Jump to content

lidal

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About lidal

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    physics, relativity

Recent Profile Visitors

1264 profile views
  1. To Studiot " I am still waiting for a mathematical description of the light front surface for observer 2 " I will explain the light wave front equation for moving Observer 2 below. Let a light source and Observer 1 be at the origin O of coordinate system ( x, y, z) . Observer 2 is located at the origin O’ of coordinate system ( x’, y’, z’). +x and +x’ are aligned and parallel. We assume that Observer 1 is at absolute rest and Observer 2 is moving with (absolute) velocity V in the +x direction in the coordinate system (x, y, z). Any velocity relative to the ( x, y, z ) frame is absolute velocity. As the second system ( x’, y’ , z’ ) origin O' passes through and is coincident with the first system ( x, y, z ) origin O, it happens that observer 1 emits a pulse of light, at time t = 0. The problem is to find the equation of the light front as seen by Observer 2. Let us first consider the problem only in one dimension, (x, y, z ) = (x, 0, 0). Observer 1 , who is at absolute rest, sees a light front travelling out from his source in the +x and –x directions and obeying the equation: x2 = c2 t2 ( y = z= 0 ) To find the equation of the light front as seen by Observer 2 , we consider two observers co-moving with observer 2 , one at x’ = +D1 and the other at x’ = -D2 . That is, the observer at x’ = -D2 is behind Observer 2 ( and behind the source ) and the observer at x’ = D1 is in front of Observer 1, with respect to the direction of absolute motion. We determine the time of detection of light by these observers, from which we get the light front equations as ‘seen’ by Observer 2. For the observer at x’ = +D1 : This observer has the same absolute velocity (V) as Observer 2 because both are co-moving. The light source is behind him, with respect to the direction of absolute velocity. At the instant of light emission, the actual/physical distance of the source from this observer is D1. Apparent Source Theory states that the effect of absolute motion of an inertial observer is to create an apparent change in point of light emission relative to that observer. The group and phase velocity of light relative to that point and relative to the observer is always equal to c. This means that once the apparent point of light emission relative to the observer is determined, the experiment is analyzed by assuming that the speed of light is constant relative to that point. Note that we are only considering light coming directly from source to observer. Therefore, since this observer is in absolute motion and since the source is behind him, the apparent point of light emission will be at a distance of D1’ behind him where, D1’ = D1 c / ( c – V ) Note that the point of light emission apparently shifts away from the observer because D1’ > D1 . Although light was physically emitted from point x’ = 0 , for this observer light behaves as if it was emitted from x’ = - Δ = D1 – D1’ It can be shown that: Δ = D1 V / ( c –V ) The time elapsed for the observer to detect the light pulse is: t = D1’ / c = D1 / ( c – V ) To get the time elapsed, we divided the apparent distance by the speed of light c. We are applying the AST postulate that the velocity of light relative to the observer is always constant c , irrespective of absolute or relative motion of the observer. Note that, crucially, observer in AST is the detector of the light. The observer/detector is the person, device, particle or atom directly detecting the light. This is unlike SRT in which the ‘observer’ is not necessarily the detector of light. In SRT the ‘observer ‘ is an inertial reference frame. This distinction is crucial. Therefore, the equation of the light front as ‘seen’ by Observer 1 ,for any point x’ on the positive x’ axis , is obtained as follows: t = D1 / ( c – V ) ⇒ t = x ’ / ( c –V ) ⇒ x ’ = ( c –V ) t Note that I have quoted ‘seen’ above ; I will explain the reason at the end. For the observer at x’ = -D2 This observer also has the same absolute velocity V as Observer 2 . For this observer the light source is in front of him. Even though light was emitted from physical distance D2 in front of him ( from x’ = 0 ), light behaves as if it was emitted from distance D2’ in front of him, for this observer, where D2 ‘ = D2 c / ( c + V ) In this case the point of light emission apparently shifts towards the observer, since D2’ < D2 . Although light was emitted from x’ = 0 , it appears for this observer that light was emitted from x’ = - Δ , where Δ = D2 – D2’ = D2 V / ( c + V ) Therefore, the time taken by light to be detected by this observer is: t = D2’ / c = D2 / ( c + V ) From the above equation, the equation of the light front as ‘seen’ by Observer 2 , for any point x’ on the negative x’ axis , will be obtained as follows: t = D2 / ( c + V ) ⇒ t = - x’ / ( c + V ) ⇒ x’ = - ( c+V ) t Summary : Therefore, the equation of the light front as seen by Observer 2 will be: x ’ = ( c –V ) t ( for x’ > 0 ) x’ = - ( c + V ) t ( for x’ < 0 ) This means that, in the absolutely moving (x’, y’ , z’ ) frame, an observer behind the light source will detect the light before an observer in front of the source , even if their physical distances from the light source are equal . As ‘seen’ by Observer 2 , light moves faster in the backward direction relative to the source than in the forward direction, with respect to the direction of absolute motion. Let us consider the problem again in one dimension, this time for ( x, y, z ) = ( 0, y, 0 ) , i.e. x = z = 0. Let an observer be at y’ = +D .This means that the line connecting this observer with the source is orthogonal to the direction of absolute velocity. This observer also has the same absolute velocity ( V ) as Observer 2 . Again, although the physical