The Behavior of Light #2
Abstract
The transition from particle model to wave model for light has not been completed, and some particle thinking remains. We see this in the wave or particle confusion, and the effect of that is that many old experiments have been interpreted in error. An early and very important mistake was the ignorance about the fact that the ether wind transverse to light becomes irrelevant in coherent systems. Today advanced systems, like GPS and Pioneer space station demonstrate that we have to change our thinking. This indicates a possibility that Faraday’s ether and Fatio’s gravity can be united with the GPS experience.
Beam direction
The direction of a beam of light is the direction where intensity (or amplitude) is at its maximum value. This direction is described by the vector sum of wave velocity c and ether wind. c is constant in relation to the ether wind. c is a process and very different from ether wind, but addition of velocities is nevertheless valid.
Ray direction
The ray direction is the direction of the wave vector c defining the orientation of the wave fronts. Coherent systems detect (or define) c ( not the vector sum). In a cavity light speed is defined by ether wind and by boundary conditions due to mirrors. Thereby light takes the fastest (not the shortest) way between mirrors. Boundary conditions do not change when we movie the mirrors inside their own planes. Standing waves in cavities and in interferometers have therefore always wave fronts that are parallel to defining mirrors. Telescopes are sensitive to phase and therefore detect wave front orientations.
The difference between beam and ray
Beam direction defines the real motion of light as a vector sum.
The ray direction defines wave motion as c(1+v/c) and c(1-v/c) and depends on v only (and not on w), where v is longitudinal ether wind and w is transverse ether wind. The fact that w cannot be detected by phase means that w is irrelevant in coherent systems.
Stellar aberration
The irrelevance of transverse ether wind means that stellar aberration cannot tell us anything about the ether wind. Stellar aberration is caused by changes in u, the telescope’s motion transverse to light direction. This follows from the fact that a telescope detects motion in relation the telescope itself. We can see this by regarding the finite time between focusing and detection in telescopes. Stellar aberration is a telescope property, that does not depend on what light model we use.
Transverse ether wind
The irrelevance of transverse ether wind means that there cannot be any effect of the ether wind in the transverse arm in MMX. By the same reason, there can be no effect in Einstein’s so called light clock. Michelson’s assumption in longitudinal arm of a speed c+v and c-v should logically be followed by speed (c^2+w^2)^1/2, as the speed in the transverse arm, if speed in relation to ether is c in both arms. We can also conclude that w cannot bend a wave front. Instead, the reason to such a bending is a gradient in v.
Longitudinal ether wind
Longitudinal light speed c+v and c-v reduces 2-way light speed. The only tool crystals can use to control atomic separation is the ether. Therefore, atoms exchange positional information by means of the ether with speeds c+v and c-v. This means that atomic separations are reduced in the same way as 2-way speed of light. Consequently, the effect expected by Michelson is compensated by contraction of physical objects. Therefore, Michelson’s optical meter standard depends on the ether wind to the same amount as mechanical meter standard in Paris. This contraction is 2 times the Lorentz- Fitzgerald contraction.
Detecting the ether wind in coherent systems mean that relevant light description becomes c(1+v/c) and c(1-v/c), independent of w. Ignorance of this fact has caused many errors in the interpretations of experiments regarding light and ether. One example is Einstein’s light clock, that is independent of w. However, if Einstein had changed the orientation of the clock by 90 degrees, he would have found an effect of v that is 2 times the effect he stated due to w.
Modern technology has given us new evidences regarding the ether wind. Instead of time dilation we find a 2 times greater clock dilation. Bound electrons in atomic clocks move towards and along the ether wind. The speed in orbit changes therefore during each period and causes an effect of second order, like the real and invisible effect in MMX. In MMX the effect is not only compensated, but also much smaller than expected. The effect is caused by the rotation of our planet, and therefore as small as around 10^-12. Such a small effect is important to science, but in most cases not important to technology.
