not rel- ativistic, but a Galilean invariant generalization of Lorentz-Poincare ether theory to quantum gravity. If we apply the methodological rule that the best available theory has to be preferred, we have to reject the relativistic paradigm and return to Galilean invariant ether theory. arXiv:gr-qc/9706055v1 18 Jun 1997 1 Generalization Of Lorentz-Poincare Ether Theory To Quantum Gravity Ilja Schmelzer∗ September 12, 2021 ... die bloße Berufung auf k¨unftig zu entdeckende Ableitungen bedeutet uns nichts. Karl Popper In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science – among them, existence itself – become problematized and relativized. Alan Sokal Contents 1 The Problem Of Quantum Gravity 3 2 Introduction 4 3 Generalization Of Lorentz-Poincare Ether Theory To Gra- vity 6 3.1 Elementary Properties Of Post-Relativistic Gravity . 8 3.2 TheCosmologicalConstants . 9 3.2.1 The Observation Of The Cosmological Constants . 9 3.2.2 The Necessity Of Cosmological Constants . 10 3.3 TheGlobalUniverse ....................... 11 3.4 Gravitational Collapse . 12 ∗WIAS Berlin 2 3.5 A Post-Relativistic Lattice Theory . 13 3.6 BetterAtomicEtherTheories . 15 4 Canonical Quantization 16 5 Discussion 17 5.1 Conclusion............................. 18 1 The Problem Of Quantum Gravity We believe that there exists a unique physical theory which allows to describe the entire universe. That means, there exists a theory — quantum gravity — which allows to describe quantum effects as well as relativistic effects of strong gravitational fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction Energy of a Charged Medium and Its EM Field in a Curved Spacetime Mayeul Arminjon
    Interaction Energy of a Charged Medium and its EM Field in a Curved Spacetime Mayeul Arminjon To cite this version: Mayeul Arminjon. Interaction Energy of a Charged Medium and its EM Field in a Curved Spacetime. Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Geometry, Integrability and Quantization, Ivaïlo M. Mladenov, Jun 2018, Varna, Bulgaria. pp.88-98. hal-01881100 HAL Id: hal-01881100 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01881100 Submitted on 25 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Interaction Energy of a Charged Medium and its EM Field in a Curved Spacetime Mayeul Arminjon Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, 3SR lab., F-38000 Grenoble, France Abstract In the electrodynamics of special relativity (SR) or general relativ- ity (GR), the energy tensors of the charged medium and its EM field add to give the total energy tensor that obeys the dynamical equation without external force. In the investigated scalar theory of gravitation (\SET"), this assumption leads to charge non-conservation, hence an additional, \interaction" energy tensor T inter has to be postulated. The present work aims at constraining this tensor.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of Classical Physics Abstract Classical Physics Seeks To
    In defence of classical physics Abstract Classical physics seeks to find the laws of nature. I am of the opinion that classical Newtonian physics is “real” physics. This is in the sense that it relates to mechanical physics. I suggest that if physics is ever to succeed in determining a theory of everything it needs to introduce a more satisfactory invariant medium in order to do this. This is describing the laws of nature and retain the elementary foundational conditions of universal symmetry. [email protected] Quote: “Classical physics describes an inertial frame of reference within which bodies (objects) whose net force acting upon them is zero. These objects are not accelerated. They are either at rest or they move at a constant velocity in a straight line” [1] This means that classical physics is a model that describes time and space homogeneously. Classical physics seeks to find the laws of nature. Experiments and testing have traditionally found it difficult to isolate the conditions, influences and effects to achieve this objective. If scientists could do this they would discover the laws of nature and be able to describe these laws. Today I will discuss the relationship between classical Newtonian physics and Einstein’s Special Relativity model. I will share ideas as to why some scientists suggests there may be shortcomings in Einstein’s Special Relativity theory that might be able to successfully addressed, using my interpretation of both of these theories. The properties of the laws of nature are the most important invariants [2] of the universe and universal reality.