distance of the source from this observer is equal to D , light behaves as if it is at a distance of D‘ relative to this observer, where : D‘ = D c / sqrt ( c2 – V2) In this case, the point of light emission will apparently shift backwards in the –x’ direction. The line connecting the observer and the apparent point of light emission is no more orthogonal to the direction of absolute velocity. That is, although light was physically emitted from point ( x’,y’ ) = ( 0,0), the apparent point of light emission for this observer will be (x’, y’) = (-Δ , 0 ) , where Δ = sqrt ( D’2 – D2 ) = D V/ sqrt ( c2 – V2) The time taken by light to be detected by the observer will be: t = D’/c = D / sqrt ( c2 – V2) From the above equation, the equation of the light front as ‘seen’ by Observer 2 is obtained as follows: t = D / sqrt ( c2 – V2) ⇒ t = y’ / sqrt ( c2 – V2) ⇒ y’ = ( sqrt ( c2 – V2) ) t Due to symmetry, the result is the same for an observer at y‘ = -D. The light front equation for an observer on the negative y’ axis will be: y’ = - ( sqrt ( c2 – V2) ) t According to AST the light wave front is no more spherical as ‘seen’ by absolutely moving Observer 2. Spherical wave front can be ‘seen’ only by an observer at absolute rest. From Studiot’s question, I think SRT requires that the wave front ‘seen’ by Observer 2 is also spherical , as for Observer 1 , because SRT postulates that the velocity of light in all inertial frames is constant c. We have considered one dimensional problem only, to explain the distinction between AST and SRT. The general equation for the light wave front in two or three dimensions is a bit involved but can be derived by using the AST procedure. Crucial difference between AST and SRT. According to SRT, the velocity of light is the same constant c in all inertial reference frames. According to AST, the (apparent) velocity of light is constant relative to all inertial observers. In AST , unlike SRT , an observer is the person, device, particle, atom, e.t.c directly detecting the light ! In SRT , the observer is the reference frame. See on Wikipedia , ' Observer ( special relativity) ' " In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a set of objects or events are being measured. Usually this is an inertial reference frame or "inertial observer". " In AST , the velocity ( both phase and group ) of light is always constant relative to all inertial observers. According to AST , the velocity of light in an absolutely moving reference frame is not constant ! But the (apparent) velocity of light relative to all inertial observers ( light detectors) is always constant , whether they are in absolute or relative motion or not. Therefore, since the reference frame ( x’, y’ , z’ ) above is in absolute motion, only light coming to Observer 2 (to the origin O’ ) has constant (apparent) velocity. The reference frame concept is deeply flawed and is the source of all confusions regarding the problem of motion and the speed of light in physics during the past century. It is the reference frame approach that predicted a large fringe shift for the Michelson-Morley experiment, leading to length contraction and time dilation theory. Reference frames can be used accurately enough as an approximation. For example, they are used in classical physics, such as in Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation. The reference frame paradigm ( including the absolute reference frame) is fundamentally wrong and cannot be used to formulate the most fundamental laws of nature, such as in light and electromagnetism and gravity. Light, electromagnetism and gravitation phenomena are so subtle that their real nature simply eludes the ‘third’ observer, that is the reference frame. The reference frame concept should be replaced by Apparent Source Theory. Please read my paper on Vixra: The irrelevance of abstract reference frames in physics
  2. The view count has abruptly dropped from about 3000 per day yesterday to less than 30 per day today. Is this normal ? I think there is some problem. To Studiot " I am still waiting for a mathematical description of the light front surface for observer 2 " Let there be a light source S and an observer O at distance D from S. Both S and O are at rest, so there is no relative motion. The source emits a light wave A sin wt Observer O sees A' sin w(t - D/c) The wave equation will be: - A' sin ( Kx - wt) Let there be another observer O' who is at the same point as O at the instant of light emission, but moving with relative velocity V away from the source. In this case the absolute velocity of O' is the same as the relative velocity V. Vabs = V The question is : what is the wave seen by O' ? Since O' is in absolute motion, according to AST, there will be an apparent change in the point of light emission ( in other words, an apparent change of past position of the source) relative to (as seen by) O' . The distance of the apparent source from O' is: D ' = D c / ( c - Vabs ) Also, since O' is in motion relative to the source, there will be Doppler effect. f ' = f e (-V/c) ( e is base, -V/c is exponent) Now the wave seen by O' will be : A'' sin w' (t - D'/c) = A'' sin ( w't - w' D'/ c) = A'' sin ( w' t - K' D' ) where w' = w e ( - V/ c) , w = 2 pi f , K ' = K e ( - V/ c) K'= 2 pi / lambda' Remember that, in this case : lambda' = lambda * e ( V / c) and f ' = f e ( -V/c) The virtual wave equation for observer O' will be : - A'' sin ( K' x' - w' t) where x' is relative to the apparent source. It can be seen that the virtual phase velocity and the virtual group velocity are both equal to c. Therefore, for the case of D = 0 (the problem you asked me to solve) , D' = 0 and observer O' will see : A'' sin (w' t - K' D') = A'' sin w't where the light emitted by the source (as seen by an observer close to the source and at rest relative to the source) is: A sin wt A, A' and A'' can be assumed to be equal for this discussion.
