lidal

Consider relatively moving inertial reference frames S, S’, S’’, with coordinates (x, y ), (x’, y’ ), ( x’’, y’’ ) , respectively. S’ and S’’ are moving with velocities v and u, respectively, relative to S, in the + x direction. At t = t’ = t”=0 , the origins of the reference frames coincide and the clocks in all frames are synchronized. An event ( Event 1 ) occurs in S at: x = x1 , t = t1 To find the coordinates of Event 1 in S’ and in S’’, the traditional way is to use Lorentz transformation ( LT ) directly from S to S’, and directly from S to S’’. My argument is that, if inertial frames have complete symmetry, we should get the same coordinates of the event in S’’ indirectly by using LT from S’ to S’’. This means that we first get the coordinates of the event in S’, by using LT from S to S’ . Then we use LT from S’ to S’’. We use the relative velocity w = u - v for the Lorentz transformation from S’ to S’’. Traditional way Use LT from S to S' Use LT from S to S'' Alternative way required by symmetry Use LT from S to S' , then from S' to S'' OR Use LT from S to S'' , then from S'' to S' Symmetry requires that the coordinates of the event in S’’ obtained using both approaches should agree. I find that this is not the case. The same argument applies to S’. For example, using Lorentz transformation directly from S to S’’, the length of a rod in S’’ will be: L’’ = γu L However, using Lorentz transformation from S to S’, then from S’ to S’’ , the length of the same rod in S’’ will be: L’’ = γw γv L ( 1 + vw/c2 ) where L is the length of the rod in S. This leads to a contradiction: L’’ ≠ L’’ Is there any flaw in this argument ?

Apparent Source Theory (AST) is a new theory proposed as an alternative explanation to the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX). I will formulate AST (w.r.t MMX ) once again as follows: The effect of absolute motion of the MM interferometer is to create an APPARENT change in position of the light source as seen by the detector. AST is a very elusive theory, so I will use an analogy and a simulation to explain it further. ( I hope I have complied with the rules this time) The simplest way to explain AST is as follows: Suppose that, instead of setting the MMX apparatus in absolute motion, the position of the light source is slightly changed about its original position, say, by 1mm backward, forward, upwards, downwards, etc. What will be the effect of this ACTUAL/PHYSICAL change in source position on the position of the interference fringes? Intuitively, we can see that changing the position of the light source along the longitudinal axis (forward and backward) will have no effect on the fringe positions because both light beams are affected (advanced and delayed, respectively) identically. In the case of upward or downward change of source position (i.e. along the transverse direction) , from geometrical optics, we can intuitively see that a small fringe shift will occur. This is because the two light beams will be affected slightly differently. ( see the video simulation in the link at the end of this post ) Apparent Source Theory (AST) states that the APPARENT change of source position ( caused by absolute motion) has the same effect as a corresponding ACTUAL/PHYSICAL change of source position. This theory explains and predicts not only the null fringe shift of the MM experiments but also the small fringe shifts observed in the Miller experiments. AST turns out to be a fusion of ether theory and emission theory. Let us use an analogy. Two persons S and O are standing on a moving cart. We will consider three cases: CASE 1. O is in front of S CASE 2. S is in front of O CASE 3. The line connecting O and S is perpendicular to the direction of motion of the cart. Person S acts as a 'source' throwing balls towards person O who acts as an 'observer'. First consider CASE 1. Assume that S always throws balls with constant velocity c relative to himself/herself. Two synchronized clocks, one at S another at O, are used to measure the time delay of a ball going from S to O. Now we want the ball to behave both according to emission theory and according to ether theory, at the same time. At first assume that the cart is at rest. Let the distance between S and the O be D. When the cart is at rest, the time taken by the ball to move from S to O is, t = D/c. Now suppose that the cart starts moving forward with velocity V. Since, according to emission theory, the velocity of the ball relative to the source S is always constant c , then the time t will still be equal to D/c, regardless of the velocity of the cart. But we want the time delay t to change due to the motion of the cart, to make the ball appear to behave according to ether theory also. How can this be done? To make the ball behave according to ether ( absolute motion) theory, the ball should take more time to catch up with observer O when the cart is in motion (because O and the ball are moving in the same direction). Since the source S always throws the ball with constant velocity c relative to himself (relative to the cart), the only way to make the time t longer is for the source S to move back away from observer O, to a point a distance D’ away. In this case, the time taken by the ball will be: t = D' / c Therefore, the velocity of the ball relative to the (apparent) source S' is still equal to c , but the point of ball ‘emission’ has changed from S to S’. Thus, the effect of ‘absolute’ motion of the cart is to change the point of ‘emission’ of the ball. The velocity of the ball relative to the observer O is always constant c, regardless of the ‘absolute’ velocity of the cart. Now, for the ball to exactly simulate its ‘wave’ nature, i.e. to behave according to ether theory, the time delay should be as predicted by ether theory. According to ether theory, the time delay is equal to the actual distance D divided by the velocity of the ‘ball wave’ relative to the observer O, which is equal to c – V in this case. Therefore: t = D / ( c - V) From the above two equations, D' /c = D / ( c - V) From which, D' = D c / ( c - V ) Note that the velocity of the ball as ‘seen’ by an ‘observer’ at rest on the ground is equal to c + V . Next we consider CASE 2 . For this we assume the same arrangement as above except that the cart moves backwards. In this case, motion of the cart will make the time delay t shorter because O is moving towards the ball. By the same argument as above, S needs to change his/her position to a distance D’, where: D' = D c / ( c + V ) The profound result we found is that the speed of the ball is always constant relative to the observer O, regardless of the velocity of the cart. Light behaves in the same way as the ball in the above analogy. Now consider CASE 3. With the same arguments as above, it can be shown that: D' = D c / ( c2 - V2 ) 1/2 This theoretical model reveals the mystery of the speed of light and why the Michelson-Morley experiment gave a null result and failed to detect absolute motion. One can imagine doing a ‘Michelson-Morley’ experiment by using the above ball analogy and can see why it gives ‘null’ results. I have made a simulation of how (changes) in absolute velocity of the MM apparatus changes the apparent position of the light source and hence affect the light paths. The simulation has been uploaded on Youtube. “ A New Theory of Motion and the Speed of Light – Special and General Relativity Disproved” https://youtu.be/W0r-UHAk_us