    [Show full text]
  • Dersica NOTAS DE FÍSICA É Uma Pré-Publicaçso De Trabalhos Em Física Do CBPF
    CBPF deRsica NOTAS DE FÍSICA é uma pré-publicaçSo de trabalhos em Física do CBPF NOTAS DE FÍSICA is a series of preprints from CBPF Pedidos de copies desta publicação devem ser enviados aos autores ou à: Requests for free copies of these reports should be addressed to: Drvbèo de Publicações do CBPF-CNPq Av. Wenceslau Braz, 71 - Fundos 22.290 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ. Brasil CBPF-NF-38/82 ON EXPERIMENTS TO DETECT POSSIBLE FAILURES OF RELATIVITY THEORY by U. A. Rodrigues1 and J. Tioano Ctntro BratiitirO dê Ptsquisas Físicas - CBPF/CNPq Rua XavUr Sigaud, ISO 22290 - Rfo dt Jantiro, RJ. - BRASIL * Instituto dt MatMitica IMECC - ONICAMP Caixa Postal 61SS 13100 - Canpinas, SP. - BRASIL ABSTRACT: condition* under which 41 may expect failure of Einstein's Relativity, ^^also give a comple te analysis of a recently proposed experiment by Kolen— Torr showing that it must give a negative result, ta 1. INTRODUCTION A number of experiments have been proposed or reported which supposedly would detect the motion of the laboratory relative to a preferential frame SQ (the ether), thus provinding an experi- mental distinction between the so called "Lorentz" Ether Theory and Einstein Theory of Relativity. Much of the confusion on the subject, as correctly identified (2) by Tyapkin . (where references until 1973 can be found) is pos- 3 nesiblw possibility due to Miller*y to tes* twh expexrifipentallo 4# 1957 startey relativityd a discussio. nH eo f asuggeste seeminglyd comparing the Doppler shift of two-maser beams whose atoms move in opposite directions. His calculation of the Doppler shift on the basis of pre-relativistic physics/ gave rise to the appearance of a term linearly dependent upon the velocity v of the labora- tory sytem moving with respect to the ether.
    [Show full text]
  • The Controversy on the Conceptual Foundation of Space-Time Geometry
    한국수학사학회지 제22권 제3호(2009년 8월), 273 - 292 The Controversy on the Conceptual Foundation of Space-Time Geometry Yonsei University Yang, Kyoung-Eun [email protected] According to historical commentators such as Newton and Einstein, bodily behaviors are causally explained by the geometrical structure of space-time whose existence analogous to that of material substance. This essay challenges this conventional wisdom of interpreting space-time geometry within both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. By tracing recent historical studies on the interpretation of space-time geometry, I defends that space-time structure is a by-product of a more fundamental fact, the laws of motion. From this perspective, I will argue that the causal properties of space-time cannot provide an adequate account of the theory-change from Newtoninan to Einsteinian physics. key words: Space-Time Geometry, Substantivalism, Curved Space-Time, The Theory-Change from Newtonian Physics to Einsteinian Physics 1. Introduction The theory-change from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics is viewed by philosophers of science, historians and even physicists as an eloquent example of scientific revolution. According to the physicist Max Born, it signifies the ‘Einsteinian revolution,’ (Born 1965, 2) while the philosopher Karl Popper is of the view that Einstein ‘revolutionised physics.’ (Withrow 1967, 25) Thomas Kuhn, on his part, holds in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that the theory-change from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics provides a strong case for the occurrence of a revolution with obvious ‘paradigm changes.’ (Kuhn 1962): One [set of scientists] is embedded in a flat, the other in a curved, matrix of space. Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of - 273 - The Controversy on the Conceptual Foundation of Space-Time Geometry scientists see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics 305, Fall 2008 Problem Set 8 Due Thursday, December 3
    Physics 305, Fall 2008 Problem Set 8 due Thursday, December 3 1. Einstein A and B coefficients (25 pts): This problem is to make sure that you have read and understood Griffiths 9.3.1. Consider a system that consists of atoms with two energy levels E1 and E2 and a thermal gas of photons. There are N1 atoms with energy E1, N2 atoms with energy E2 and the energy density of photons with frequency ! = (E2 − E1)=~ is W (!). In thermal equilbrium at temperature T , W is given by the Planck distribution: ~!3 1 W (!) = 2 3 : π c exp(~!=kBT ) − 1 According to Einstein, this formula can be understood by assuming the following rules for the interaction between the atoms and the photons • Atoms with energy E1 can absorb a photon and make a transition to the excited state with energy E2; the probability per unit time for this transition to take place is proportional to W (!), and therefore given by Pabs = B12W (!) for some constant B12. • Atoms with energy E2 can make a transition to the lower energy state via stimulated emission of a photon. The probability per unit time for this to happen is Pstim = B21W (!) for some constant B21. • Atoms with energy E2 can also fall back into the lower energy state via spontaneous emission. The probability per unit time for spontaneous emission is independent of W (!). Let's call this probability Pspont = A21 : A21, B21, and B12 are known as Einstein coefficients. a. Write a differential equation for the time dependence of the occupation numbers N1 and N2.