The GPS System
The global positioning system uses a compensation called Sagnac correction. This means that raw data regarding speed are related to the center of our planet. The high precision in GPS can therefore be united with a constant ether wind, represented by a frame in the same state of motion as the center of our planet. However, it is not common sense to assume our planet to entrain the ether in the complete universe. We can find a solution to this dilemma by regarding the facts that all transmitters are on the same distance from our planet, and all receivers are near our planet. Therefore, the ether wind must not necessarily be represented by a frame, in order to explain the high precision in GPS. Instead, the ether wind can be a field, that has spherical symmetry in relation to our planet.
Based on these ideas we can define an ether wind radial to our planet and having the same speed as the tangential ether wind due to speed for a satellite in a circular orbit. The clocks are assumed to be stabilized transverse to radial ether wind but not in relation to tangential ether wind. The effect of tangential ether wind is therefore reduced by half. These assumptions make it possible to calculate clock slowing due to radial and tangential ether winds. These clock dilations are in good agreement to time dilations from SRT and GRT. However, the effect of 2 mechanisms is substituted by an effect of 1 mechanism.
By representing the ether wind by a field (instead of a frame) we arrive at 5 positive conclusions. The first: the Earth does not have to entrain the ether in the complete universe. The second: this ether can explain gravity. The third: this ether can explain the Pioneer anomaly. The fourth: this ether can explain the bending of light near our sun as an effect of the gradient in the longitudinal component v of the ether wind. The fifth: this ether can explain anomalies during solar eclipses and tidal effects as caused by situations when the point mass approximation no longer is valid, and we therefore cannot use Newton’s or Einstein’s gravity models. However, we can use Fatio’s model.
To See the Light
We cannot see the behavior of light. Instead we observe the behavior of electrons, exposed to light and seen in photocurrents. These electrons are discrete and contain quantized charge and mass. Since the electron is our quantizing detector, we cannot see if quantization exists already at the input to the detector. Another problem is the application of the energy conservation law. We do not know how the ether contributes in this respect. We do not know if light transports energy. Perhaps light only contains information needed for interchange of energy with the ether. This assumption means that we can explain destructive superposition in light without conflict with the law of energy conservation.
X-rays are generated as wave packets (not particles) that are produced when a fast electron is captured by an atom in a crystal. Compton effect can therefore be explained by a process in 2 phases. The first one is the reverse of X-ray production. The second phase is the reverse of the first one, and therefore equal to X-ray production, but generating at a lower frequency. These 2 processes means changes in potential energy for tightly bound electrons. We can explain this by an interference between a wave and an electron. In the same way we can explain photoelectric effect equal to the first phase in the Compton effect. However, this equality does not demand wave packets to exist in the photoelectric effect.
It is not easy to see the invisible. The use of blackbody radiation to prove quanta of light is also problematic, as we can see by regarding the fact that the radiation law does not represent energy, but instead the partial derivative of energy in relation to frequency. This derivative has no physical meaning, and is therefore a kind of mathematical tool not proving physical properties. Another problem is our use of a detector producing quantization to prove that quantization already exists on its input side. We have many uncertainties regarding quanta of light.
Faraday’s ether
Faraday studied the ether for many years. He united electric and magnetic forces. He also invented the electric engine, the electric generator and the transformer. His great works were translated to mathematical form by Maxwell, since Faraday was not educated in mathematics. He was a book binder.
Fatio’s gravity
Fatio assumed a flow of fast and small particles moving in all directions. He assumed matter to reduce this flow and produce an unbalance surrounding a massive body. Gravity was thereby explained by a difference between a pushing and a pulling force. Fatio’s idea indicates that an ether wind in radial direction towards a massive body can explain gravity. Fatio’s gravity can be united with Faraday’s ether and also with the GPS system. Fatio’s model indicates that the ether can define an upper limit on the force of gravity, which happens when the pulling force approaches zero.
Pioneer anomaly
An ether wind blowing in direction towards the Sun, and decreasing with distance from the Sun, can cause the 2-way speed of light to increase with distance. This increase can produce an illusion of a decrease in space station speed, detected by the 2-way Doppler effect in the Pioneer anomaly..
Summary
When we do experiments using coherent technology in optical systems the component in the ether wind transverse to light propagation becomes irrelevant. Ignorance about this fact has caused errors in the interpretations of many older experiments. However, today we have advanced space technology, satellite navigation systems and eclipse observations that tell us a very different story. Maybe we will see that today’s advanced technology can be united with ideas from Fatio and Faraday.
Discussion
Acceptance of these ideas would also give us an upper limit on the field of gravity and also make the concept apparent mass to be of interest. The gravity from a homogenous sphere would not have a linear increase with the radius for very large bodies, but follow an exponential function of radius of body (not range from the body) and approaching an upper limit.
If we assume a falling ether to cause gravity, than perhaps the cosmological red shift could be a gravitational effect indicating mass of celestial bodies instead distance to the bodies.
References
See my article Physics without Paradoxes or my blog at www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson.
Written by John-Erik Persson
Since you’re open to alternative ideas, how about gravity being an electromagnetic phenomenon? It’s well known that atoms have a very tiny nucleus with all the positive charge giving a huge charge density and orbited by negatively charged electrons in huge orbits constructed in shells. The electron clouds in the shells are very thinly spread in huge surface areas as they’re very far from the nucleus thus giving them a very low charge density. This disparity in charge densities causes them to be be slightly polarised giving rise to dipoles, and it’s these dipoles that give rise to gravity. This theory is in its infancy and would take time to prove.
Kasim
You are right. Gravity can be an electromagnetic effect. However, as an amateur it hard for me to evaluate your idea, since i do not know so much about particle physics. However, I regard my own ideas as simpler, and therefore easier to evaluate. Occam’s razor does not always tell us the true theory, but I think Occam can tell us which theory to evaluate first. I therefore think that my own ideas are very interesting. However, we should absolutely not forget your ideas.
Regards
John-Erik
Kasim
I have given comments to your theory although I have not read it. Do you have any comments to give on my ideas?
Regards
John-Erik
John-Erik and Kasim,
Gravity as caused by particles that are able to totally avoid collisions between all other like particles moving by in random directions is illogical. To explain the nature of such a particle, that can ignore the exclusionary principle, would not be a simple solution worthy of Occam’s razor. In addition the Pioneer Anomaly has been full explained and is unrelated to any notion of ether wind.
From Wikepedia
”
By 2012 several papers by different groups, all reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft, showed that a careful accounting of this explains the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states “We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains.
”
As for Kasim’s idea of gravity being a possible electromagnetic phenomenon.
The force of gravity demonstrates isotropic and unipolar properties. These properties have never been shown to be attainable through any form of electromagnetic arrangement.
Cornelis
The explanations to the Pioneer anomaly are great in number, and most of them includes very complex reasonings. The simple fact that it is all about a measurement error is hard to accept.
In the derivation of an effect in the transverse arm in MMX Stokes used the beam model for light, instead of the ray model. This error was reused by Einstein and related to something called dilation of time. I assume you accept this idea since you did not protest.
Do you also accept my ideas regarding that stellar aberration and MMX contain no information about the ether wind that no aberration in gravity does not imply enormous speed in gravity?
Regards
John-Erik
John-Erik,
Read the full information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly) The Pioneer anomaly has been an explained phenomenon without the need for the additional speculation or unrecognized forces. As such it no longer serves as evidence for your hypothetical force behavior.
Since, as was stated, logic disallows a hypothetical particulate caused ether wind, it makes little sense to continue discussions on how light would be affected by it. I assume you accept this fact since you did not protest.
