Wave or Particle Confusion
This article explains the difference between the beam direction of light and the ray direction. The beam direction describes the real motion of light, observable only in a focused beam. The ray direction is relevant in coherent systems where orientations of wave fronts are detected, or generated, based on phase. The difference is therefore the relevance of the ether wind’s component that is falling inside the plane of the wave fronts. By regarding this important difference, we can conclude that we do not need the particle model for light.
The behavior of electrons
In the experiment with the photoelectric effect there is observed a kinetic electron energy, hf, proportional to frequency in monochrome light, that is illuminating a crystal and causing electrons to escape. In contrast to public opinion this kinetic energy can be assumed to exist in the electron in advance. The light can thereby be assumed to change potential energy by a force ortogonal to electron motion. An interference between a light wave and an electron particle orbiting with the frequency f can thereby explain how an electron can escape its atom.
In the same way an X-ray wave packet can cause an electron to escape its atom in the experiment called the Compton effect. When this escaping electron is captured by another atom a new X-ray wave packet (of lower frequency) is produced. We find that the Compton effect is explained by an electron moving from one atom to another atom. According to this interpretation Planck’s constant, h, appears to represent an electron property, rather than a property of light. Therefore, we can regard light to be described as waves only. The particle model for light is not plausible, since this model predicts a particle moving towards a crystal, in the photoelectric effect, to cause another particle to move away from the crystal.
The behavior of light waves
The real motion of light is a vector sum of wave velocity and ether wind. The wave velocity is a process propagating inside the ether with the speed of the ether wind. The wave velocity is many orders of magnitude larger than the ether wind. If light is focused into a beam we can observe the beam direction as the direction of maximum light intensity. The direction of a beam represents motion.
In coherent systems the situation is very different and based on phase and not intensity. This means that we instead detect wave front orientation and transverse ether wind becomes irrelevant. This orientation is represented by the wave vector, or the ray direction, always ortogonal to the wave fronts. The wave vector, c, in the ray direction is a practical tool, but it is the wave front that has the physical reality. The ray direction represents orientation of wave fronts.
The confusion
The difference between beam (motion) and ray (orientation) seems to be unnoticed and these concepts have been regarded as identical. A probable reason to this is thinking in terms of particles, instead of in waves. We have therefore not observed the irrelevance of transverse ether wind in coherent systems. Transverse ether wind affects beam direction but not ray direction, and orientation of wave fronts is conserved. Ray direction can only be changed by means of a gradient in longitudinal ether wind.
Beam direction is c+v, but this is visible in focused beams only. In coherent systems light is instead visible as propagating according to ray direction as c(1+w/c), with w as component in v parallel to c. This represents not a difference in light behavior, but a difference regarding how light is detected (or generated).
Michelson and Morley
In interferometers and in laser cavities wave fronts are defined by orientation of mirrors and ether wind. Therefore, moving a test equipment inside the plane of these mirrors (and wave fronts) is irrelevant for light behavior, and wave front orientation (and ray direction) is conserved. Since ray direction is conserved, there can be no effect of the ether wind in the transverse arm in MMX. Stokes was therefore wrong when he introduced such an effect, and thereby spoiled Michelson’s prediction for MMX. He was probably influenced by the particle model for light. Stokes regarded c+v to be ortogonal to mirrors (instead of c only). Einstein repeated this error in his light clock, (that always moved transverse to light direction).
No effect in transverse arm in MMX means that we can avoid time dilation, and we can instead use a contraction of physical bodies 2 times the Lorentz contraction. The greater value on this contraction means that the reduction of 2-way light speed is compensated by this contraction. Compensated effect in longitudinal arm and no effect in transverse arm means that MMX becomes useless in relation to the ether wind.
Stellar aberration
By realizing that the ray direction is relevant in telescopes we can see that transverse ether wind cannot bend a wave font and not cause stellar aberration. Independent of the ether wind stellar aberration arises when motion along the ray direction is transformed from the frame of our sun to the frame of our planet. The same motion must have a new representation in the new frame. The same would be true if we used a particle track instead of a light ray. The same is also true for pulsar aberration, which is demonstrated by the fact that pulsar signals from a leading VLBI telescope are arriving about 4.2 microseconds earlier than those from the other telescope. Stellar aberration is useless in relation to the ether wind.
No time dilation
The behavior of GPS clocks can be explained by clock dilation instead of time dilation. Since electrons in the clocks move forth and back in relation the ether wind we have reason to suspect that this ether wind can cause a second order effect on the clock frequency.