    [Show full text]
  • Inis: Terminology Charts
    IAEA-INIS-13A(Rev.0) XA0400071 INIS: TERMINOLOGY CHARTS agree INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, AUGUST 1970 INISs TERMINOLOGY CHARTS TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ... ......... *.* 1 PREFACE 2 INTRODUCTION ... .... *a ... oo 3 LIST OF SUBJECT FIELDS REPRESENTED BY THE CHARTS ........ 5 GENERAL DESCRIPTOR INDEX ................ 9*999.9o.ooo .... 7 FOREWORD This document is one in a series of publications known as the INIS Reference Series. It is to be used in conjunction with the indexing manual 1) and the thesaurus 2) for the preparation of INIS input by national and regional centrea. The thesaurus and terminology charts in their first edition (Rev.0) were produced as the result of an agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). Except for minor changesq the terminology and the interrela- tionships btween rms are those of the December 1969 edition of the Euratom Thesaurus 3) In all matters of subject indexing and ontrol, the IAEA followed the recommendations of Euratom for these charts. Credit and responsibility for the present version of these charts must go to Euratom. Suggestions for improvement from all interested parties. particularly those that are contributing to or utilizing the INIS magnetic-tape services are welcomed. These should be addressed to: The Thesaurus Speoialist/INIS Section Division of Scientific and Tohnioal Information International Atomic Energy Agency P.O. Box 590 A-1011 Vienna, Austria International Atomic Energy Agency Division of Sientific and Technical Information INIS Section June 1970 1) IAEA-INIS-12 (INIS: Manual for Indexing) 2) IAEA-INIS-13 (INIS: Thesaurus) 3) EURATOM Thesaurusq, Euratom Nuclear Documentation System.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein, Nordström and the Early Demise of Scalar, Lorentz Covariant Theories of Gravitation
    JOHN D. NORTON EINSTEIN, NORDSTRÖM AND THE EARLY DEMISE OF SCALAR, LORENTZ COVARIANT THEORIES OF GRAVITATION 1. INTRODUCTION The advent of the special theory of relativity in 1905 brought many problems for the physics community. One, it seemed, would not be a great source of trouble. It was the problem of reconciling Newtonian gravitation theory with the new theory of space and time. Indeed it seemed that Newtonian theory could be rendered compatible with special relativity by any number of small modifications, each of which would be unlikely to lead to any significant deviations from the empirically testable conse- quences of Newtonian theory.1 Einstein’s response to this problem is now legend. He decided almost immediately to abandon the search for a Lorentz covariant gravitation theory, for he had failed to construct such a theory that was compatible with the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Positing what he later called the principle of equivalence, he decided that gravitation theory held the key to repairing what he perceived as the defect of the special theory of relativity—its relativity principle failed to apply to accelerated motion. He advanced a novel gravitation theory in which the gravitational potential was the now variable speed of light and in which special relativity held only as a limiting case. It is almost impossible for modern readers to view this story with their vision unclouded by the knowledge that Einstein’s fantastic 1907 speculations would lead to his greatest scientific success, the general theory of relativity. Yet, as we shall see, in 1 In the historical period under consideration, there was no single label for a gravitation theory compat- ible with special relativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract the Paper Is an Introduction Into General Ether Theory (GET
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CERN Document Server Abstract The paper is an introduction into General Ether Theory (GET). We start with few assumptions about an universal “ether” in a New- tonian space-time which fulfils i @tρ + @i(ρv )=0 j i j ij @t(ρv )+@i(ρv v + p )=0 For an “effective metric” gµν we derive a Lagrangian where the Einstein equivalence principle is fulfilled: −1 00 11 22 33 √ L = LGR − (8πG) (Υg − Ξ(g + g + g )) −g We consider predictions (stable frozen stars instead of black holes, big bounce instead of big bang singularity, a dark matter term), quan- tization (regularization by an atomic ether, superposition of gravita- tional fields), related methodological questions (covariance, EPR cri- terion, Bohmian mechanics). 1 General Ether Theory Ilja Schmelzer∗ February 5, 2000 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 General Ether Theory 5 2.1Thematerialpropertiesoftheether............... 5 2.2Conservationlaws......................... 6 2.3Lagrangeformalism........................ 7 3 Simple properties 9 3.1Energy-momentumtensor.................... 9 3.2Constraints............................ 10 4 Derivation of the Einstein equivalence principle 11 4.1 Higher order approximations in a Lagrange formalism . 13 4.2 Weakening the assumptions about the Lagrange formalism . 14 4.3Explanatorypowerofthederivation............... 15 5 Does usual matter fit into the GET scheme? 15 5.1TheroleoftheEinsteinLagrangian............... 16 5.2TheroleofLorentzsymmetry.................. 16 5.3Existingresearchaboutthesimilarity.............. 17 6 Comparison with RTG 18 ∗WIAS Berlin 2 7 Comparison with GR with four dark matter fields 19 8 Comparison with General Relativity 20 8.1Darkmatterandenergyconditions............... 20 8.2Homogeneousuniverse:nobigbangsingularity........ 21 8.3Isthereindependentevidenceforinflationtheory?....... 22 8.4Anewdarkmatterterm....................
