Potier was wrong
This article explains how time dilation has been used to cover up for a mistake, that was introduced by Potier, when Einstein was a child. Potier did not observe that mirrors are transparent to the ether wind, and therefore the mirrors are controlling c only – and not c+v.
Potier’s mistake
Potier reduced Michelson’s prediction for MMX (his tests together with Morley) by half. He did that by introducing an effect of the ether wind also in the transverse arm of the equipment. Potier said that transverse ether wind forced light to take a triangular (and longer) way in the frame of the ether. This effect increased propagation time by half the effect in the longitudinal arm. However, according to the wave model, light moves with constant speed in relation to the ether, and independent of the source motion. So, the distant mirror defines wave fronts to be parallel to the mirror, and therefore, light motion is perpendicular to mirrors in the frame of the ether. In error Potier assumed motion to be perpendicular to the mirror in the frame of the equipment. There is no reason for light to follow the equipment in the transverse arm as Potier assumed (in one arm only).
To understand the mistake, we have to regard the important difference between ether wind and wave motion. The ether wind is a static property of the ether, and the wave motion is a dynamic and moving process. The distant mirror implies boundary conditions that are respected by light, but not by the ether wind. This means that light moves with wave fronts parallel to the 2 distant mirrors in the 2 arms of MMX. Therefore, orthogonality exists in the frame of the ether – and not in the frame of the equipment. So, light always moves with the speed c perpendicular to the distant mirror in the transverse arm, in the frame of the ether. This means that the speed in the equipment’s frame is (c^2+v^2)^1/2. There is no effect of the ether wind in the transverse arm of MMX. v/c is about 10-6 due to planetary rotation.
Potier’s mistake was to assume light to depend on the motion of the source in the transverse arm only. This indicates a thinking in terms of particles, and not in agreement to the wave model, that was assumed in the longitudinal arm. So, ether wind inside the wave front cannot bend the wave front. Therefore, wave front bending cannot explain stellar and pulsar aberrations either. Instead, transverse speed of the observer, u, produces the illusion of bending due to needed coordinate transformations. This mechanism, for a moving wave front, is the same as the mechanism for a moving particle. u/c is about 10-4 due to planetary translation.
Since atoms in a crystal are controlling their separations by means of effects that they produce on the ether, and that these effects can be assumed to propagate with the same speed as light, it is reasonable to assume atomic separations to be reduced to the same amount as the 2-way speed of light. Therefore, we get a compensated effect in the longitudinal arm of MMX. One compensated effect and one not existent effect means that MMX cannot detect an ether wind. Since this contraction is 2 times the FitzGerald contraction we no longer need the dilation of time. We can use the Galilean transform, since the small contraction (10-12) is hidden by the definition of the unit of length.
Since bound electrons move forth and back, in relation to the ether wind, they are accelerated and decelerated during each orbiting period. This can explain a frequency change in atomic clocks, of the same type as the reduction of 2-way light speed, by the ether wind.
Conclusions
• The ether wind due to planetary rotation (about 10-6 times c) produces no effect in the transverse arm of MMX, and a compensated effect in the longitudinal arm. and MMX is explained to be useless without the need for invoking dilation of time.
• The stellar and pulsar aberrations (about 10-4) are caused by observer motion, and are independent of the ether wind, since a wave front reacts to the rain drop effect just in the same way as a particle.
• In coherent systems (telescopes, interferometers and cavities) that are using reflecting, or refracting, surfaces to control wave fronts (and not the total motion of light) we must use a light model that is including only the longitudinal component of the ether wind, when we are dealing with coherent systems.
• Michelson was right in his first prediction for MMX, and Potier was wrong, when he assumed mirrors to control c+v (instead of c only). c+v can only be observed in focused light.
• Time dilation was invented to hide a mistake. This confusion is quite understandable, since v/c is only 10-6.
Reference
More details (and explaining diagrams) are available in Einstein was wrong – who was right?
Written by John-Erik Persson
Hi again John-Erik,
You say ‘there is no reason for light to follow the equipment in the transverse arm’ but did you realize that light has no reason to travel ‘the fastest path’ either? Yet you take this ´fastest path´ intention of light for granted without even questioning. Think about it for a minute and try to explain that to yourself.
You can’t!
The important thing is of course that light has no intentions nor does it have a ‘will’ to travel the fastest path. One should comprehend the deeper mechanism of light behind these simplified rules. The essence of light is – simply put – waves that are propagated all over space and by the principle of superpostion you can add them at any location of interest. If many waves happen to arrive at the same phase on that location you will have light, otherwise you won´t. The most general but complicated way to describe this wave phenomenon is doing path-time-integrals all over space to discover where the light path really is (Feynman method). A lot less rigorous but nevertheless very effective method is applying the Huygens-Fresnel principle.
The mathematics of waves are sometimes simplified to rules that are expressed in terms as if light had a certain intention, such as: light reflects the same angle out as it came in, light follows the shortest distance, light travels the fastest path, etc.. But these rules are by no means fundamental and only equivalent to the real mathematics of waves in specific and limited cases. For instance, the angle out does not simply equal the angle in if the mirror is moving (as I demonstrated before).
So you’d better forget these misleading high-school-rules physics if you want to deeply understand (let alone, attack) complicated concepts like SR. Use the fundamentals of wave behavior instead and calculate at what places in space the addition of waves results in constructive interference. For instance: calculations reveal that light bouncing off of a moving 45-deg mirror is bent just the right way for the light to keep up with the movement and hit the opposite spot on a co-moving mirror. This somewhat remarkable result follows from the fundamentals of waves and not from a simplified ‘fastest path’ rule (although now you calculated this fundamental behavior you can make a new rule stating that traversing light bends in just the right direction to keep up with the movement. You could even make a high-school metaphor that light behaves like swimmers that intend to cross a flowing river in order to land exactly at the same spot on the opposite bank. This is what you called stupid before but nevertheless this seemingly intentional rule is equivalent to what the fundamental calculations boil down to. It is also not any more stupid than light ‘wanting’ to follow the ‘fastest path’.).
Your analysis breaks down where you ignore these fundamental aspects of waves and since your reasoning of light restricts to simplified rules you can’t possibly appreciate what Potier really did. For the fundamentals of light behavior I recommend watching Feynman’s lecture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9nPMFBhzsI) or reading the relevant chapters in vol 1. of the ‘Lectures on physics” (www.feynmanlectures.info/).
Kind regards,
Armand
Armand
Light takes the fastest way between 2 points is demonstrated in lenses. I said it is valid between surfaces in an interferometer as well. You can also see it by regarding the made assumption of motion independent of the source in the longitudinal arm. This implies the same assumption in the transverse arm. Also from the fact that all points on a wave front are sources for new wave fronts. So, coherent systems are controlling wave fronts or the ray defined by c and Pointier assumed c+v the beam direction. This is in agreement to Fresnel and Feynman. This means that we cannot use the vector sum as Potier did instead we must use Michelson’s prediction stating no effect in the transverse arm. A coherent system cannot see motion inside the wave fronts.
We describe light by the ray that is transverse to the wave fronts, but this just a tool and the deeper meaning is seen the concept wave front.
The central part of my article is the difference between Potier and Michelson, regarding interpretation, and you do not take any motivated stand in this central and important question.
You refer to the 45 degree mirror and effect of its motion. You have missed something very important here too, namely the fact that these changes are completely irrelevant. The reason is that the distant mirror defines the wave fronts in the long path after the 45 degree mirror, and the small change between source and the 45 degree mirror is irrelevant since it is orders of magnitude smaller than the beam width of the laser source.
I did not say that the swimmer was stupid. I said that light was not stupid.
You seems to accept Potier’s idea that c+v is perpendicular to mirrors, but I regard that we must assume light to move independent of source. So, Michelson was right and c is perpendicular. So, the distant mirror defines wave fronts.