I have prepared a simulation of Apparent Source Theory (AST) and posted it on Youtube. Kindly take your time to see the simulation. Comments are welcome. I would like to thank you all for the comments given so far. Link deleted

If absolute motion exists, which I believe it does, then a person in free fall in a gravitational field can detect/measure their acceleration from a continuous change in absolute velocity. Also, a person at rest on the ground in Earth's gravitational field measures his/her absolute velocity to be (almost) constant, whereas a person accelerating in free space sees his/her absolute velocity as continuously changing. What about this: we believe consciousness exists, but there is no way of testing it. Just to show that not everything that exists is testable.

Isn't this the same as saying that someone else cannot / should not base their research based on your earlier successful theoretical/experimental work ? Science gets the credit for everything it has achieved so far. But science is far from complete. God created the universe. Science discovered , not created, some mysteries of the universe. Your argument is something like: ' God cannot use our science to prove Himself '. In the first place God allowed scientists to do research on the universe , which belongs to Him. Perhaps He wanted that scientists (humanity) discover Him through their own choice (science), so that there will be no excuse for not believing in Him.

I can't imagine making the same claims about classical theories because classical phenomena, unlike quantum phenomena, are far from obviously pointing to God. I would have settled with the 'field' concept, but kept wondering what they really are.

For me, Newton's theory is correct, but incomplete. This means gravity is a force. For you, as suppotter of general relativity, Newton's theory is wrong because gravity is not a force but is due to warping of four dimensional spacetime. So our argument is based on our views about which theories are correct and which are incorrect.

Looking at the behavior of 'Which-Way' and quantum erasure experiments, it is not unreasonable, and is rational, to conclude that there is some intelligent being aiming the photons at specific points on the screen. You can call it an intelligent universe, or an alien, if you don't want to believe in God. I might back down only if it turned out that the 'Which-Way' and quantum erasure experiments are wrong. In that case, I may back down from the view that God intervenes in the universe to the point of aiming each emitted photon/electton.

