The Creation of a Paradox
Abstract
A Potier created a paradox 136 years ago, by changing Michelson’s prediction for the experiments (MMX), that he did with Morley. Potier reduced the prediction by half, and the missing part was later used by Lorentz to motivate the absurd concept dilation of time. The mistake was repeated by Einstein in his light clock. Time dilation implies individual aging, which is absurd.
Light model
Our models for light are incomplete, and it looks like the transition from light particles to light waves is not really finished.
In coherent systems (based on phase) we cannot see the real motion of light (the beam direction), but only the orientation of wave fronts defined by their normal (the ray direction). This limitation means that in coherent systems we must describe light as the wave vector and the component of ether wind that is parallel to the wave vector. Transverse ether wind becomes irrelevant.
Michelson’s prediction
Michelson assumed that the mirrors in the equipment defined the wave vector to be orthogonal to mirrors. He used the ray concept and assumed light to take the fastest way between mirrors. He therefore concluded that there is no effect of the ether wind in the transverse arm in the MMX equipment.
A Potier’s prediction
Potier had a different opinion. He assumed mirrors to define the vector sum of wave vector and ether wind to be orthogonal to mirrors. He used the beam concept and assumed light to take the shortest way between mirrors. He therefore arrived at an effect that was half the effect in the longitudinal arm of the equipment.
However, the mirrors imply boundary conditions that are relevant in relation to the wave vector, but not in relation to the ether wind. Therefore, the original interpretation, given by Michelson is the correct one.
Result
The false reduction of the prediction produced a gap that later was used by Lorentz to introduce time dilation and introduce science fiction into physics. Instead of by time dilation, the behavior of atomic clocks can be explained by a sensitivity to the ether wind in the clocks. So, atomic clocks can do what stellar aberration and MMX cannot do, namely detect the ether wind.
References
More details are found in earlier posts on this blog and also in my article Fundamental Errors in Physics that was sent to Foundational Questions Institute.
Written by John-Erik Persson
I have added 2 sentences under Result.
John-Erik
Hi John-Eric
I’ve looked as requested. If you read the papers I posted links to here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012 you’ll see I agree with some but far from all of your analysis, and not with your conclusions.
On the Stokes/Mirror question I show in details how the (Maxwell) transition zone (TZ) of a mirror in motion (through or with respect to any local medium) ensures the re-emission (‘reflection’) from the mirror is initially at c wrt the mirror but (over the Ewald-Oseen extinction distance) quickly (or slowly in a vacuum) becomes c wrt the medium rest frame.
I also identify the main initial error as by LODGE in his spinning glass disc analysis, where he traced the ‘ray’ (light) path as observed from his LAB frame rather than the proper GLASS rest frame! Stellar aberration can easily be derived for plane waves at the ionospheric TZ when using the correct rest frame. Stokes ‘dragged ether’ conception was then correct.
That model is fully supported by frame transitions, (the ‘ecliptic plane’ problem) currently unresolvable in SR/GR. (see my USNO Circular p6 ref).
As for your swimmer. It’s ‘sum over paths’. If the mirror is on the bank opposite, he won’t get there! Think of 3 lifeguards racing across a beach to rescue a damsel drowning over to the left. They run faster than swim. Alex Goes straight for her. Bob goes for the waters edge opposite her for the shortest swim, but Charlie gets there first by adjusting angle to relative speeds.
Then you’re partly right, as if the tide is flowing, they must enter the water in a different place.
I also pointed out MMX concluded ‘Ether’ in their last experiment, as did Nobellist George Smoot. But NEITHER vertical! Miller actually found the extinction ‘curve’ in light (‘stellar’) aberration exposed by varying bi-refringence rates at different heights up Mount Wilson (unexplainable any other way).
If you see any such apparent flaws in my own more complete analysis and evidence do raise them. There are rather more papers here;
http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers
Very best
Peter
Peter Jackson
Thanks for all these links and articles.
But you did not give any concrete answer to the simple question about what happened 136 years ago. Michelson’ s prediction for MMX stated zero effect in the transverse arm. Potier changed to an effect half the effect in the longitudinal. In my opinion Michelson was correct. What is your opinion?
Best regards from ____________________ John-Erik Persson
Peter Jackson
You seems not to be willing to discuss Potier’s 1882 conflict with Michelson regarding the effect in transverse arm in MMX. So, I give up. However, I wonder why you are negative. When we discussed our articles to FQXi 2018 you said that you regarded my contribution near the top of your list.
Best John-Erik Persson
Dear John, Peter and all readers,
Our team also reanalyzed the MMX experiment.
But we found an error in Michelson’s analysis of his MMX.
Our reanalysis based by a clear frame references, indicates that transversal light path is not an isosceles triangle but a right triangle, and so the two times t1 and t2 are perfect equals and no fringe displacement should be observed. As was also the case in MMX .
You can find our last form of our analysis at:
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/optics, Vol 3, no. 4 Aug. 2014;
or a more intuitive analysis at:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/jamp, Vol 6 2018
But unfortunately for physics, this error was not remarked by Lorentz. And Einstein utilized this wrong results of MMX, for inventing and promoting his SRT, and for eliminating the ether from physics.
But based on our reanalysis the ether may exist in nature and must be reintroduced in Physics.
Our first model of ether HM16, can explain some of actual phenomena from physics, including E-M and quantum manifestations, or gravitation based on our new electrical nature theory. This model will be improved.
You can find our last form of our HM16 at:
https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/category/173-issue-1-march-2017.html,
or at: http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0004.
You can find our last form of our Gravitation theory at:
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajmp, Vol 4, no. 3 May. 2015;
We think that above Papers, contain some answers at many of yours fundamental question in physics. But some answers may be improved in future even by you, if no error you find in them, and you adhere to our above findings
After reading our Paper(s), your comments or observations will be gratefully received.
Best regards,
dr. Ioan Has