How the Time Concept Was Corrupted

John-Erik Persson, Budkavlevägen 5, Segeltorp, Sweden

john.erik.persson@gmail.com

Wave or particle?

Our knowledge regarding the structure of light is not clear, and the transition from particle model to wave model appears not to be really finished. All particle-based ideas are not swept out, and this fact causes the wave or particle paradox. This fact is demonstrated in the idea that aligning an optical system means fixation of light motion along an optical axis. This conclusion is infected by particle-based thinking. When we instead strict follow the wave model we can conclude that only wave fronts are real. Therefore, aligning instead means that wave fronts orientations are fixed to be orthogonal to the optical axis. This orientation is defined by the normal to the wave fronts. This normal defines the ray concept, that is relevant in relation to reflectors and refractors, since these objects are transparent in relation to the ether wind. The ray is a mathematical tool without physical existence. The ray describes the physical reality of the wave fronts. So, when we use the law of reflection in a mirror, we must use wave front normal – and not real light motion.

This means that we need 2 models for light:

• The ray concept, describing orientation, or apparent motion, and defined by a wave vector c and only the longitudinal component v_L in the ether wind, v.
• The beam concept, describing the real motion of light, and defined by the vector sum, c+v, of wave vector and ether wind.

This important distinction has been ignored in physics. The difference is an angle of about 1 mm at a range of 1 km, due to planetary rotation. In Michelson’s days the difference was assumed to be about 1 dm at a range of 1 km, due to planetary motion in relation to our sun. This small difference can, in most cases, be ignored, but is nevertheless important in the interpretation of the tests that Michelson did together with Morley. The fact that the ray (not the beam) is fixed in these tests means, that we have no effect in the transverse arm, of the test equipment. So, time dilation was a cover up for Potier’s mistake of introducing a not real effect.

Corruption of time

The fact that this distinction was not observed allowed Potier to introduce an effect of the ether wind in the transverse arm of Michelson’s equipment in 1882. Michelson resisted this idea until 1886, when he gave up, after a nervous breakdown, since most scientists were against him. So, probably, Michelson had an intuition of the truth that he could not clearly describe. Therefore, the result was tragic for Michelson as well as for science. Unfortunately, time became corrupted and equipped with the absurd concept of elasticity.

Wave – not particle!

We cannot see the light. So, instead, we look at electrons exposed to light, and observe some kind of quantization, that we describe as hf. However, we cannot see if this means quanta of light or quanta of electron charge.

We use a beam splitter to illuminate 2 photo-detectors, with equal amounts of continuous light waves, from a laser. The outputs are not correlated, since the electrons in the 2 detectors behave independent of each other.

So, we find that we do not need the particle model for light. However, this conclusion means that we have to allow the ether to exist. In the description of this ether we probably need the particle model instead of in light.

Conclusions

• No time dilation.
• We can use the Galilean transform.
• In the longitudinal arm we need a contraction of matter equal to 2 times the Lorentz contraction, to explain the outcome of Michelson’s tests. This contraction can be explained by the communication that exists between atoms in a crystal. This communication controls the separation between the atoms.
• Michelson-Morley’s tests were useless.
• The theory of relativity is wrong.

Reference