About Tragedies in Physics

The problems in ‘modern’ physics started already in connection with the transition from light particles to light waves. At that time light motion got a new description as a vector sum of ether wind and wave velocity. This provided a correct description of how light really moves. This motion, the beam direction, can be detected as the direction of maximum amplitude of light in a focused  beam only. However, if light is not focused into a beam we must use coherent systems based on phase (not on amplitude). This means no sensitivity to ether winds blowing inside the planes of the wave fronts. Therefore, we can detect (or define) only the normal to the wave fronts, that is the ray direction, and this apparent direction is therefore independent of ether wind blowing inside the plane of the wave fronts. Since most optical experiments are done in coherent systems we must use the ray direction, instead of the beam direction, to describe apparent motion of light in these systems.

The relevance of the transverse ether wind marks the difference between ray direction and beam direction. The fact that the ray direction is valid in coherent systems means that transverse ether wind cannot cause stellar aberration, not an effect in the transverse arm in MMX (Michelson and Morley’s tests) and  not an effect in Einstein’s light clock either. Therefore, assuming beam direction where ray direction is relevant has caused wrong interpretations of stellar aberration, MMX and light clocks. This is a tragedy in physics.

Since the ray direction is apparent to a telescope the telescope will see light to follow a straight line (independent of ether wind). Apparent light behavior is therefore just like the track of a particle. Therefore, the 300 year old interpretation of stellar aberration as a rain drop effect still holds. This means that stellar aberration is caused by observer motion (independent of ether wind). This idea has got support from Hartwig Thim and David Tombe,  but not from Ron Hatch. The ray concept applied (in about the same way) to MMX implies no ether wind effect in the transverse arm. Stokes did not observe this and therefore introduced an effect in this arm equal to half the effect in the longitudinal arm. This mistake seems to have supported the ideas of the illogical Lorentz factor and time dilation. Motivation for these ideas was found in an absurd assumption regarding light in inertial frames.

A more realistic theory can be based on no time dilation and a contraction of physical bodies equal to a squared Lorentz factor instead. This greater length contraction can compensate for the expected ether wind effect in the longitudinal arm in MMX. Since atoms in a crystal control their separations by their effects in the ether in 2 opposite directions it is reasonable to assume that the effect searched in MMX of ether winds in 2 opposite directions can be compensated. This makes MMX a useless method. Without time dilation we must explain real changes in clock frequencies observed in the GPS system in a different way. Such an explanation is possible in the fact that bound electrons in atomic clocks are moving forth and back in relation to the ether wind. This can explain a second order effect on clock frequency.

We have missed an important distinction between real beam motion (amplitude) and apparent ray direction (phase). Therefore, we have used wrong interpretations of stellar aberration, MMX and Einstein’s light clock. This error produced the theory of relativity, with the Lorentz factor as the central part. This became a tragedy in physics, and the confusion started already at the time when we started to use light waves instead of light particles.

Faraday discovered the ether and invented electromagnetic systems; like transformer, engine and generator. His work was translated to mathematical form and these equations have become legendary, but the fact that they describe an ether is forgotten.

A more detailed description of these ideas is found in an article called Abolishing the Lorentz Factor.

John-Erik Persson

naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson