MEMO to CNPS conference 2020 about waves
The wave models – beam and ray
The vector sum, c+v, defines the motion of a beam, and can only be roughly estimated as the direction of maximal amplitude, and is therefore not very important. The motion of a ray as c(1+vL/c), excluding the ether wind inside the wave front, and thereby describing a wave front, can be detected by extreme precision in coherent systems based on reflectors or refractors by detection based on phase. The irrelevance of transverse ether wind follows from the fact that ether wind is irrelevant in relation to reflectors and refractors. Therefore, the ray concept is the important concept in a coherent system, according to the wave model.
This means that an important mistake was done in 1882 by using the beam concept instead of the ray concept in the prediction for the coherent MMX system. An arrangement with reflectors and refractors means that it is the ray concept that falls along the optical axis, or transverse to mirrors. So, wave front orientation is conserved in MMX. The same is valid for modern MMX tests with resonators, since wave fronts are fixed, and parallel to mirrors in a resonator. Opinions reported many times by this author. This mistake means that the wave model was infected by a particle-based idea. This produced the illusion of particles in light, and the wave-particle paradox was caused. So, time dilation was a cover up, leading to the twin paradox.
MMX, reference arm
The ray concept means conserved wave front, and therefore no effect in the reference arm.
MMX, measuring arm
The link, needed to control atomic separations between atoms in a crystal, must be provided by the ether, since the ether is all there is. So, 2 longitudinal forces are moving between atoms in the same way as 2 transverse forces are moving between mirrors in MMX. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the separation between atoms in a crystal is reduced by the ether wind in the same was as the reduction in 2-way light speed. This means the ether wind effect on 2-way light speed is compensated by a contraction of matter equal to 2 times the FitzGerald contraction. Therefore, the real effect in the measuring arm is not observable. Time dilation is no longer needed.
The only way to detect stellar aberration is by phase, meaning that we must use the ray concept. Since we need magnification, we must use a telescope that is based on the ray concept. Another reason is that an ether wind changes all points in a wave front equally and cannot tilt a wave front. Therefore, no effect of ether wind in stellar aberration. The effect is an illusion due to observer motion.
- An ether wind inside a wave front means a needed distinction between beam and ray.
- In a coherent system light moves with the ray – not the beam – along the optical axis.
- Stellar aberration and MMX (in both arms) are independent of the ether wind.
- SRT is wrong, and we have not finished the transition from particles to waves for light.
The trouble with modern physics did not start 1905 or 1900, but as early as in 1882 by a deviation from the wave model. This mistake demonstrates that we have not done enough unlearning regarding particle-based thinking about light. Instead, by strict following the wave model, we can see that the Galilean transform is the correct transform for light. The missing of the distinction between beam and ray is explainable by the fact that the difference is extremely small, and ignorable in most cases, except just in MMX interpretation, where the distinction is of theoretical importance. Another reason can be ignorance of a principle difference between a kinetic phenomenon, c, and a static relation between moving objects, v. So, the speed of gravity is zero, although gravity is caused by ether particles moving with speed c in all directions, causing changes in gravity (theoretically) to move with speed c, just like light.
Another important aspect is that scientists seems to disregard the fact that the ether wind can be blowing inside a wave front, and also that the ray is not physical, but an important mathematical tool needed to describe a wave front.
Michelson, in contrast to majority of scientists, seems to have an intuition about the error in the reference arm, but he got a nervous breakdown and gave up. However, the error in the measuring arm seems not to be observed, as far as I know. But the idea was hinted about in a MEMO to the NPA conference in 2009 by this author.
Michelson was the man who gave us the optical definition of length, but that definition has the same elasticity as the older definition in Paris. So, it seems ironic that Michelson had to take part also in a negative sense, since MMX has not contributed to empiric science, but to theoretical science in a negative way. However, it is not uncommon that great scientists, after being famous, also contribute in the negative.
- MMX was suggested by Maxwell, who translated Faraday’s ether model to mathematics and got his results on T-shirts, but the described object was forbidden. Maxwell also ignored the fact that compensation could exist in the measuring arm.
- Newton denied Fatio’s hypothesis that explained gravity, which Newton only could describe.
- Bohr explained energy levels in Hydrogen, but invented complementarity in light as a cover up for a mistake.