The global positioning system
In contrast to MMX and stellar aberration the GPS systems is useful in relation to the ether wind. The reason is that 1-way light speed is the basis for measurements in GPS. An earth centered inertial frame can explain GPS functionality. However, we cannot assume our own planet to entrain the ether in the whole Universe. Therefore, we must use a local field instead of a frame, and that field must have spherical symmetry to explain the high precision in GPS. We can conclude this by regarding that all GPS transmitters are positioned on a spherical surface, and all receivers are on another sphere concentric to the first one.
Detecting the ether wind
The existence of the ether is proved by the Sagnac effect and the GPS results, together with experiments done by Ruyong Wang, whereby he measured velocity with the ether as the only reference.
An interesting method for measuring ether wind has been suggested by Dr C C Su. Two HeNe lasers are connected over a couple of meters to an interferometer. The equipment is mounted on an advanced platform, and phase changes are registered when direction of measurement is changed in elevation and in azimuth.
The falling ether
An ether wind in radial direction in relation to Earth can explain gravity. Since our planet is in a free fall we normally see only gravity from our own planet. However, there are some exceptions to this rule that occur when the point mass approximation is not valid. One example is tidal effects when gravity from Sun and Moon are not the same all over our planet. Another example is anomalies in gravity during solar eclipses. This effect is caused by the fact that combined gravity from Sun and Moon is not the same all over our planet.
Conclusions
- Light is waves, not particles
- GPS is useable, but MMX and stellar aberration are not.
- A falling ether can explain gravity.
- A falling ether can explain clock dilation, (instead of GRT).
- A falling ether can explain light bending near Sun by a gradient in longitudinal ether wind.
- A falling ether can explain the Pioneer anomaly.
John-Erik Persson
Written by John-Erik Persson
The wave or particle confusion goes far beyond the nature of photons. Physics tells us that there is a wave nature to all matter. When this wave nature of matter and energy is fully extended it becomes apparent that only waves are fundamental and discrete particles are not possible on any scale.
Cornelis
Cornelis
There are no photons.
Yes, there is a confusion regarding matter also, but this article is only concerning light or electromagnetic waves. But your statement that matter is waves can not be proved. At least, you have not done that. Can you do that?
Do you have any comments to give regarding light as waves only?
Best regards from _______________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
To be correct there at no discrete particles. The term photons on the other hand is subject to the definition that they are energetic packets of waves of various number and duration.
By accepting light as transverse electromagnetic waves packets you have already committed yourself to the reality that the wave carrier is a unbroken tension field. So you yourself have by process of elimination proven that discrete particles of any kind can not move or even exist in such a carrier media.
Cornelis
Cornelis
Light can be described by the wave model only. This does not make all particles impossible.
Regards ___________________ John-Erik
The ongoing belief that discrete particles simply exist with inherent mass, or in some cases even charge, is the true cause of the “Wave or Particle Confusion”. The realization that the particle like behavior of light is explained by waves alone is only half a solution. The full solution is the realization that all discrete particles are emergent patterns of focused energetic waves in the single media that supports the propagation of energy. To be clear the “Wave or Particle Confusion” is perpetuated by the misconception that particles exist as “discrete” entities. The media must be continuous and unbroken in order to sustain the wave properties of light.
Cornelis
Cornelis
My article was about confusion regarding light. You did not say anything about that. You have a habit of always talk about something else. You have not any logical motivation regarding confusion about matter. Light with wavelength about 10^-6 m may perhaps be united with atoms the size of about 10^-10 m. The difference is about 10^4 and that means that we cannot decide about matter in the way you do. We do not know.
Regards ________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
Despite your claim I did discuss the confusion about light.
“The realization that the particle like behavior of light is explained by waves alone is only half a solution.”
You can not effectively discuss “Wave or Particle Confusion” if you do not define both the wave particle.
You use the wavelength in meters so easily, totally ignoring the idea that the standard meter is itself defined by light.
“Today, the meter is defined to be the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds.”
To say “The difference is about 10^4 and that means that we cannot decide about matter in the way you do.” makes for a very weak argument, since we ultimately measure all dimension in relative to light.
It is interesting how many times in conversation that the statement “WE do not know” comes up in the place of what should be, I do not understand therefore neither can you.
Cornelis
Cornelis
I do not understand what you mean by stating that I ignore the meter definition?
Regards from ___________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
Your article is about wave or particle confusion.
Light is confused with particles because people do not believe particles exist as discrete entities.
Just like light is a wave packet so too are all particles wave packets.
If you fully understood the properties that must exist in the wave carrier media need to produce the geometries of light waves you would understand that such a media can only support waves and particles as of any kind (yes even those you claim exist as the cause of pushing gravity) could not exists.
Since you are “confused” about the mechanism required to create and sustain light wave geometry you fail recognize this.
