Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
John Erik Persson
  • Home
  • Affiliates
    • Community
  • Login
  • Register

The Wave or Particle Confusion

John Chappell Natural Philsophy Alliance > John Erik Persson > Aether > The Wave or Particle Confusion

The Wave or Particle Confusion

Aug 23, 2016John-Erik PerssonAether, Gravity, Light9 Comments

Accepting new theories is not our greatest problem. Even more difficult to us is to escape old theories. A wise man said that long time ago, and this statement is demonstrated in the wave or particle confusion. This confusion is in the hart of physics, where we can see a chaotic situation. We certainly do not understand the behavior of light.

Light

When we use the concept ‘ray’ in relation to the wave model for light we must realize that this concept no longer represents the track of a particle. Instead the ray concept represents the orientation of a wave front as the normal to that wave front. A transverse ether wind w (inside the wave front) cannot change wave front orientation, since all points on the wave front are changed equally. Therefore, the ray, representing the wave motion, follows a straight line independent of w, and w is irrelevant in relation to the ray. The ray depends on c and v only (v is longitudinal ether wind). The vector sum of c and both v and w is relevant for the motion of a beam of light. This direction can be detected based on amplitude, but this demands focused light. However, inside the beam w is irrelevant in relation to the ray concept, and orientation of wave front. The ray direction is detected by phase in a telescope or defined by mirrors in a cavity or in an interferometer.

Light takes the fastest, not the shortest, way between two points and also between two mirrors in cavities and interferometers. This is analogous to a swimmer crossing a river and minimizing time, and not distance. We can therefore conclude that standing waves generated in cavities and interferometers always have plane wave fronts that are parallel to defining mirrors. This means that light always moves with the speed c in a right angle to the mirrors in the frame of the ether. Orientation of mirrors and longitudinal ether wind v (transverse to mirrors), is independent of if the mirrors move with a speed (-w?) inside their own planes.

Irrelevance of transverse ether wind w means that stellar aberration does not depend on the ether wind. Instead, changes in the state of motion of the telescope produce changes in the apparent ray direction in the same way as Bradley said regarding the track of light particles. By the same reason we conclude no effect of w in the transverse arm in MMX in contrast to Stokes’ idea. We also, in the same way, find no effect of w in a ‘light clock’ in contrast to Einstein’s idea.

Clock dilation

Clock dilation can be explained by bound electrons in atomic clocks moving forth and back in relation to the ether wind. The electrons are accelerated and decelerated during each period of orbit. If we assume a vertical ether wind equal to the horizontal ether wind due to motion, for a satellite in circular orbit, we can explain clock dilation by ether wind only. We get one description instead of GRT plus SRT. If the satellite is not stabilized in relation motion the effect of ether wind due to motion is reduced by 50 %. This can be united with results from GPS system.

The GPS system

In the GPS system all receivers are near the Earth and all transmitters are on the same distance from the Earth. A spherically symmetric ether wind blowing in direction towards the Earth can therefore be united with the high precision in the GPS system. Such an ether wind can also explain gravity.

Gravity

A falling ether can explain gravity. Gravity contributions from distant bodies is neutralized by the fact that our planet is in free motion. Nearby bodies can demonstrate anomalies when the point mass approximation no longer is valid. Tidal effects are caused by the fact that gravity varies with distance. Gravity anomalies during solar eclipses can be caused by the fact that the Moon is shielding gravity from the Sun only on parts of our planet.

The Pioneer anomaly

A radial and range dependent ether wind can cause 2-way light speed to increase with range. This can produce an illusion of decreasing speed in the space station.

Light bending near the Sun

Transverse ether wind w cannot bend a wave front. A gradient in longitudinal ether wind v can produce a bending of light, first away from the Sun, and later back to the same direction, but not to the same position. Therefore, a small net effect remains. This explains why this light bending is only about 10^-5 although gravity near our sun is very large.

Testing

Since the speed of atomic clocks is known to depend on the directed force of gravity (or the vertical ether wind) it is very logical to test if this time (or clock) dilation depends on the orientation of the clocks in relation to gravity. According to ideas presented here the dilation effect due to GRT should disappear if clock orientation is changed from horizontal to vertical. This would cause relevant electrons to move in a plane transverse to gravity.

Conclusions

The difference between beam direction and ray direction is important.

Total light motion or beam direction is defined by the vector sum of c and ether wind.

Wave motion or ray direction is not dependent on transverse ether wind w.

Observer’s motion changes the apparent ray direction.

References

The irrelevance of ether wind transverse to light and relevance of ether wind in relation earth has been described in more detail in articles available at the homepages of CNPS and GSJournal. Blogs by this author are available at my blog.

