2020-02-05 22:51:38 UTC
now solid, and IMO, deserves consideration. This followup replaces
frequency and wavelength definitions echoing those of wave models with
definitions based purely on particulate properties.]
There are numerous experimental tests that purport to confirm Special
Relativity theory and/or refute what the testers and their reviewers
call emission theory, but those examining doppler shift all seem to
depend on the assumption that emission theory predicts wavelength
constancy even when source and observer are in relative motion.
That assumption is pretty thin. Any theory predicting so is falsified
by the very existence of doppler shift in light. There's no ground for
denying that; therefore no such theory is viable, and there's no reason
to bother with disproving it. Or even mentioning it, in my view.
Proceeding without that assumption however, is much more interesting.
A considered emission theory must define frequency and wavelength on
Frequency : spin rate; ie, the number of revolutions per unit time;
Wavelength: linear distance travelled during one revolution
but those definitions clearly imply constancy. Neither changes as a
result of relative motion betweem source and observer, but the observer
experiences change: a considered emission theory must account for that.
What the observer experiences is the objective wavelength altered by
the change in distance between source and observer while one wavelength
passes; in other words, changed inversely as the speed. It is given by
a quantity which as far as I can tell has never been mooted before:
Apparent Wavelength: the quotient of the speed and the frequency.
Given v = v * (c + v) / c, that gives
lambda = (v * (c + v) / c) / f
= v / f * (c + v) / c
= lambda * c / (c + v)
In other words, a considered emission theory must necessarily define a
wavelength doppler shift factor of c / (c + v), which is the inverse of
the speed change. The conventional assumption turns out to be false.
Doppler shift tests that purport to falsify emission theory are therefore
invalidly and incorrectly interpreted. Their results should be reexamined,
specifically to determine whether within the bounds of experimental error
they are actually consistent with the predictions of just one of SR and
As well, the teaching should be amended, and the hidden variable revealed.
 the predicted wavelength measurement