When you correctly understand that discrete particles can not exist the “particle” part goes away and you no longer have a “wave or particle confusion” you just have waves.
In conclusion instead of eliminating the confusion you continue to perpetuate it.
Cornelis
Cornalis
No, it is only about light. I do not say a word about matter. Read it again and you will find that it is the title that is wrong. You make a very general statement about what ‘people’ believe a out light. X-rays and gamma-rays are generated by specific event and are therefore wave packets, but that does not mean that ALL light, and radio waves are wave packets.
You know very little about the media and cannot conclude that atoms are not possible. This does not depend on my confusion as you say.
Regarding light: I showed no particles. Regarding matter: you and I do not know. However, perhaps the wave behavior of matter is just ether waves produced by MOVING particles.
Regards ___________________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik
You are really missing the point. What we should know about the media is inferred by the behavior of light. The properties of the media needed to support waves excludes it from being composed of discrete MOVING particles. Discrete particles can not be exclusive of and yet exist in the same space as light bearing ether.
Cornelis
Cornelis
No, I only state that particles are not needed to describe light. Planck’s constant, h, can represent a property of electrons rather than of light. This does not mean that electrons are waves. This does not decide if ether is based on waves or of particles. By explaining the structure of light, you cannot automatically conclude that the same is valid for matter. I have not totally excluded particles just because they do not explain light.
Regards ___________________________________ John-Erik
John-Eric
Particles are not excluded because they do not explain light. They are excluded because a media (ether) that can support light can not support them. The subject of Planck’s constants are significant but because you do not understand the mecanisum behind this quantized behavior of nature it only adds fodder to conceal this confusion.
Cornelis
Cornelis
Waves need support of a media. Particles do not.
Planck’s constant is significant, but perhaps a property of the electron and not a property of light.
Regards ________________________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
Yes “waves” (light) “need support of a media”.
That media must be contiguous. Space filled with such a media can not also contain discrete particles. Contiguous and discrete do NOT go together!
Planck’s constant applies to the quantized change in energy and is not specific to the origin of the energy or the form the energy takes. So to say
“perhaps a property of the electron and not a property of light” is meaningless conjecture and again so much fodder.
Cornelis
Cornelis
The conflict between continuous and discrete models is a mathematical conflict between models. Reality can nevertheless be apparently continuous on a higher level and discrete on another much lower level; since our models are only APPROXIMATIONS to reality.
You are meaningless when stating me to be meaningless, and the reason is that you cannot show what is wrong or not. The factor hf in relation to photoelectric effect and the Compton effect is based on observations on MATTER in the form of electrons. Planck’s radiation law does not represent energy, and must first be INTEGRATED before it represents energy. That is important; Planck’s constant is not well defined.
Regards __________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
I agree that mathmatic models are and can be only an APPROXIMATION of reality that must be simulated in discrete increments.
But we are talking about real observed behaviors here, let us not confuse the issue more with mathematical models.
Observed behaviors of electrodynamincs, including the progation of light, dictate that the media of propagation (ether) must be continuous on all scales. Not recognizing the mecanisum required for the propagation of waves has lead to the many conflicting theories based on the impossibility that reality can be fundamentally particulate on its lowest level (ether).
Cornelis
Cornelis
No, I do not agree to your statement that the validity of the wave model for electrodynamics, including light, dictate the continuous wave model to forbid particles on ALL levels of scale. It is NOT legitimate to state an approximate relation to have infinite range of validity.
Regards ____________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik
It is impossible to derive a mecanisum for the creation of light wave geometries from disconnected discrete particles. You must have a media between them that coveys an attractive force. The purpose for ether was to satisfy this need. So what you propose is ether that is discrete particles with ether (more discrete particles) between them to convey an attractive force.
You can not have an attractive force without connection.
It IS legitimate to state an attractive relation to have infinite range of validity. Infinite connectivity is required for attraction and attraction is required for transverse waves.
Cornelis
Cornelis
No, I do not think that an approximate rule can be extended to all macro and micro levels.
The Fatio and Le Sage model assumes extremely small and fast particles to be moving in all directions. When this flow passes our planet a very small amount of them are captured. This can cause the force of gravity by a small disturbance that causes a pushing gravity.
Regards ________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
After saying “I do not think that an approximate rule can be extended to all macro and micro levels.” you attempt to do just that by extending the concept of discrete particles, sighting the assumed extremely small and fast particles of the Fatio and Le Sage model. These type of models have already been shown to have internal conflicts within themselves and have no possibility for supporting the attractive force required for the propagation of light.
