Harry Veeder wrote: > > I reviewed the sagnac experiment here: > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > > I might be wrong about this, but doesn't any experiment, let alone > sagnac's experiment, which yields an intereference-like effect is > inconsistent with a ballistic theory of light?
Oh, I don't know. That's sort of like the argument that there can't be an aether because it would have to be really rigid to carry vibrations at C, but it would also have to be really floppy and tenuous so that planets can push through it without a problem, and since it can't be both, there can't be an aether. It's an appealing argument, but really all it says is that if there's an aether it's got some seriously weird properties. Obviously if light is a particle, it's a *weird* particle, not at all like a tiny baseball; baseballs don't show interference effects. But I suppose, if we wanted to claim light is just a particle with no wave nature, we could imagine something like this: Photons spin as they travel, and two photons annihilate when they meet if they're oriented appropriately. Doesn't explain all QM effects by a long stretch but it gets you at least part way to first base. > > However, as I stressed in my earlier post, the quality of being a > particle and the property of inertia do not necessarily have to go hand > in hand, although the term ballistic suggests they must. Light may be a > particle without necessarily being a ballistic particle. In that regard, > the ballistic theory of light might be called a _naive_ particle theory > of light. Yes, exactly -- in fact the main feature of the "ballistic" theory which causes trouble is just the "muzzle velocity" of the photons. In ordinary ballistics the observed velocity of a projectile is the muzzle velocity, plus the velocity of the gun which fired them. The Sagnac experiment shows that's not quite right for photons. > > Harry >