God is behind all apparently random phenomena in physics. One can imagine it this way. By looking at the experimental setup of a double-slit experiment, God instantly determines the wave function. Then He sends photons to form a specific interference pattern or a specific Gaussian pattern. Who/what 'tells' the charges how many virtual photons to exchange per second ? God just chose it to be 1/r2 . We (science) can only try to figure out why He chose this and not 1/r3 , for example. ( if I have understood your question) which comes down to an argument about the correctness/incorrectness of special relativity, general relativity, dark matter, dark energy, ... which should be discussed in a different thread. The case of the Neptune is an example of a remarkable success of a model, Newton's laws. But discovery of the Neptune is not a new insight. But Newton's model is also an example of models that can lead to new insights. Such models are correct but incomplete. I clarify my previous statement as: CORRECT models may lead to new insights. Examples are Newton's laws, QM.

The intervention of God in classical phenomena is not as obvious as in quantum phenomena. This is because we use concepts such as 'field' to explain, for example, electrostatic force. It was after I understood quantum phenomena in terms of God's intervention that I realized that God is behind all laws of physics, including classical phenomena. Yes, God pushes two charges apart precisely according to Coloumb's law. What is the agent that executes Coulomb's laws ? The laws of physics are like human rules and laws that are written down on paper. Those human rules and laws need someone to execute them. Who executes the laws of physics ? How do the charges know the distance between them ? Are they intelligent enough to calculate the force according to Coulomb's law ? Has any one ever made sense of what 'fields' are ? Imagine dropping a stone on a pond. Who solves the differential equations that determine the wave? The watermolecules themselves? The space between them ? God solves the differential equations in real time and move the molecules. So don't throw a stone on a pond for no reason because you are occupying His computational power. But don't worry, He has infinite power.

Models are for precise formulation. But being guided by models alone is like being blind and being guided by others. Our guide decides many things for us. We will be 'blind' and guided by our models. Intuitive understanding is like being able to see far. Models alone are powerless to lead to new insights. Models themselves are discovered through logical and intuitive thinking. Perhaps failure to understand a phenomenon intuitively may not mean there is no intuitive way to understand it. It only means we could not figure it out. Just the way I usually think about these.

With regard to quantum phenomena, my theory does not provide a new model, it is a new scientific paradigm. Let me put it this way. QM is correct as a model, at least with regard to the double-slit experiments, including Which-Way and quantum erasure. The problem with QM is that it is counter-intuitive. The new theory provides intuitive understanding to QM. So, you asked me my model: it is QM itself, for now. But don't think that this is all.

I already saw that you are one of the few calm here. I appreciate returning to the OP. Actually, I proposed it as a new scientific paradigm. So one might say that it is not a scientific theory, that is science as we know it.

The discussion on this thread was rational, constructive and interesting upto some point. I see that that is no more the case now and partly I take the responsibility for this. I suggest that we all calm down and return to the opening topic of the thread which is about a new alternative theory of quantum phenomena.