Regards ____________________ John-Erik
Hi John-Erik,
I know the central part of your article and – if I left it unclear – my stand is that Potier was right in correcting Michelson. Your whole objection to this correction is built on rule-based reasoning of light behavior and – even after pointing out the weakness of that – you respond by proclaiming another commandment, this time a rule about lenses. I do not wish to debate this rule because it doesn’t really matter. The main thing is that if you dig a bit deeper and use the mathematics of waves so you will discover for instance that the reflected light of a moving mirror is bent towards the direction of movement!
This one silly example bears so much relevance because it proofs you must be wrong. This light bending behavior is proven without a distant mirror, so you can leave that argument out too. Ignoring effects by picking beam width and v just small enough so you don’t see what you don’t like, doesn’t change the reality either. I hoped that this one simple example would ring some bells that something fundamental has escaped from your analysis. That’s my motivation, how much more do you need?
Finally, you are so wrong in describing Potier´s idea that I think it must be a slip of the pen and that you really meant to describe Michelson’s idea? Anyway, Potier’s idea was that light travels, independent of the source, with a fixed speed c through the ether and light traversing an etherwind of speed v must travel therefore with speed SQRT (c^2 – v^2).
With kind regards,
Armand
Hallo Armand
It is true that the moving 45 degree mirror can force the effect to be different from 90 degrees. However, this variation is completely irrelevant, because the change becomes localized in light between laser and 45 degree mirror. This follows from the fact that relevant wave front is defined by the distant mirror, and the change – 1 micro radian – is very small in relation to the laser beam width – and therefor irrelevant. Nothing is changed in the long arm – and therefore important – path to the far mirror. So, distant mirrors defines wave fronts.
This is not just mathematics of waves – you must see the physical rôle of the distant mirror also. You have missed the fact that light is controlled by feedback from the distant mirror. The 2 distant mirrors define wave fronts by their orientations and equipment motion is irrelevant – in both arms – as Michelson assumed. Ether is the reference for light – not equipment. Therefore, Potier was wrong – the triangular motion of light in the ether is wrong. Instead we get a triangular motion in the frame of the equipment.
The 2 distant mirrors imply boundary conditions that are relevant for light, but not for ether wind. Potier – and you – missed that and – in error localized the light bending on the wrong side of the 45 degree mirror.
I conclude that light moves with constant speed c, in relation to the ether, in both arms in MMX. the ether wind v is added in longitudinal or transverse directions. So, we get c+-v in one direction and sqrt(c^2+v^2) in the other direction. Linear addition in one arm and linear in the other.
There have also been presented interpretations based on spherical wave fronts giving the same result as Potier’s but also wrong. The translational motion of the equipment is irrelevant in both arms.
Stellar aberration is not caused by ether wind but by observer motion.
With best regards from John-Erik
Correction:
I ment to say: Linear addition in one arm and quadratic in the other.
John-Erik
Armand
There is also another way to see that you are wrong:
If the 45 degree mirror caused an angle greater than 90, than the returned signal would come from a direction LESS than 90, and the equipment would be looking in a direction GREATER than 90.
From John-Erik
I don’t understand. Could you please elaborate a bit more.
Hi John-Erik,
The situation you describe for the lab frame is simply not possible. You can not have a distant mirror ‘defining feedback effects’ and at the same time a light ray following a triangular path. The reason for this is that the incident and return paths are nowhere at the same places and therefore the wave cannot possibly interfere with itself.
So we can forget feedback, boundary conditions, standing waves and what´s more. These are all obfuscating the core of the problem anyway. Just stick with the following ingredients: incident ray, a 45-degree moving mirror and a reflected ray.
A light ray reflected off of a mirror that is moving with speed v (in the same direction as the incident ray that comes in with speed c) no longer makes a right angle with the incident ray but it bends just over the right angle as to keep up with this movement v. This means that the reflected light ray, which is still travelling at speed c through the ether, must have a component v in the direction of this motion. The component perpendicular to that motion v must therefore have a magnitude of SQRT (c^2-v^2).
