Inverse Doppler Effect, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news4224.html

http://www.physorg.com/news4224.html

Although a fascinating effect that will open an important window for further investigation, the article appears to miss some salient aspects:
The non-linear self-interference causing the increasing frequency of induced EM radiation seems to have nothing to do with lightspeed - higher frequency implies higher energy and not velocity of propagation. Also, the reference to

My reply again truncated by a faulty processing on this site! I fail to understand why this repetitive frustration cannot be corrected as it is a CONSISTENT FAULT. To the Physorg Team: thanks for your wonderful site and the opportunities it offers, but please, fix this fault?
(Admin: It's fixed. Thanks.)

Although a fascinating effect that will open an important window for further investigation, the article appears to miss some salient aspects:
The non-linear self-interference causing the increasing frequency of induced EM radiation seems to have nothing to do with lightspeed - higher frequency implies higher energy and not velocity of propagation.

Also, the reference to "power flowing" (in a particular direction) is incorrect: power does not flow, it is only current that flows with power resulting from complex impedance in a conductive path. Real power results from current flow interacting with ohmic resistance and reactive power from reactive path components - although real and reactive power (the latter in an orthogonal "imaginary" domain) may be brought into relation by a j-operator, these powers only have magnitude and no flow vectors or real physical directionality at all. Although the idea of power flowing may be colloquially common parlance, technically it is incorrect and a misnomer.

The article also does not begin to address any empirically observable phenomenology hinting at a relationship between the velocity of light (light-speed) and the physics of the inverse doppler effect. Perhaps the title is also just a manner of speaking...

Okay Dokay. So I am dumb.

Well, light speed in media is not light speed in free space (186000 miles per second, or so, if I didn't miss a decimal point.)

So, using a non free space transmission line, a person could control the speed of light and using this could investigate silly ass things like inverse doppler effects.

Note here, Left hand rule and Right hand rule has been a fight across at least 50 years between physics and electronics people. Does current flow negitive to positive, or the reverse.
Silly crap like this is the reason that many people give up and stick their head in electric stoves*.
(*not that there is anything wrong with that.)

I am not really understand about this "inverse doppler effects". But then, I think it's cool to have someone revolt against the law of nature. Yes, we must control our own fate and life. There's only one thing I wonder; if we decide not to obey the law of nature, what will happen? Will it be a catasthrope? the imbalance of system? or will we become so powerful that we can claim ourselves GOD?

Sorry about this, but I believe that this inverse doppler effects don't have any use for us. I mean, what are the new possibilities? Can someone mentioned them?

I don't think we can call this a "revolt against the laws of nature". It's just like the thing with negative-index-of-refraction material. The behavior is governed by more variables than most cases need to account for. This is one case where we do need to account for it, because it affects the behavior in a significant way.

wanderer -

Please, enough w/ the G_d stuff. Let's reserve this thread for a discussion of cool physics and keep things on THIS temporal plane.

WB, absolutely on the money. Negative refraction, inverse doppler, fermionic condensates, etc. are all pushing the limits of known physics, but all were predicted decades earlier. I think this is more a case of experimental physicists and chemists not having expanded their fields of view as widely as the theoreticians.

See my earlier post as reference. Injection of a current pulse into a transmission line induces electromagnetic radiation which has spatiotemporally increasing phase-frequency relationships along the line - exactly the inverse of the classical doppler effect.

For our purposes here, this EM radiation is related to the Poynting component according to standard Maxwellian electrodynamics and we won't involve the Heaviside dark current component. This radiation has frequency-energy relationships which are well determined by Planck quantisation constant h: higher energy photons generate higher frequency radiation. The energy of a quantum of radiation = the frequency of that radiation times that constant. E = hv. Therefore the higher the frequency of a photon is, the more energy it carries – a reason why ultraviolet radiation in the range of UV-A and UV-B cause a tanning effect in eliciting pigment formation in the skin, a defensive compensation by the skin to limit damage, but UV-C would seriously damage skin and is used for equipment sterilisation.

Point One: This photonic energy has however nothing to do with the velocity of a resulting photonic stream (perceivable as light) in the case of actual photo-emission (the photoelectric / photoemissive effect as first noticed by Hertz and solved by Einstein). In the same air medium, for example, UV-A, UV-B or UV-C photons all travel at the same velocity. Lightspeed, or photon-velocity, is simply media-related and is obviously inversely related to media-density, giving rise to the phenomena and laws of refraction (Snell's Law) - in vacuo this velocity reaches its ultimate as measured by e.g. Woods et al. as 299 792,4588 km/s and ratified by international commision. Again, I accentuate, an injection of current pulses into a metallic transmission line is well capable of demonstrating the inverse doppler effect, and at high enough intensity even capable of causing photoemission in the right materials - it is not however capable of controlling the velocity of externalised photons exceeding the Fermi level reigning at the surface of the subject material. If we are talking about controlling photon speed then we can indeed do that with simpler means, e.g. by cooling down atoms with confocal lasers and we have indeed succeeded in slowing light down to a crawl of a few cm/s this way.

Point Two: the direction of "current" in actual reality consists of the flow-vector of actual, real electrons, known to travel from the anode to cathode of a source of e.m.f. such as a battery or generator. The "conventional current" which is used to teach simple electrodynamics and was derived as a model in the 18th Century (Franklin; Oersted; Ampere; Faraday) before electrons were actually discovered by J.J. Thompson in 1897, was defined as flowing from the positive to the negative pole of an electromotive source. The left and right-hand rules as used to teach motors and generators assume conventional current and their principles are as easily understood in actual electron flow which is the inverse. This is not some contentious issue, as alleged by "Icicle" in a previous post, such as where scientists and physicists are endlessly arguing over the "actual" direction of electric current. Such a statement is patently ridiculous and can only be made by an ignoramus.

Although I can well understand "confusion," arising from a lack of knowledge, it irks me that for some personalities this automatically seems to need some unbridled fulminating in ad hominem remarks. Enfin, ignorance was always accompanied by arrogance, was it not. I could refer the address of a good source of electric stoves (although a less painful suicide is normally effected in gas stoves and I thought this was more commonly known) - the electric self-immolation idea must have originated with the fuming importance of electricity being the subject here. Humbleness to me, has always been the mark of true nobility, something to strive for. All truly great scientists have been eminent examples of that.

Minor Correction - electron current travels from - to +, from cathode to anode of an electromotive source. Conventional current is simply its inverse and theoretical as it does not consist of real entities.

Except (and I am being petty) in chemical solution (batteries).


Damn, the head in the electric stove joke did not go over well, I suppose Alanis Morrisette was right in her litte sarcastic song, some things are ionic.

I am positive.

Hello?

Perhaps this is not the place for poetic expression but then syntagmatic signification in the form of lexemised serial acoustic output expressing an underlying cognitive process is highly scientific so, (tongue firmly in cheek) here goes just for once:

An ionic Icycle
left on a frigid bicycle
vectored from A to B

I see, he opined laconically
it's all so relative, you see
It's actually the surface underneath
that propagates reciprocally
and when it slides from B to A
I get closer to my destiny

Now when the hydrocycle
reverses in its modality
the oceans rain and clouds absorb
holes left behind by drops

And when our logic really flops
a cathode could be positive
when what we mean
is an ode to Cath
who has an exuberant personality

FV

Well, I would say you just about snowed me under with that one.

So, I am guessing here, I now have only one thumb to remember.
That is good, the education I was supposed to have gotten back in the 50s and 60s has been a source of confusion to me for years.

Seems to me (lay person) that a reverse doppler effect could -
allow data/electronic signal propogation without loss of signal - regardless of original signal strength.

Could it also be used to amplify (at no or very little energy cost) extremeley weak signals - such as the one Voyager is sending? setup a system to resonate to the weak signal, use reverse doppler to strengthen the signal?

maybe secure data transmission?
using the above idea, send a very weak signal of a known (to sender/receiver) frequency - use reverse doppler to isolate it from large levels of background noise.

I understand the article as describing emf wave propagation both destructive and constructive by doppler effects.

I dont believe the article is indicating the speed of light can be controlled.

Camel, RDE (to abbrev Reverse Doppler Effect) cannot be used for signal amplification in any way that I can conceive. Amplification is a process that is easiest modelled by the lever principle, where the amplitude of an input force (read signal) is increased to a larger amplitude (output signal) at the working end of a lever. Electronically this may be accomplished by transistors in which an electronic analogue of mechanical amplification operates: e.g. in bipolar transistors a small signal applied to the base electrode can be enormously amplified to a large signal output at the collector when the emitter is in common between the input and output circuits. The same principle may be implemented using other transistor types, e.g MOS; and in other systems, e.g. magnetic amplifiers, or fluidics (uncommon).
Signal processing involves many different stages, such as level shifting, conditioning, clamping, amplification, phase shifting, modulation, filtering, impedance matching, etc. An interesting form of amplifying very tiny signals is stochastic amplification, where the presence, or addition of a noise source accompanying the signal can bring a tiny signal amplitude to cross the minimum sensitivity threshold of the amplification circuitry. This is sometimes used for the detection and amplification of infinitesimal bio-electrical signals in living cells, or in electromagnetic phenomena, but can sometimes also be perceived to operate in ordinary human sensor reception. To be noted is that the human retina is sensitive to single photon impingement. Practical applications of RDE are of course conjectural and wide open, potentially, and I'm guessing here, it could be used for frequency conversion or signal transduction.

As an example of the sensitivity of radio-reception dishes used for spaceprobe communications, here are some data for the Tidbinbilla 70 metre diameter dish near Canberra in Australia which is used by NASA. The theoretical maximum signal amplification is 39 200 000 (or 75,9 dB) with a pointing accuracy of 0,005 degrees, or 0,3 minutes of arc. For a spaceprobe out at the distance of Pluto with a 3W (watt) transmitter and a one metre dish, the effective radiated power is 23 400W (because of the dish's focusing amplification) - with Tidbinbilla's receiver sensitivity of 4,3E-24W/metre squared, its antenna has a reach of about 3,4 times the distance to Pluto at the transmitted signal strength quoted (~2E10 km.) This design therefore can reach about three times or so to the distance of the outermost planets, unless a probe is equipped with a more powerful transmitter.

Electromagnetic signal communication of course travels at the speed of light, c, around 300 000km/s and at large intersolar distances this can mean signal delays of hours. Controlling a crawler on the Martian surface by monitoring its movements and remote-controlling it in realtime is therefore utterly impossible. By the time you see it approaching a cliff-edge or some other dangerous feature and send it a "stop" signal, this will arrive long after it has damaged or destroyed itself. Autonomous navigation based upon built-in software strategy and planned routes and navigation goals is therefore vital. This is where large measures of artifical intelligence are needed.

Hope that gives you a bit of a picture.
FV

Hmm, does nonlinear transmittion line mean that the resistance of the line varies with the cross section. ie the resistance at the center is less than the edge? If so the it would be like some fiber optic cables that vary the index of refraction.

Would this not also mean that the nonlinear line would act like a choke and only transmit certain frequencies effectively?