Cornelis
A particulate ether is hard to accept but nevertheless more plausible than absurd action at a distance, as Newton said. The discussion here is regarding the question whether the anomaly can be caused by the change in 2-way light speed and therefore only be a measurement error. The discussion is not about all the other many, many alternatives.
A very fundamental error is due to both Stokes and Einstein, when they are assuming interferometers and light clocks to define the vector sum c+v. Instead they define c only. Only longitudinal component in ether wind is relevant. No effect in a light clock, and in transverse MMX. Transverse ether wind is irrelevant, and stellar aberration and MMX are useless tests. SRT is built on great mistakes.
You did not answer my question regarding speed of gravity.
Regards
John-Erik
John-Eric
A particulate ether is no more plausible than absurd action at a distance, as Newton said, you are correct. Two wrongs however do not make a right, both are unattainable realities, as is particulate based pushing gravity. A additional cause for gravity exists that does not suffer the shortcomings of either of these absurdities. As to the enormous speed of gravity, in my view is has no speed since it is a continuous gradient that has no boundaries of its own although its maximums are always located at concentrations of mass. Only the speed of the mass (its points of maximums) can be measured.
Cornelis
No I said particulate ether is somewhat more plausible than action at a distance. See above.
It is good that we have the same opinion regarding speed of gravity.
Regards
John-Erik
Hi Cornelis (and John),
I think you are wrong about the Pioneer anomaly being resolved by resorting to thermal radiation pressure and thermal recoil forces.
It would be better for the establishment to quickly cover up this anomaly because it threatened to become a Pandora box that would consume some of the ‘sacred’ beliefs wrongly held by the establishment, some held even contrary to Einstein’s explicit statements that such beliefs be discarded (references can be provided). This is the reason why alternative ways have to be resorted to in order to wish away the observed Pioneer anomaly. In logical order
– the speed of light is slowed down near gravitational fields according to General relativity.
– the speed of light measured on earth is 299,792,458m/s, and since the earth has a gravitational field this value is a slowed down value that would have been higher were it not for earth’s gravity or even lower if earth’s gravity were stronger.
– light signals moving further away from earth’s gravity will therefore travel faster as they are outward bound. Einstein describes this in Equation 3 of his 1911 paper, “On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light” published in German, [See a translation at http://www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/On_the_influence_of_Gravitation_on_the_Propagation_of_Light_English.pdf%5D. The said Eq.(3) is
c = co (1+ф/c^2)
where c is the speed of light at a given location of known gravitational potential ф, and the value of light velocity at what he calls the origin of coordinates, relatively free from gravitational influence is co (ф is -GM/r).
– Given the value of G, 6.67x 10^-11Nm2/kg2, Earth’s mass, M as 6 x 10^24kg and its radius, r as 6400km and the value of light velocity on Earth surface, c as 299792458m/s, then the velocity of light in gravitationally freer space can be calculated. If you do this calculation, you find co has the value 299792458.2087m/s. Thus, the outgoing signal to the spacecraft will so to speak be accelerating outwards, while decelerating inwards. Catching up with spacecraft earlier than anticipated going by the earth speed value, thus making it seem the spacecraft is not moving outwardly fast enough or being pulled back (i.e. a deceleration).
– The outcome of properly applying Equation 3 and Einstein’s very clear statements that the velocity of light varies with position in the gravitational field gives a value of ~8.74 x 10^−10m/s2, quantitatively the same as that erroneously reported as an anomaly.
I discuss these matters further in my published paper, The Velocity of Light in Flat Space-time, The African Review of Physics, vol.9, 63-70 (2014) [Also available at http://www.aphysrev.org/index.php/aphysrev/article/view/847/352%5D and in my e-book, Hypotheses Fingo (available http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30976852-hypotheses-fingo;
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31823102-hypotheses-fingo KINDLE Version
or for PDF version http://bookstore.bookcountry.com/Products/SKU-001095545/Hypotheses-Fingo.aspx) .
