Properties of elysons and of the elysium

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[JR] "I just don't see how the idea that light as transverse waves in vacuuo can be squared with what else we assume that we know about the nature of light."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And it would be especially difficult to explain polarization without transverse waves, because it has no counterpart in longitudinal waves. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I knew that statement was going to generate a good counterargument. But suppose that what we interpret as a transverse wave is actually a series of longitudinal waves whose source is travelling back and forth perpendicular to the direction of the apparent transverse wave.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />suppose that what we interpret as a transverse wave is actually a series of short longitudinal waves whose source is travelling back and forth perpendicular to the direction of the waves.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Nice try. But we can add a polarizing filter at any point along the wave's propagation path. In fact, two perpendicular linear polarizers will cancel the entire light signal.

These are some of the reasons why few physicists these days challenge the idea that light is a transverse wave. Our inquiries into the true nature of light have therefore been forced into the mode of thinking that light may be both transverse and longitudinal. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />suppose that what we interpret as a transverse wave is actually a series of short longitudinal waves whose source is travelling back and forth perpendicular to the direction of the waves.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Nice try. But we can add a polarizing filter at any point along the wave's propagation path. In fact, two perpendicular linear polarizers will cancel the entire light signal.

These are some of the reasons why few physicists these days challenge the idea that light is a transverse wave. Our inquiries into the true nature of light have therefore been forced into the mode of thinking that light may be both transverse and longitudinal. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Insisting that its really both just sounds too much like the old particle/wave duality.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />And the wave interference result of the double slit experiment requires light waves to be longitudinal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not necessarily. Transverse waves are just as capable of producing interference fringes as are longitudinal. And the photo-electrons released can simply be the result of a frequency resonsnce between the light and an electron in some atom, causing the electron to jump orbitals or escape.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Insisting that its really both sounds akin to the old particle/wave duality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Light seems to have both kinds of pproperties, the photoelectric effect being an example of an apparent particle property. But as I described, we can explain it with transverse waves too. What do you see longitudinal waves doing for light that transverse waves cannot do? Or do you question that transverse waves can cause interference? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />And the wave interference result of the double slit experiment requires light waves to be longitudinal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not necessarily. Transverse waves are just as capable of producing interference fringes as are longitudinal. And the photo-electrons released can simply be the result of a frequency resonsnce between the light and an electron in some atom, causing the electron to jump orbitals or escape.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sorry, I realized my statement was incorrect and revised my post but you were already preparing a response.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Light seems to have both kinds of pproperties, the photoelectric effect being an example of an apparent particle property. But as I described, we can explain it with transverse waves too. What do you see longitudinal waves doing for light that transverse waves cannot do? Or do you question that transverse waves can cause interference? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Clearly, it's difficult to reconcile what we believe are the properties of light and what we believe should be the properties of elysium. Longitudinal waves provide more degrees of freedom in trying to model elysium. It seems prudent to reexamine some of the assumptions about light to see if we aren't following a dead end. Maybe the answers seem so difficult to come by because one of our basic assumptions about light is completely wrong.

JR

FWIW, interesting post here [url] groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.elec...6?dmode=source&hl=en [/url] by Paul Stowe attempting to quantify properties of the "ether" using wave propagation speed and other parameters.

JR