Special relativity is not in extraordinary agreement with experiments and I cited the Silvertooth experiment for this. SRT also has no extraordinary internal consistency. I had the Twin Paradox in mind. With regard to QM I said: “ The case of QM is a little different”. I had in mind the fact that I know of no experiment that extraordinarily proves or disproves QM. Neither was I referring to any extraordinary internal consistency/inconsistency of QM. All I was saying was that my new theory is much more explanatory than QM, for example on the “ Which Way” and quantum erasure experiment. CMBR disproves relativity indirectly because it agrees with the Silvertooth experiment. It was published in Nature journal as an advertisement. I would not ‘insult’ specific scientists because they carried out an experiment. I am claiming that there are two aspects to the nature of the speed of light. The MM experiments show one aspect: null result. If it was not for these experiments, physicists would have been stuck with the ether. The modern MM experiments, with their complete null results, were also one of those important experiments that guided me to develop/refine an alternative theory of the speed of light. So these experiments show one important aspect of the nature of light and cannot be ‘wrong’. In fact, experiments basically cannot be ‘wrong’, only their interpretation can be. I am saying that experiments showing the other aspect of the speed of light are lacking. I am talking about the fact that no mainstream scientist is known to have repeated the Silvertooth experiment, and you can call this an ‘insult’ if you like. If there was any serious replication, it would have appeared in mainstream journals reporting on proof or disproof of Silvertooth’s claim, considering the tremendous implications. I can't change the facts. Yes, conspiracy theories exist about many things. Do you just accept or reject theories, hypotheses inphysics ? No, you test them rigorously. You test them conceptually/logically, you test them physically (experimentally). Why do scientists devote themselves to understand the laws of physics ? Because they are curious about nature, they are passionate about physics, because they think that physics is important, and so on. But you settled with those conspiracy theories about the parting of the Red Sea. You are not applying at least the same level of rigor (as it applies to religion/faith) to religion as you do to science. This is simply because you think religion is ridiculous/ worthless. I think this attitude towards religion/faith developed because religion has been misrepresented over many centuries. One example is the case of Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church who opposed Galileo’s view (the Copernican system). One can only imagine the effect this had on people’s attitudes towards religion. The Roman Catholic Church has already apologized for this and would be appreciated for that. However, the damage caused cannot be undone. But religion has been misrepresented in another way. The very fact that there are tens of thousands of religions/faiths sends a wrong message. To say all of these are ‘correct’ is nothing but the same as saying that god does not exist. It is kind of saying: “ Since god doesn’t exist, what does it matter whatever religion/faiths we have about him”. Can we have tens of thousands of theories about one phenomenon in physics ? No. We can have only one theory. Scientists develop theories rigorously based on decades and centuries of observations and experimentation. This makes the society to have respect for science and scientists. Nowadays people can create religion/faith at will, every week every month, with no rigor to speak of, to the point that religion/faith has been reduced to a ridicule.This is the goal and strategy used by the devil :creating thousands of religions/faiths so that humanity cannot find the truth, that is the existence of God.

I assume that you are referring to the modern Michelson-Morley experiments using optical cavity resonators that gave complete null results. The problem is that physicists have been pursuing only those experiments that gave null results and kept on pushing the limits. On the contrary, they ignored those experiments that showed absolute motion effects. Yes, some experiments give null results and others give positive results. This is a contradiction the physics community should have recognized. The first step to a solution is to identify the problem, which in this case is the contradiction between experiments. It would have led to the right direction.

The Silvertooth experiment was a novel scientific fact ignored by the scientific community. Some ignore it by appeal to authority : ‘it has not been repeated by any credible physicist so far’ , as if experiments could repeat themselves spontaneously. People repeat experiments, and experiments cannot repeat themselves. The goal of the physics establishment was/is supposed to search for scientific truths. The physics establishment should have owned and, with all its resources, repeated and refined the Silvertooth experiment while he was still alive. Fortunately, Doug Marett has personally repeated this experiment and has confirmed Silvertooth’s main result: an apparent wavelength change effect with change in orientation of the experimental setup in space. He found that the maximum effect occurred when the axis of the interferometer was towards Leo constellation. However, he is a supporter of Lorentz’s theory which says absolute motion exists but cannot be detected. In his paper, A Replication of the Silvertooth experiment Doug Marett acknowledges the ‘curious’ agreement between the Silvertooth experiment and the NASA CMBR experiment. But, as a supporter of Lorentz, he suggests an alternative explanation that it is a temperature effect. However, he doesn’t explain how temperature can cause an effect that agreed not only in direction but also in magnitude with the CMBR measurement. Nevertheless, he has given a good service to physics by repeating the Silvertooth experiment. (I am not sure about my English here) God, by definition, has no origin, no end. Do you mean another God who created this God ? And what about that other God, who created Him ? and so on. So God, by definition, has no beginning, no end. It is religion that says God exists, not science, at least science as we know it so far. We should evaluate any claim or theory according to its own claims. Religion claims God exists and that He is beyond comprehension. But religion also gives us directions about how to look for God. Abraham discovered God by reason. You should ask for only what religion claims. Religion does not say God has origin. But religion says God can do miracles. It would be more legitimate if you asked for miracles to believe in God. But don't think that miracles would automatically make people believe in God. Many have seen miracles but failed to believe.