– The experimental fact that light speed further from gravity can have a value 299792458.2087m/s faces a theoretical reluctance to its acceptance, lest it brings down the roof of Special relativity. That is the Pandora box I earlier referred to and which there may be an attempt to cover up. I tried exchanging correspondence with the team leader, S.G. Turyshev but as you would expect I met a brickwall.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo,
I do not take issue with John-Eric’s discussion that light behaves differently when propagation is parallel to gradients in gravitational force as apposed to perpendicular to such gradients. My point is that the ether wind (as well as the underling implied particulate based pushing gravity) is not a logical realizable physical explanation for the cause of gravity. It can however be used effectively uses, as John-Eric does, as an intuitive model for visualizing the behavior of light under such gradients in gravitational strength. Also the Pioneer anomaly is not a valid proof of such behavior or a physical ether wind. If others consider that mainstream is covering up a mysterious previously unrecognized behavior of gravity related to the Pioneer anomaly so the anomaly can continue to be used as supporting evidence for alternate theories then that is clearly personal choice but not science.
Akinbo
My opinion is like yours regarding thermal effect. I do not believe in it either.
However, i do not accept your explanation based on the one-way speed of light. Such an effect would easily be detected, since the effect on frequency would be compensated with an effect of opposite sign in the returning signal. On the other hand the effect on propagation time would be larger than you indicate. So the effect would easily be explained.
Since the effect is very small and apparent in Doppler speed as well as in time of arrival, I conclude that the effect is caused by changes in two-way speed of light. We must regard the two-way Doppler effect, that is two times the one-way effect. I have made an attempt to explain gravity by a radial ether wind of the same magnitude as the tangential ether wind caused by motion in a satellite in circular orbit. By regarding this effect, caused by the Sun I have calculated the effect, and found agreement in observed effect of a change in frequency of about the same as reported. These calculations are available in an article called The Pioneer Anomaly and the Ether Wind. You can find on gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/763/John-Erik,%20Persson
More details are found in Physics without Paradoxes on the same page.
Regards
John-Erik
John-Erik,
I have read your article, The Pioneer Anomaly and the Ether Wind at the link provided.
If you compare your model with mine as well as to the Einstein equation 3 you will find the three give similar values for the anomaly . The difference then becomes the cause of the varying speed of light. You attribute the cause to the ether wind. Einstein’s equation attributes this to being a gravitational effect (the speed of light is slower near earth and faster further out), while I attribute this to the presence of a matter medium gravitationally bound to earth and reducing in density the further away from earth surface, just like our atmospheric air. And this matter is no other than the one the mainstream declare as being abundant in our galaxy – dark matter.
It would be better to follow the calculations in the references provided before concluding that one-way speed of light cannot give the expected value. The effect on frequency is not fully compensated by the returning signal’s reducing speed of light towards gravity. The overall difference is a tiny blue shift that corresponds to the anomaly.
Similar increase in speed of light and frequency can be found in Pound and Rebka’s experiment on which I did a short critique in my e-book.
On your favored mechanism, radial ether wind and tangential ether wind, I doubt they can explain the absence of a Sagnac effect with light on earth surface using earth rotation at 465m/s as the rotating turn-table in place of that used by Sagnac. Above earth surface however the Sagnac effect is observed as evidenced by the GPS.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
Einstein’s description of light speed variation due to gravity gives (in my opinion) the right answer due to a wrong cause.
Sagnac correction in GPS confirms the effect in receivers above Earth and therefore also (in my opinion) on the Earth.
When you use the law of refraction you should use the angle between light ray and the normal to the surface in question.
Regards John-Erik
John-Erik,
“When you use the law of refraction you should use the angle between light ray and the normal to the surface in question”.
Yes.
The scenario described by Einstein and which was sought by Eddington and others is for a light ray GRAZING the Sun’s surface. That approximately makes the normal, the continuation of the Sun’s radius outwards and the angle of incidence 90 degrees.