This is the situation as seen from the ether frame, where the speed of the ether wind is of course 0. Now let us do just a Galilean transformation to view the same scene from the lab frame. We need to subtract v (vectorially) so that the mirror will be standing still. The incident ray will travel at c-v while the reflected light ray is now bent exactly 90 degrees and – of course – still travelling with SQRT (c^2-v^2). The ether wind is blowing through the scene with a velocity of -v so a traversing ray with speed SQRT (c^2-v^2) must also travel with a velocity component v to overcome this ether wind. The total speed against ether is SQRT (v^2 + (c^2-v^2)) = c and this is in perfect agreement with the fixed speed of light through ether.
Let us work backward from here, but now with your rules.
Starting in the lab frame – where the mirror is standing still – you would say that the reflected ray is travelling with speed SQRT (c^2+ v^2) with a component -v parallel to incident ray (speed c-v) and another component that is perpendicular to the incident ray with a magnitude c.
To switch back to ether frame we need to perform the same Galilean transformation backwards (add v vectorially) and we find out that the incident ray will be c, the reflected ray will have a speed c travelling over an angle of 90 degrees while the mirror is moving with speed v.
But we already know that this result can not be true, because the mathematics of waves (Huygens-Fresnel) has given us a different path for the reflected ray of a moving mirror. If you calculate the superposition of all the waves where your rules think the reflected ray is, you will only get destructive interference.
It will be completely dark where you’ve predicted a light ray and you can’t be right then.
Kind regards,
Armand
Armand
You end up in darkness and does not comment on my statements. I must repeat again. Boundary conditions are the reason mirrors can reflect and give feedback. Standing waves are needed in the laser but not in the interferometer, except for modern experiments where cavities (containing standing waves) are used as arms in MMX.
The laser produces many wave fronts, since the beam width is larger than v/c. It is the distant 2 mirrors that decide which wave fronts are relevant in the 2 arms of MMX. The mirrors are orthogonal to each other and ether related speed is c in both arms. From this follows that equipment related speeds are c+-v in one arm and therefore sqrt(c^2+v^2) in the other arm. There is no triangular path in the relevant ether frame. From this follows that ether wind v is perpendicular to light motion c and causes therefore no effect in the transverse arm.
The mirrors are defining c to be orthogonal to mirrors. Potier was wrong when he assumed c+v to be orthogonal to mirrors. Therefore, Pythagoras theorem has been used in a wrong (negative) way for 130 years. Transverse ether wind cannot alter a wave front and the orientation of the wave front is conserved in relation the ether wind.
Ether winds have relevance (in coherent systems) in one dimension only, namely in longitudinal direction. Therefore, wave front bending can only be caused by a gradient in the longitudinal component of ether wind. (Near the Sun but not in stellar aberration.)
Michelson assumed wave behavior in both arms, and Potier degraded to particle thinking in one arm only.
With best regards from _______________________________ John-Erik Persson
Sorry John-Erik,
I think I gave some pretty concise PHYSICAL arguments what is obviously wrong with your article. It seems you can’t refute this clear reasoning and instead you respond with the same mumbo jumbo of words that you never cared to define properly (or at all). What do you mean: boundary conditions, defining and deciding mirrors, feedback etc.
O and one more time: Potier did NOT ‘assume c + v orthogonal to mirrors’. In a post above I already argued that Potier assumed c – v (MINUS!). It seems that you don’t get this and that is becoming a little awkward when you keep saying HE is wrong.
Anyway, thanks again for the discussion and good luck.
Armand
Sorry Armand
Your idea to use the fact that an effect of a 45 degree mirror can be different from 90 is proved to be wrong since the distant mirror defines which wave front to reflect.
You asked for more details. You can find them in my article
Einstein was wrong – who was right.
Regards from ________________________ John-Erik
Armand
Here is a link:
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7478.pdf
Regards ___________________ John-Erik