No, I don't start from trying to know the "nuts and bolts" . In fact, I realize that nineteenth century physicists went wrong with their ether hypotheses because they started from trying to understand what light is rather than just searching for a model that fits the behavior of light. Some of them were stuck with this approach even when experiments disproved the ether. I think Einstein was right because his approach was to build a model. Yes, intuitions can mislead. Classical ether and emission theories were intuitive but wrong separately. However, it turns out that the new theory I posted in my other thread turns out to be a seamless fusion of the two. This may show that we should not settle with unsatisfactory theories but continue to search for a novel idea that eluded us. When I say 'unsatisfactory' I mean not extraordinarily in agreement with experiments and not having complete internal consistency. I did not say that we should search for an intuitive idea to explain experiments. I said that eventually our theories should be logical and intuitive. However, if a theory is extraordinarily in agreement with all experiments but not intuitive, logically, we keep pursuing it even if it is counter-intuitive. After all, that may be the only best theory we have and we may not have alternatives. But when alternative and better theories are found, they should be replaced. QM and relativity are currently thought to be correct as if by definition and no alternative ideas are allowed. The problem with QM and relativity is not only that they are counter-intuitive, they don't always agree with experiments. I would not reject relativity only because it is not intuitive, but mainly because experiments disprove it. The Silvertooth experiment and the NASA CMBR experiment, profoundly, measured almost the same magnitude and direction of our velocity in space, independently. The case of quantum mechanics is a little different. You put it exactly the same way I always thought about quantum mechanics (QM). QM kind of says " I don't know. It is just probability" . When Einstein asked about the mechanism underlying quantum phenomena, QM says " No mechanism exists". Science is about giving deeper explanation, and to say no explanation exists is not science. It would have been much better science if one admitted that we just don't know the explanation than claiming that that is just the way nature works at the fundamental level, as if by definition. No, I did not make up one. Belief in God is as old as humanity. People believed in God for thousands of years. However, people believed in God through religion and faith. But this faith was not unsupported by evidences. One can find many evidences in the Holy Bible. To cite just one evidence, parting of the Red Sea in Exodus. This is just one of the countless evidences, even today. However, humanity's faith in God waned during the last several centuries and, I think, one of the reasons is the advance of science and technology. It has always been thought that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Scientists started to think that our ancestors believed in God because they were scientifically backward and that they don't need God to explain the universe now. Now a direct scientific evidence comes from quantum phenomena and those in this forum deny it. Strange Said: ' I think you need to get back to that point of view, and then learn the science' You are asking me to give up rational thinking. No! I will go wherever facts, physics and rational thinking lead me. I won’t let prejudices get in my way. It seems that the ultimate destination of physics itself is God, sorry to say this but one either has to be ready to confront the truth (God ) or leave physics (and rational thinking) for good. Physics points too obviously to God.