The only rule that I have advocated to exist on all scales is that of attraction, not between discrete particles because they do not exist, but within the cohesive nature of the ether field itself. All forms of force, including apparent repulsion, can be derived from dynamic geometric gradient patterns of this force. This includes all forms of matter that diagnose to exist by their energetic interaction with other like dynamic geometric gradient patterns.
Cornelis
Cornelis
No, i am not extending a rule. I only talk about the existence of particles.
You said that: “All forms of force can be derived from dynamic geometric gradient patterns of this force.” You use force to define force. You also define physics by means of geometry. I cannot understand that. Do you?
Regards _______________________ John-Erik
John-Erik
Yes that is correct. I derive all higher level forces, matter and energy as dynamic geometric wave patterns within the single unbroken tension force field which is the carrier media that defines all of space (ether).
Many assume the existence of discrete particles (even to the point of sometimes considering light to be particulate, as you correctly argue against) based on energetic interactions of definable geometric patterns of self focusing waves energies. The wave pattern geometries present as focused gradients of mass and charge but are not discrete and can only move as coherent patterns of waves.
This builds on your subject of Wave or Particle Confusion and clarifies that not only light but the properties of mass and charge are also only wave geometries within the ether.
Cornelis
Cornelis
Waves need a media to do the waving. If you also say that media is based on waves you are doing circular reasoning.
The fact that ether can be waving on some level does not exclude the possibility that it has particle structure on some lower level.
There is no argument stating that mass and charge MUST be based on waves. You are only guessing here.
Regards __________________________ John-Erik
John-Eric,
Yes we need a media (and I have described it to you many times). That media is capable of propagating tension only. It is however impossible for the any media to be broken into pieces (discrete particles) at any level and still propagate tension. A disconnected media can not propagate tension and light waves require it to be fundamental to the media.
It is the behavior of light waves that excludes the possibility of a particulate carrier media.
Since the media must be continuous and unbroken ALL of reality must be realized as wave propagation patterns in the media (including what many perceive as particles) since nothing else can move through a solid.
Now when logic rules out the possibility of discrete particulate media and when the behaviors of mass, charge and magnetism emerges from specific wave patterns in a tension field my bet is on the logical is on the evidence. Guessing has nothing to do with it.
Cornelis
Cornelis
Why can the media only propagate tension?
How can ‘waves’ reveal structure on a much lower level?
The fact that ether looks continuous does not mean that it is continuous on all levels.
How do you explain gravity?
Regards ______________________________ John-Erik
Cornelis
“Transverse waves can only exist in an unbroken tension field.” You cannot prove that statement. And you have not answered my questions.
John-Erik
John-Erik,
What part about transvers waves require tension do you not understand.
You will not be able to find an example to the contrary.
What part about tension can only exist in a field that is continuous do you not understand.
You will not be able to find a single example where there is tension without connection.
The proof is in what can be and is observed in ever part of nature. If you can find no violations to the rules above the proof is done.
What part of my reply which includes:
“All properties of matter can be derived from patterns of tension waves. Since tension waves naturally converge, patters of tension waves that form mass gravitate towards each other.”
does not provide the answer to “How I explain gravity?”
You may not like the answer John-Erik but you can not and will not be able to dispute its agreement with all observed behaviors of physic.
If you wish to pursue the subject matter further please consider doing so in the new CNPS forum.
Cornelis
Cornelis
Good idea. I will soon open a new thread on the new ‘Forum’.
Regards ___________________ John-Erik
John-Erik
The media must be capable of propagating tension waves only since tension energies result in convergence of waves not divergence. Transverse waves (such as light) can only exist in an unbroken tension field. Although the strength of the tension field may vary it can never be broken. If you break the field you have a void in the field that can no longer propagate tension. This is exactly why the ether was conceptualized in the first place, (as a valid argument that wave propagation could not occur through a void). This reveals that the ether at its lowest level must be a non-particulate tension carrier.
To solve this action at a distance problem you must fill the void with ether. The only true void, if it exists at all, would be at the center of mass. The ether near the center of mass is stressed to near its breaking point by the natural self focusing (convergence) characteristic of waves in a tension field. Mass is not the source of gravity, as is commonly believed, it is the result of this natural convergence of tension waves, (primarily longitudinal gravity waves). Transverse waves (including light) require a boundary condition as their origin. The formation of these focused mass patterns provide these near boundary conditions as the tension in the field peaks at the medias (ethers) ultimate tensile strength. All properties of matter can be derived from patterns of tension waves. Since tension waves naturally converge, patters of tension waves that form mass gravitate towards each other. When these patterns get close the integrated waves between them will exceed the ultimate tensile strength of the ether resulting in a weaker field between them. This is the mechanism for the exclusionary principle. There are many more details not expressed here since that is not the point of your topic but they are well defined and explain many more know physical properties.
Cornelis