  3. In effect, this view is the same as ether view because it predicts a fringe shift for the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment if you don’t apply length contraction and time dilation. SRT tacitly, wrongly assumes the ether and then applies length contraction and time dilation to make up for that (i.e. to get a null fringe shift). Even with all this, SRT still fails with regard to the MM experiment because of the small fringe shifts observed, such as in the Miller experiments. SRT makes one mistake and then makes another mistake to correct the first mistake. If there was no tacit assumption of the ether, there would be no fringe shift in the first place, and hence no need for length contraction and time dilation. I think what Einstein eliminated was the universal ether. There is still ether hidden in Einstein’s relatively moving reference frames. Einstein’s inertial reference frames are nothing but ether frames in relative motion. In each of Einstein’s inertial frames, light is treated like ordinary local phenomena, such as sound waves.
  4. Correction about what I have said the about the wave equation, quoted above. Let me start from formulating Apparent Source Theory: The effect of absolute motion of an observer is to create an apparent change in source position relative to the observer. This means that the effect of absolute motion is only to create an apparent change in the point of light emission (i.e. an apparent change in the past position of the source). Light takes more time to reach an observer absolutely moving away from a light source not because , unlike ether theory, the group velocity of light relative to the observer has changed from c, but because the point of light emission has apparently moved away from the observer. Therefore, light acts as if it travelled an apparent distance D', not the actual/physical distance D, where D' = D c / (c - V) . Therefore, the group velocity of light for absolutely moving inertial observer is constant c , NOT c + - V. This is the accurate model regarding group velocity. There are two interpretations of group velocity: physical and apparent; I have mentioned this in my opening post in this thread . As stated above the apparent group velocity of light is always constant c for an inertial observer. The physical group velocity of light, however, is variable : c + - V . The physical group velocity is the velocity measured in the conventional way: by dividing the physical distance travelled in a given interval of time. It is the apparently constant group velocity interpretation that is fundamental, not the physical variable group velocity of light. Therefore, fundamentally both the phase velocity and the group velocity of light in vacuum are constant c, in the case of an inertial observer. The wave equation for a moving observer should satisfy constant phase velocity and constant (apparent) group velocity of light. As you pointed out it is impossible to get an equation of the wave function whose phase velocity is c, but whose group velocity is c + - V. I just lost sight of the elusive theory ( AST) for a moment . Suppose that a light source is at rest, emitting light of frequency f. At the instant of light emission the observer was at distance D away from the source, moving away from the source with velocity V. The observer will observe light of frequency f ' = f e V/c , after a time delay of D / (c - V) .
  5. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, let me formulate Apparent Source Theory for the conventional Michelson-Morley experiment again. 1. The effect of absolute motion of the Michelson-Morley interferometer is to create an APPARENT change of source position relative to the detector 2. This APPARENT change in source position creates a small fringe shift AS IF it is an ACTUAL / physical change in source position. From classical geometrical optics it is straight forward to see that (actual) change in source position creates a small fringe shift because the path lengths of the two light beams will be slightly different when the source position is changed slightly. For the detailed analysis of the 1881 Michelson-Morley experiment, please read my paper on Vixra: " New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory "
  6. The modern Michelson-Morley (MM) experiments using optical cavity resonators are searching for something that doesn't exist in the first place: the ether. Like the conventional MM experiments they are designed and capable to detect the ether if the ether existed, but incapable to detect absolute motion. The ether should have been subjected to a thorough conceptual test even before doing any physical experiment. Nevertheless, the MM experiments are very important because they have succeeded in disproving the ether with a physical experiment. But the MM experiments (both conventional and modern) are based on a flawed and simplistic view that absolute motion is motion relative to the ether. Apparent Source Theory can explain not only the small fringe shifts observed in the Miller experiments but also the almost complete null results of modern MM experiments using optical cavity resonators. Let me first formulate Apparent Source Theory for the conventional MM experiments again. Small fringe shifts in the MM interferometer can be produced in two ways. 1. By setting the MM apparatus in absolute motion OR 2. By slight change of source position (1mm for example) about its initial position. ( a classical geometrical optics problem) The effect of absolute motion of the MM apparatus is to create an apparent change of source position relative to the detector (i.e. relative to the point of detection) The fringe shift for a given absolute velocity of the MM apparatus is equal to the fringe shift due to a corresponding actual/physical change of source position. For every absolute velocity there is a corresponding change of source position that produces the same fringe shift. This procedure turns the difficult problem of absolute motion into a straight forward,classical optics problem, which involves familiar laws such as 'angle of incidence equals angle of reflection '. The corresponding change of source position for every absolute velocity is determined by using the Apparent Source Theory (AST) . It is determined by the source detector distance, the magnitude and direction of the absolute velocity, and the orientation of the source detector line with respect to absolute velocity direction. By using this procedure, I have been able to predict a fringe shift of 0.013 which is of the same order as the measured fringe shift of 0.018, for the Michelson 1881 experiment. This discrepancy is because of lack of information on detailed dimensions of the 1881 experiment. (Only the 1.2m arm length is known) . One of the unexpected results is that the fringe shift depends not only on the distances between the mirrors and the beam splitter, but also on the distances of the light source and the detector from the beam splitter! Note that these distances are irrelevant in ether theory, Lorentz theory and SRT. By slight changes in the distances of the beam splitter from the source and the detector I got a fringe shift of 0.021. One of the significant results of AST is that the fringe shift for absolute velocities along the longitudinal direction is zero. This is unlike ether theory, which predicts a maximum fringe shift in that direction. According to AST, the maximum fringe shift occurs for absolute velocities in the transverse direction. This may explain why the Miller experiments gave a direction almost ninety degrees different from the CMBR and Silvertooth direction! For the detailed analysis of the 1881 Michelson experiment, please read my paper on Vixra: " New Interpretation and Analysis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory " The explanation of the null results of the modern MM experiments using optical cavity resonators is basically the same. Suppose that, with the experimental setup at absolute rest, the two lasers are slightly moved back and forth about their initial position. Will this produce any significant change in the resonance frequency of the cavities? I don't think so. In the modern MM experiments also the effect of absolute motion is just to create an apparent change of source (laser) position from the point of observation.
  7. The deeply hidden flaw in the current view of light is that it is being considered as ordinary local phenomena such as sound waves. Physicists have long avoided the word ether but have always thought about light in terms of the ether. Any view of light wave as an objectively existing (in the classical sense) peaks and troughs fixed out there in space (although time varying) is nothing but ether thinking. If one rejects the new theory that wavelength changes for a moving observer, then one is admitting /accepting the ether because one is thinking about a fixed /objective wave independent of the observer. The current mainstream (and 'natural') view of phase and group velocity is tied to the ether because both phase and group velocities are seen as aspects (parameters) of one objectively existing thing: the ether wave. Because both are features of the same entity, they are always connected together because both are derived from it. The new theory is that phase and group velocity are completely independent, and are not connected. I think this is the root problem. With the new theory, the group ( the energy packet) velocity is variable and the phase velocity is constant. The difficulty to understand this arises because we still think of both as different parameters of the same thing: the ether. Group velocity of light in vacuum is always c + - V relative to a moving observer. We should not think of deriving it from the wave equation like for sound waves. We don't derive the group velocity and the phase velocity from an (ether) wave equation in the case of light. Rather, I think, we formulate the wave equation from the phase velocity (c) , the group velocity (c +- V) , and frequency (from exponential Doppler effect) and phase (from Apparent Source Theory), which is the other way round.
  8. Thank you for the comment. But your comment gave me a hard time trying to understand it perhaps because it is too brief. I could have easily misunderstood it. I assume that you are saying "not only phase velocity but also group velocity should be constant for a moving observer" That was also my view years ago before I made the crucial distinction of variable group velocity and completely independent phase and group velocities. I abandoned that idea because it led to paradoxes and also because observations, the Roamer experiment in particular, showed variable group velocity. If we accept that the phase velocity of light is constant for all observers, we have to make the distinction that phase and group velocities be independent in order to avoid the paradoxes. Paradoxes appear when there is acceleration, for example. I struggled with those paradoxes, for example, in one of my early papers "General relativity of electromagnetic waves " I will also respond to all the other comments from other forum members. I apologise for the delay so far, and for the coming few days.
  9. The behavior of the phase ( and group) velocity of light in vacuum is the fundamental problem that needs to be solved. I am making a simple claim: the phase velocity of light in vacuum is constant independent of source or observer velocity. I have focused only on this problem because I think the problem of the speed of light in optical media is not as fundamental. We should first solve the simple yet fundamental problem of the speed of light in vacuum. A theory should be refuted or confirmed based on the claim it makes. Evidences of absolute motion and Apparent Source Theory 1. The Miller experiments that always showed small fringe shifts, with a maximum fringe shift always in the same direction in space, correlated with sidereal time 2. The Silvertooth experiment and the CMBR anisotropy experiment 3. The Marinov experiment 4. The Roland De Witte experiment The usual argument against absolute motion is that modern Michelson-Morley (MM) experiments give complete ( or almost complete ) null result. The problem is that physicists have been ignoring the above experiments and pursuing only those experiments that give null result, pushing the limits. Apparent Source Theory not only explains the large absolute velocities detected, for example, in the Silvertooth experiment, but also the small fringe shifts observed in the conventional MM experiments and the complete null results of modern MM experiments using optical cavity resonators.
  10. The reading of an electronic counter which counts the pulses for a fixed interval of time will change as the orientation of the rod relative to the absolute velocity vector is changed. For example, let Vabs = 390 km/s and D = 3m. The frequency of the pulses when the rod is parallel with the absolute velocity vector will be: 49999915.5 Hz The frequency of the pulses when the rod is perpendicular to the absolute velocity vector will be:49999957.75 Hz The difference in frequency will be: 42.25 Hz Therefore, in one second the difference in the counter readings will be about 42.24998. In 30 minutes, for example, the difference will be 42.24998*30*60 = 76049.964counts. This is the maximum? difference between the two counter values, for 30 minutes. This occurs when the axis of one pair of transponders is aligned with Earth's absolute velocity, while the other rod is orthogonal. The minimum difference is 0 Hz ( 0 counts for any duration) and occurs when both rods are orthogonal to absolute velocity. Therefore, the maximum frequency difference for a rod of 3m length is 42.25 Hz. ( for 100 m the experiment is less sensitive ) " . . .And we do a similar experiment (with clock measurements), and don't see this effect" What kind of experiments ? Do you mean GPS ? Clearly describe the experiment so that I can explain it in terms of Apparent Source Theory.
  11. " Is it consistent with all phenomena? You have to come up with an experiment that would show you to be wrong, if you are indeed wrong. Not just ones where you could accidentally be right " Yes my theory is falsifiable. For a source detector relative velocity of 0.5c approaching , for example, Exponential Doppler Effect ( EDE ) theory predicts f '/f = 1.648 , where as special relativity (SRT) predicts f '/f = 1.732 For 0.9c, EDE predicts f'/f = 2.46 and SRT predicts f'/f = 4.36 In the case of receding relative velocity at the speed of light , EDE predicts f '/f = e , where e is Euler's constant , whereas SRT predicts f '/f = infinite.
  12. The phase velocity of light in vacuum is always constant. This theory can be tested by experiments involving source and observer/detector in relative motion, such as the Ives-Stilwell experiment. The waveguide experiment cannot be used to distinguish between the new theory and classical theory because the source and observer are at relative rest, in which case the new theory makes the same prediction as classical theory. Failure of Newtonian physics does not necessarily lead to special relativity. When physicists found that moving source experiments contradicted emission theory, they discarded emission theory. And when they found that the Michelson-Morley experiment contradicted ether theory, they discarded ether theory. This way the mystery of the speed of light eluded them for a century. This led them to think that all classical theories are wrong and they resorted to length contraction and time dilation. If they had thought about a possibility of fusion of the two theories, the history of physics would have been different. Emission theory and ether theory are not necessarily wrong, they are just incomplete individually. Fusion of the two will make them complete. For example, the following experiment can detect absolute motion. (I have proposed in my papers other experiments using interference methods that can detect absolute motion. ) " Proposal for a new light speed anisotropy experiment based on time of flight method by continuous exchange of a short light pulse between two light transponders " Yes, the theory of constancy of phase velocity of light is consistent with the fast ion beam experiment, which is a modern version of the Ives-Stilwell experiment involving absorption line of moving ions. Regarding the theory that gravity is a net electrostatic force, it is so simple, compelling that it can be seen as self evident. But I arrived at this idea by applying Apparent Source Theory to astronomical observation that the direction of Sun light and the direction of gravity are almost the same. See Tom Van Flandern's " The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say " Regarding the experiment, I should have mentioned that the axis of the instrument should continuously track , for example Leo constellation, in order to accumulate the time differences for one day.