John-Erik Persson

Written by John-Erik Persson

The Wave or Particle Confusion (9)

  1. Bill Gaede August 30, 2016 at 5:19 am

    Light HAD BETTER be a physical object. There has to be someTHING mediating light. This should nevertheless follow from experiments such as the Photoelectric Effect where light induces a current. Therefore, light canNOT be mediated by abstract CONCEPTS such as ‘wave’ or ‘aether’ or 0D ‘particles’.
    .
    There is no physical object called ‘wave’ any more than there is no physical object called ‘spirit’. ‘Wave’ is not what something IS. ‘Wave’ is what something DOES! The word ‘wave’ should be removed from all discussions of Physics. People treat it like an object. It isn’t. ‘Wave’ is a verb!
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr0iO2aknVM
    .
    .
    A rope, on the other hand, is a physical object. If, instead, we simulate light with a ROPE and assume that all atoms in the U are interconnected we can RATIONALLY explain entanglement, slits, gravity, magnetism, atomic behavior…
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbrvYDbmbJA
    .
    .
    .

    Reply ↓
    • John-Erik Persson Post authorAugust 31, 2016 at 10:36 am

      Bill
      Thank you very much for the interesting links. I have followed them.
      Yes, light is not an object, but a process (or a behavior). Therefore, it is problematic to combine ether wind and wave velocity. Another reason to problems is that wave velocity is a million times higher that ether wind. Nevertheless addition os these speeds is possible.
      The physical representation of light is a wave front. If there is a wave someone must do the waving and that is done by the ether.
      You cannot deny the ether just because you cannot see it. There are indirect evidences for the ether.
      Regards
      John-Erik

      Reply ↓
    • Janos Rohan September 1, 2016 at 2:41 pm

      “Wave’ is what something DOES!”

      Yes, Im absolutely agreed with this. Four fundamental particle does it. Thats light (= photon particle).

      Reply ↓
  2. Janos Rohan August 30, 2016 at 9:06 am

    Hi John,

    The photon is a particle naturally. It cannot be a wave because if a kind of medium would waved like a sound for example, so the photon energy should be decrease by distance square. Its not the case.

    The wave property arise from the complex motion of the constituent of photon energy particles, there are four. That means two graviton and two electric charge fundamental particles.

    The wave property means a periodical shielding of energy particles by eachother so once the photon showing a positive electric property and after a half wavelength shows outward a negative electric property.

    Between theese two phase the 4 constituent particle show outward a magnetic nature (of gravitons) which property switch to opposite one after a half wavelength.

    So the photon is not a wave but the wave only a dynamic property of the photon particle constituents during its motion.

    Reply ↓
    • John-Erik Persson Post authorAugust 31, 2016 at 10:59 am

      Janos
      Blackbody radiation and photoelectric effect are studied by looking at currents from a photodetector. This current is quantized into electrons. The use of a quantizing detector creates quantization and we can therefore not conclude quantization to exist before the detector. Planck’s constant is therefore a property of the electron. Compton effect can be explained by electrons escaping and leaving a kernel. This means jumping to and from an atom, but we have no evidence for jumping between levels inside the atoms. Instead, bound electrons can generate light. There are no photon particles.
      Regards from
      John-Erik

      Reply ↓
      • Eric Stanley Reiter October 27, 2016 at 5:58 am

        Hello John.
        I agree there are no photon particles. Please see my experimental confirmation at my thresholdmodel. com website.
        Cheers
        Eric Reiter

        Reply ↓
        • John-Erik Persson Post authorOctober 28, 2016 at 4:05 pm

          Eric
          Thank you for the link to your interesting home page. I am an amateur and have about the same opinion as you, but more based on intuition. I think like Planck (later) that h is a property of matter (electron).
          Regards
          John-Erik

          Reply ↓
  3. Slobodan Nedic August 30, 2016 at 9:23 am

    John-Erik,

    In the planed contribution to your “Why-Comments” blog-tread, I wanted first to relate to the very beginning of this one. By fully agreeing with it, I wanted to draw your (and others) attention to my CNPS 2016 meeting presentation https://youtu.be/CxSpaT8Nyn8 where the “unschooling” from Newton-ian orbital dynamics to Descartes-ian vortex-based one has been (hopefully, ans I would ask for critical comments of course) is iplicitly advocated.

    For the time being, I will only provide some explicit comments to the above mentioned blog-tread
    http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson/2016/03/29/why-comments/

    Kind regards,

    Reply ↓
    • John-Erik Persson Post authorAugust 31, 2016 at 7:17 pm

      Slobodan
      Thank you for this you-tube link. It seems interesting, although i do not understand all of it. I will take a second look at it later. I will also replay to you on the other blog post called “Why Comments”.
      Regards from
      John-Erik

      Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

← Crooke’s Rradiometer
The Behavior of Light #2 →

Affiliations

The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society The Natural Philosophers Community

Recent Posts

  • Mathematics is powerful and dangerous
  • Decontamination of physics
  • Gravity does not move!
  • The illusion of time dilation, Big Bang and Pioneer anomaly
  • Did stellar aberration give us individual aging?

Archives

  • September 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • April 2022
  • August 2021
  • March 2021
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • May 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015

Categories

  • Aether
  • Directors
  • Gravity
  • Light
  • Mathematics
  • Members
  • Philosophy
  • Physics
  • Relativity
  • Space-Time
  • Time
  • Uncategorized
  • Wave Particle Duality
© Copyright - 2013 : All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress & Designed by Aivahthemes
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Dribbble
  • LinkedIn