If you do the calculation or follow mine you get a value about 1.97 arc seconds, much higher than Einstein’s predicted 1.75″, but in agreement with the 1919 solar eclipse expedition finding of 1.98 ± 0.12 arc seconds at Sobral, Brazil and in statistical agreement with the puzzling higher than 1.75 arc seconds usually found in recent optical and radio measurements.
Actual bending is 425 arc seconds! But as you know light rays bend again when exiting a zone of refraction. Of the 425″, only 1.97 arc seconds would be observable at Earth distance.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
Yours and Einstein’s and mine estimations of the bendings of light near Sun are all very approximate. I think, like you, that there should be two bendings. However, I think that there is a wrong sign in your result. I did an estimation in 2011 called Illusoins and Reality in Physics. Take a look and comment on it.
Regards
John-Erik
Akinbo
Regarding Einstein Was Wrong and Stokes also. I think that the link works. So please try again.
The most important was that I think that Stokes was right only regarding entrained ether, but he was wrong when he derived an effect in the transverse arm in MMX. In coherent systems the light vector is defined, and not the vector sum. The vector sum is relevant only for a beam, but not for rays inside the beam.
Regards
John-Erik
John-Erik,
I have browsed quickly your two papers, ‘Illusions and Reality in Relativity’ and ‘Stokes Was Wrong’.
First, we are both in agreement on the wave nature of light and the necessity of a medium for its propagation.
Our differences will include that you make much use of Longitudinal and Transverse ether-wind as a mechanism to explain the Michelson-Morley and other findings.
An area where our models can converge is somewhere where you said, “Ether particles must have some (small) mass…”. If you seize this and develop it further we would likely arrive at same conclusion.
But let me raise some posers for you to meditate…
1. The earth has a translational motion about 370km/s relative to the cosmic microwave background, evidenced by a doppler anisotropy, blue in the direction of earth motion and red in the opposite direction. Transverse ether-wind does not prevent this observation.
2. Dragging of ether is based on the medium’s refractive index. The required refractive index required by Fresnel drag formula to ensure a null or near null MMX finding is impractical.
3. If Sound waves are used in place of Light in the Michelson-Morley experiment, can the waves be used to detect earth motion? And if not, why not?
4. Can what you referred to as “ether particles must have some (small) mass…” do for light what Air does for Sound by being gravitationally bound to earth surface by virtue of this small mass? Again, due to gravity, will the density of such “ether particles with some small mass” not be denser near Earth surface than further away therefore providing a mechanism for light to travel slower in the denser medium near massive gravitational bodies, like the Earth and Sun? Will this be an explanation for the Shapiro delay as well as light bending (which is actually refraction). Note that in the Pound and Rebka experiment vertical speed of light is slowed near earth (towards bottom of the tower) and the reverse in the other direction, which is supportive of the Shapiro finding.
5. In 4), we therefore have a SINGLE mechanism for both slowing and bending instead of “two different mechanisms” behind these two effects.
6. Current astronomical observations and calculations based on Newtonian gravity have come to realize that indeed there has to be more mass in our galaxy other than the mass observed in luminous gases and stars. Would this not be a victory for the presence of “ether particles with mass”, which victory should be embraced without minding that the name given to such a medium is called “dark matter”?
7. Please note that in my model there is matter-free space devoid of dark matter or ether particles with mass. For light to be transmitted in such space requires space to have special characteristics which I have discussed in my book.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
The irrelevance of transverse ether wind is relevant in most experiments when we generate coherently or detect coherently by telescopes. This mens detection by phase. Transverse ether wind is relevant only when we detect direction of a beam by means of amplitude. Effects of material content and effects of ether wind can exist together. MMX be means of sound waves is a stupid idea.
Near Earth particle flow from below is reduced a small amount due to passing through the planet. Particle flow from above is unchanged. This explains why we are pressed towards ground.
I think that the ether is the dark matter. The ether is needed transport of light AND gravity.
Regards
John-Erik