  13. A New Theory of Motion and the Speed of Light I will try to invalidate the theory of relativity by presenting a compelling alternative theory. I hope that criticism of Einstein's theories will not be seen as offense. I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity. One of the fallacious arguments usually presented in favor of relativity is the failure of classical theories and the lack of any competing alternative theory. The argument goes like: if classical theories fail and if no alternative explanation exists, then relativity must be a correct theory. Here I will present a compelling alternative explanation, thereby refuting this argument. Next I will directly present some of the profound results of the new theoretical framework. A comprehensive presentation of the new theory, which describes the intricate relations of the different features of the nature of light, can be found in my papers at the Vixra site. Listed below are some of them. " Absolute/Relative Motion and the Speed of Light, Electromagnetism, Inertia and Universal Speed Limit c - an Alternative Interpretation and Theoretical Framework " " A New Theoretical Framework of Absolute and Relative Motion, the Speed of Light, Electromagnetism and Gravity " " New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory " ( For the complete article including the figures, see attached pdf ) Einstein's "chasing a beam of light" thought experiment Einstein correctly discovered his beautiful "chasing a beam of light" thought experiment, but gave it a wrong interpretation, i.e. the relativity of length and time. The new interpretation of constancy of light speed is as follows: The phase velocity of light is always constant relative to the observer , irrespective of source or observer velocity, for uniform or accelerated motion. The group velocity of light behaves in a more conventional way: it is independent of source velocity, but varies with observer velocity. Einstein failed to make this distinction and this led to the special theory of relativity. The constancy of the phase velocity of light is a direct consequence of the non-existence of the ether. Physicists were led astray when they tried to 'explain' the constancy of the velocity of light, by proposing the relativity of length and relativity of simultaneity. The phenomenon of constancy of the (phase) velocity of light is to be just accepted because it does not have any explanation for the same reason that there is no explanation for light being a wave when there is no medium for its transmission. Physicists naturally sought to 'explain' the constancy of the speed of light because their thinking was always implicitly based on the ether. Einstein did not truly succeed in eliminating the ether, and Einstein himself never realized this. Few, if any, physicists realize this. The ether always haunted the thinking of the physicists. Imagine a stationary light source emitting a light pulse and an observer moving directly away from the source at (or near ) the speed of light. The new interpretation of Einstein's thought experiment is that the group will be 'frozen' but the phases will still move past the observer at the speed of light c , relative to the observer. For the phase velocity of light to be constant not only the frequency but also, unconventionally, the wavelength must change for a moving observer. f λ = f ' λ ' = c The change of wavelength for a moving observer is a unique, unconventional nature of light. This makes light distinct from classical waves, such as sound waves. This should raise a question: then what is the Doppler effect law governing light that can satisfy the above condition ? The classical Doppler effect law obviously fails to satisfy this condition. Exponential Doppler Effect law of light Searching for a function that can satisfy the above condition, I found a new mysterious formula governing the Doppler effect of light. f ' = f e V/c and λ ' = λ e -V/c , where e is Euler's constant Now f ' λ ' = f e V/c λ e -V/c = f λ = c satisfying the constant phase velocity. No conventional formulas containing terms like c ± V can satisfy this condition. Profoundly, the above formula not only satisfies the constant phase velocity condition, it can also explain the Ives-Stillwell experiment ! By applying Taylor expansion to the exponential function, we get exactly the same result as predicted by special relativity: Δλ = ½ β2 λ The derivation can be found in my paper at Vixra: " Exponential Law of Doppler Effect of Light – an Explanation of Ives-Stilwell Experiment " Moreover, the new formula is defined for all values of velocity V: 0 ≤ V ≤ ∞ , whereas the relativistic formula (and classical formulas) become undefined for V ≥ c . Therefore, the existence of superluminal velocities (as already observed) by itself disproves the relativistic and classical formulas, implying the need for a new law of Doppler effect of light. The Michelson- Morley experiment Let us first see a possible explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment, as a precursor to the ultimate theory called Apparent Source Theory. This is just to demonstrate that explanations exist that do not require us to invoke length contraction and time dilation. Consider the following analogy. Consider a stationary observer A and a truck moving relative to A. Another observer B is on the truck, throwing balls towards observer A while the truck is moving relative to A. Suppose the truck ( and observer B ) moves towards observer A with velocity Vt . Suppose that the velocity of the truck is not constant. Let there be a requirement that observer B always adjusts the velocity of the balls relative to the truck ( Vbt ) so that the velocity of the ball relative to observer A will always be constant c , irrespective of the velocity of the truck. In this case, observer B should decrease the velocity of the balls relative to the truck in such a way that the velocity of the ball relative to observer A is always constant c. In the case of the truck moving away from the observer A, the velocity of the balls relative to the truck should be increased by the right amount. ( see figure is in the attached pdf) By observing the balls coming from the truck, an observer deduces that the velocity of the balls relative to the truck is c - V in the forward direction and c + V in the backward direction. When the truck is moving towards stationary observer A: velocity of light relative to observer A = (c - Vabs) + Vabs = c When the truck is moving away from stationary observer A: velocity of light relative to observer A = (c + Vabs) - Vabs = c Thus, the velocity of the balls relative to observer A is always constant c independent of the velocity of the truck, analogous to the speed of light being constant c relative to an observer at absolute rest, independent of source velocity. It is now easy to see the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment ( MMX ) by the modified emission theory above. Modified emission theory is just conventional emission theory in which the velocity of light relative to the source depends on the absolute velocity of the source. In the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, therefore, any change of the speed of light relative to the light source will not cause a fringe shift because both the longitudinal and transverse beams will be affected ( delayed or advanced ) by equal amount. Note that we have not made any reference to the ether in the above theory. The above theory is just an attempt to present the ultimate theory ( Apparent Source Theory ) in an intuitive way. It is fundamentally not correct. Apparent Source Theory Now we will see the trick of nature that has eluded physicists for centuries. Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment shown below. ( see figure is in the attached pdf ) Apparent Source Theory is formulated as follows. The effect of absolute motion for co-moving light source and observer/detector is to create an apparent change in position ( distance and direction ) of the source relative to ( as seen by ) the observer/detector. The apparent change in position of the light source is determined by the source-observer direct distance and the magnitude and direction of absolute velocity. The easiest way to understand Apparent Source Theory is to ask a simple question: what is the effect of actually/physically changing the light source position of the Michelson-Morley interferometer (instead of setting it in absolute motion) on the interference fringes ? For example, what is the effect of actually moving the light source slightly backwards (to the left), as shown above, on the interference fringes ? Obviously, there will not be any fringe shift because, intuitively, both the longitudinal and transverse light beams will be affected ( delayed ) identically. There will not be any fringe shift also if the source is slightly moved forward (to the right ) because both light beams will be advanced equally. There will be a small fringe shift for other positions of the source, for example if the source is moved upwards or downwards. The new interpretation is that an apparent change of source position (caused by absolute motion ) will not create any significant fringe shift ( no fringe shift or a small fringe shift ) for the same reason that an actual/physical change of source position will not create any significant fringe shift. This explains the 'null' result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is the subtle nature of light that completely eluded physicists for centuries. The procedure of analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment is : 1. Replace the real source by an apparent source 2. Analyze the experiment by assuming that light is emitted from the apparent source position, not from the real source position. The real source is replaced by an apparent source in order to account for absolute velocity. Once this is done, the experiment is analyzed by assuming that light is emitted from the apparent source and by using elementary geometrical optics. Once we replace the real source with an apparent source, we can assume emission theory, i.e. the speed of light is constant relative to the apparent source. Apparent Source Theory can be seen as a seamless fusion of ether theory and emission theory. Relation between constancy of phase velocity and Apparent Source Theory The constancy of the phase velocity of light ( and Exponential Doppler Effect theory ) governs the wavelength, frequency and phase velocity of light. Apparent Source Theory governs the phase delay and group delay of light. Some of the profound findings of the new theory - The ether does not exist but absolute motion does exist. Physicists wrongly concluded that absolute motion didn't exist when they failed to detect the ether. The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was designed to detect the ether and was capable to detect the ether, if the ether existed. The MMX is flawed in that it was designed to detect the non-existent ether. The Michelson-Morley experiment is not fully capable to detect absolute motion. Absolute motion is not motion relative to the ether. Absolute motion is motion relative to all matter in the universe. - The reference frame concept is wrong and should be eliminated from physics as a paradigm. The true natures of light and electromagnetism always elude the third 'observer' ( the reference frame ). The new definition of observer is the object ( particle, atom or device ) directly sensing or detecting light, electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena. See my paper at Vixra: " The Irrelevance of Abstract Reference Frames in Physics " - One of the profound, unexpected findings concerns the phenomenon of stellar aberration. The current, universal understanding is that a telescope needs to be tilted forward in the direction of observer's velocity in order to see the stars. Apparent Source Theory predicts that the telescope should be tilted backwards, not forwards ! - The same law governs the Michelson-Morley experiment and the phenomenon of stellar aberration: apparent change of light source position relative to an absolutely moving observer ! See my paper at Vixra: " A new insight explains both the Michelson-Morley experiment and stellar aberration- Apparent change of light source position relative to an absolutely moving observer " - Dual natures of light, electromagnetism and gravity. The speed of electrostatic and gravitational fields has dual nature: infinite and finite ( light speed c ) ! Static fields act as if they are both transmitted at the speed of light c and instantaneously. Light acts as if it travels both in straight line and in curved path ! For absolutely co-moving light source and observer, light follows curved path if we assume it as coming from the real source, whereas light always follows straight path if we assume it as coming from the apparent source. For co-moving charge (mass) and observer, the electric (gravitational) lines of force follow a curved path if we consider the real charge (mass), whereas the electric (gravitational ) lines of force always follow a straight path if we consider the apparent charge (mass). - Light is not only a local phenomenon, but also a non-local phenomenon. Light is a dual phenomenon: local and non-local! All the confusion in physics during the last century is rooted in considering light like ordinary, local phenomena. The Michelson-Morley experiment was conceived and designed based on such a fallacious view. The special theory of relativity is a mistake built on previous mistakes. If the scientists had not considered light like ordinary local phenomena ( by considering light as an ether wave ), there would have been no need to speculate ' length contraction and time dilation ' . - The group velocity of light can be seen both as constant and variable. For co-moving light source and observer, for example, the group velocity of light is always constant c if we assume that light is emitted from the apparent source position. If we assume that light is emitted from the real/physical source position, the group velocity of light will be variable. - Unlike classical fields and waves, there is no mixing of absolute and relative motion effects in the case of light and electromagnetism. This is why no absolute motion effect has been observed in the Ives-Stilwell experiments. Einstein's magnet conductor argument against the existence of absolute motion is wrong because magnetism is a relative motion effect, not an absolute motion effect. Weber's electrodynamics is the ultimate law governing electromagnetism, rather than Maxwell's. - Light speed limit exists, but it is not universal. 