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Radiative Transfer
    RADIATIVE PROCESSE S IN ASTROPHYSICS GEORGE B. RYBICKI, ALAN P. LIGHTMAN Copyright 0 2004 WY-VCHVerlag GmbH L Co. KCaA FUNDAMENTALS OF RADIATIVE TRANSFER 1.1 THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM; ELEMENTARY PROPERTIES OF RADIATION Electromagnetic radiation can be decomposed into a spectrum of con- stituent components by a prism, grating, or other devices, as was dis- covered quite early (Newton, 1672, with visible light). The spectrum corresponds to waves of various wavelengths and frequencies, related by Xv=c, where v is the frequency of the wave, h is its wavelength, and c-3.00~10" cm s-I is the free space velocity of light. (For waves not traveling in a vacuum, c is replaced by the appropriate velocity of the wave in the medium.) We can divide the spectrum up into various regions, as is done in Figure 1.1. For convenience we have given the energy E = hv and temperature T= E/k associated with each wavelength. Here h is Planck's constant = 6.625 X erg s, and k is Boltzmann's constant = 1.38 X erg K-I. This chart will prove to be quite useful in converting units or in getting a quick view of the relevant magnitude of quantities in a given portion of the spectrum. The boundaries between different regions are somewhat arbitrary, but conform to accepted usage. 1 2 Fundamentals of Radiatiw Transfer -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 log A (cm) Wavelength I I I I I log Y IHr) Frequency 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 I I I I I I I log Elev) Energy 43 21 0-1 I I 1 I I I log T("K)Temperature Y ray X-ray UV Visible IR Radio Figum 1.1 The electromagnetic spctnun.
    [Show full text]
  • Acknowledgements Acknowl
    1277 Acknowledgements Acknowl. A.1 The Properties of Light by Helen Wächter, Markus W. Sigrist by Richard Haglund The authors thank a number of coworkers for their The author thanks Prof. Emil Wolf for helpful discus- valuable input, notably R. Bartlome, Dr. C. Fischer, sions, and gratefully acknowledges the financial support D. Marinov, Dr. J. Rey, M. Stahel, and Dr. D. Vogler. of a Senior Scientist Award from the Alexander von The financial support by the Swiss National Science Humboldt Foundation and of the Medical Free-Electron Foundation and ETH Zurich for the isotopomer studies Laser program of the Department of Defense (Con- is gratefully acknowledged. tract F49620-01-1-0429) during the preparation of this chapter. by Jürgen Helmcke In writing the chapter on frequency-stabilized lasers, A.4 Nonlinear Optics the author has greatly benefited from fruitful coopera- by Aleksei Zheltikov, Anne L’Huillier, Ferenc Krausz tion and helpful discussions with his colleagues at PTB, We acknowledge the support of the European Com- in particular with Drs. Fritz Riehle, Harald Schnatz, munity’s Human Potential Programme under contract Uwe Sterr, and Harald Telle. Special thanks belong to HPRN-CT-2000-00133 (ATTO) and the Swedish Sci- Dr. Fritz Riehle for his careful and critical reading of the ence Council. manuscript. Part of the work discussed in this chapter was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft A.5 Optical Materials and Their Properties (DFG) under SFB 407. by Klaus Bonrad The author of Sect. 5.9.2 is grateful to Dr. Thomas C.12 Femtosecond Laser Pulses: Däubler, Dr. Dirk Hertel, and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Relativity for Economics Students
    Special Relativity for Economics Students Takao Fujimoto, Dept of Econ, Fukuoka University (submitted to this Journal: 28th, April, 2006 ) 1Introduction In this note, an elementary account of special relativity is given. The knowledge of basic calculus is enough to understand the theory. In fact we do not use differentiation until we get to the part of composition of velocities. If you can accept the two hypotheses by Einstein, you may skip directly to Section 5. The following three sections are to explain that light is somehow different from sound, and thus compels us to make further assumptions about the nature of matter, if we stick to the existence of static ubiquitous ether as the medium of light. There is nothing original here. I have collected from various sources the parts which seem within the capacity of the average economics students. I heavily draws upon Harrison ([4]). And yet, something new in the way of exposition may be found in the subsections 5.4 and 6.1. Thus the reader can reach an important formula by Einstein that E = mc2 with all the necessary mathematical steps displayed explicitly. Thanks are due to a great friend of mine, Makoto Ogawa, for his comments. He read this note while he was travelling on the train between Tokyo and Niigata at an average speed of 150km/h. 2 An Experiment Using Sound We use the following symbols: c =speedoflight; s = speed of sound; V = velocity of another frame; x =positioninx-coordinate; t =time; 0 = value in another frame; V 2 β 1 2 ≡ r − c (Occasionally, some variables observed in another frame(O0) appear without a prime (0) to avoid complicated display of equations.) 1 2 Consider the following experiment depicted in Fig.1.
    [Show full text]