1. It applies only to physical objects that have mass. Electrostatic and gravitational fields can be transmitted instantaneously. 2. Even for physical bodies, it applies only locally. A physical body cannot move at superluminal velocities relative to local matter in the universe, but it can move superluminally relative to distant matter in the universe. We know that superluminal galaxies have already been observed. - The cosmic microwave background radiation may be just Doppler shifted light from receding galaxies. - Gravity is a difference between electrostatic attraction and repulsion forces. In fact, this idea was first proposed by Michael Faraday. Apparent Source Theory has independently also led to the same conclusion. Gravity is a net electrostatic force and inertia is a net 'magnetic' force. Proposed time of flight light speed anisotropy experiment Despite the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, absolute motion has already been detected in several experiments such as the Silvertooth, the CMBR anisotropy and the Marinov experiments. Many of the 'ether' drift experiments used interference method because of the difficulty of measuring extremely small differences in time of flight and because of the problem of clock-synchronization ( this problem does not exist in the new theory). Here I will propose a novel light speed anisotropy experiment that is based on the time of flight method. The experiment consists of two light transponders, say transponder A and transponder B, each fixed to the two ends of a rigid rod. Each light transponder consists of a light detector unit and a light emitter unit. The light detector, upon detecting a light pulse, triggers the light emitter, which emits a short light pulse. Suppose that, initially, transponder A is somehow triggered to emit a short light pulse. This pulse is detected by the detector of transponder B, which triggers the emitter of transponder B, which in turn emits a light pulse, which will be detected by the detector of A, which triggers the emitter of A, which emits a light pulse, and so on. The process can continue indefinitely. An electronic counter counts the pulses emitted. Suppose that the rod is aligned with the direction of absolute velocity of the Earth. Because of light speed anisotropy, light will take more time, say, from A to B than from B to A. The novel feature of this experiment is that it accumulates the extremely small time of flight differences, over several minutes or hours. The number of pulses counted in a given period of time will depend on the orientation of the rod with respect to the direction of Earth's absolute velocity. By using this effect, the direction and magnitude of Earth's absolute velocity can be determined, theoretically, with any desired accuracy. Conventional time of flight experiments use spatially separated light emitter and light detector. A single pulse is emitted by the emitter and detected by the detector. Because of the extremely small time of flight involved, it is difficult to detect light speed anisotropy by using this method using a single pulse. The new method circumvents this and any clock synchronization problem by using a continuous exchange of a short light pulse between spatially separated transponders, thereby accumulating (integrating ) the small differences in time of flight of light in two directions. A detailed description of the experiment is found in my paper at Vixra: " Proposal for a new light speed anisotropy experiment based on time of flight method by continuous exchange of a short light pulse between two light transponders " Summary: Two components of a new theoretical framework have been presented: 1. Constant phase velocity and variable group velocity of light. Exponential Doppler Effect law of light 2. Apparent Source Theory The new theoretical framework can be seen as a seamless fusion of classical and modern theories: ether theory, emission theory and constancy of the speed of light. Apparently contradicting natures co-exist in the phenomena of light, electromagnetism and gravitation. In effect, special relativity and all associated concepts such as Lorentz transformation, time dilation, length contraction ideas have been invalidated. With respect to Apparent Source Theory, we have seen only the case of inertial motion. Extension of this special case to the general case of accelerating observers, such as in the Sagnac effect, has been a daunting task that took several years to complete. Theoretical disproof of Relativity.pdf
  14. A speculation on CMBR : The CMBR may be Doppler (red) shifted light from receding superluminal galaxies. Due to the high relative velocity of some galaxies, Doppler effect can cause visible light to be shifted down to microwave frequencies. This theory may also explain the cosmic x-ray background radiation, which is proposed to be Doppler (blue) shifted light from approaching superluminal galaxies. My paper is found on Vixra: “Can the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation be Doppler Shifted Light from Receding Superluminal Galaxies ? “
  15. I was stuck with this problem because I missed the fact that the optical system described acts as a resonant cavity, as you pointed out. Changing the distance between the laser source and the mirror affects the light intensity at the detector (SWD). It is true that the first maxima (anti-node) of the standing wave always occurs at quarter wavelength from the mirror, but its value changes as the distance between the laser and the stage is changed. Other anti-nodes are at integral multiple of half wavelength from the first anti-node. Now I can explain why the phase of the SWD voltage, which is an AC voltage due to dithering of the mirror, changes as the stage is moved. i.e. why moving the mirror towards (away from) the laser source causes an increase of light intensity at the SWD for some laser-mirror distances and a decrease of light intensity for other laser-mirror distances. Intuitively, if the movement of the mirror makes the laser-mirror distance closer to being an integral multiple of the wavelength, the light intensity at the detector increases because the optical system will be operating closer to resonance. If movement of the mirror makes the laser-mirror distance farther from integral multiple of the wavelength, the optical system will be detuned and the light intensity at the SWD will drop. Thank you all for your invaluable ideas. If you have any other ideas or comments, you are welcome.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.