This theory explains those phenomena that quantum mechanics (QM) claims to explain PLUS those phenomena that QM ( and science as we know it) cannot explain. According to QM, a photon is not said with certainty to be at a given point P until it is detected at that point. The wave function of the photon collapses to that point at the instant of detection. The new theory says that the photon was sent to be at point P at some specific time instant τ because God had a foreknowledge that an observer ( for example, an absorbing atom that is in motion) would be at point P at time instant τ.From a foreknowledge of the future positions of the atom, God made the source emit the photon in the right direction, and at the right instant, so that the photon and the atom will meet at point P. But why point P ? For example, the photon could be emitted so that it would be absorbed at another point Q. God just chose the point of photon absorption to be point P.Imagine an absorbing atom moving relative to a light source. According to current paradigm, the points where the moving atom absorbs photons are random. According to the new theory, those points are just God’s choices. God is behind all the apparent randomness in physics. Suppose that right now, say at noon, you plan to look in the sky at a specific star one light year away at the next midnight, that is 12 hours from now. You plan to see the star from a point just outside your house. The new theory says that if you will really see the star,that is if you will really implement your plan, then the photons that are destined to meet your eyes have already traveled almost one light year and are already on the way, 12 light hours away right now. But are the photons really there, are they really coming ? This depends on whether you will execute your plan or not, which is impossible to tell with certainty however determined you are to implement your plan. For example, right now you may be far away from your house and you might not get to your house by mid night due to traffic jam and so on. Only God knows whether you will actually implement your plan, and thus whether the photons are really coming. The only way for you to be sure whether the photons are really coming or not is to pray to God so that He will tell you. Suppose that He answers your prayer immediately and tells you that the photons are on the way. Then you can be sure not only that the photons are coming, but also that at least you will not die within the next 12 hours. In this case, therefore, God foresaw one year ago that you would actually implement your plan (see the star). Then He must have sent the photons from one light year away by extreme fine-tuning so that the photons would meet your eyes at that point outside your house, at just the next midnight. Just imagine the fine tuning required to aim at a specific atom in your retina from a distance of one light year! Stated in another way, by choosing at will to look or not to look at a star that is one million light years away, at a specific time of a specific midnight, from a specific point of space, the observer retroactively decides on whether or not a photon was to be emitted one million years ago from that star, and decide on the fine tuning of each photon. You are 100% responsible for a photon coming all the way from a galaxy one billion light years away. What is my evidence for this theory ? Answer: this is the only theory that can explain the “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiments. Science, as we know it, cannot explain this experiment. Regarding quantum entanglement, imagine a source of entangled photons A and B, one X-polarized and the other Y-polarized. The photons are emitted in opposite directions in space and two detectors are placed each of them one light year away from the source. The new theory says that the photons are fine- tuned at the instant of light emission. The fine tuning is required to aim the photons at the detectors. One can imagine that the fine tuning required is almost ‘infinite’. There is no puzzle about the polarization of each photon which is fixed at the instant of emission. The quantum entanglement puzzle just disappears. One may ask : “ What if the photons ‘missed’ the detectors” ? We can guess that this is only a thought experiment and in reality it is extremely difficult to aim the photons at detectors that are one light years away. Perhaps, say, only one in one trillion photons hit the detector. What about the other photons? One might ask, if God fine- tuned every photon, why did all those photons ‘miss’ their target ? The explanation is that if only one photon hit the detector, it was because God aimed only that photon to hit the detector. The other photons were aimed at other targets in the universe. The fact that most photons did not hit the detector is just a law of physics. Initially your model might not be understood intuitively. But as long as it agrees with experiments and it is internally consistent, it should be accepted. But eventually, over time your model should lead to deeper insights. I believe that a correct model cannot remain counter-intuitive indefinitely, like QM and relativity. I think that internal consistency, agreement with experiment and access to intuitive thinking are all features of a correct theory of nature. To Eise: I don't even think that QM (and relativity ), as models, have full internal consistency and full agreement with experiments. I know the failures of relativity. But it is usually argued that relativity has internal consistency. I mention relativity just to explain my idea, not to change the topic.

I could not respond in time because of internet blackout. Already too many comments. For now: To Eise and Swansot: I agree that the quantum erasure was done to test QM. I also agree that science 'models the behavior of nature'. However, I don't agree that 'science doesn't go go beyond modelling nature'. A correct model will lead to a deeper, and deeper insight, and intuitive understanding. I think that the lack of intuitive underdtsnding in modern physics (QM and relativity) is because the models themselves are not correct.

No, I did not start from the assumption of God. The quantum puzzles inescapably led me there. I never started my post from assumption of God. Regarding QED, quantum theories may claim to explain some phenomena such as interference patterns, such as the Thomas Young experiment. The "Which Way" and quantum erasure experiment is beyond science as we know it. Or tell me if there is a scientific explanation.

Absolutely NOT. I have been struggling to understand the puzzles of quantum phenomena for years and have even proposed alternative ideas already. But I could never get a satisfactory solution. If I had the intention to make the facts fit my beliefs, I would have proposed this years ago. In fact, I was overwhelmed when this idea occurred to me. I believe in God, but I had never imagined God intervenes in the operation of the universe to this extent, and I assure you that no believer would imagine this. I had never imagined that God will fine tune each and every photon emitted in the universe.

Does nature have a foreknowledge of observer’s motions and actions - Scientific proof of God based on quantum phenomena I will start with one of the puzzles in quantum mechanics. In the “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiments, how does a distant light source ‘know’ whether or not the polarizers are there, so that the source can ‘aim’ the photons to only one slit or to both slits, so as to form a Gaussian pattern or an interference pattern, respectively ? According to current paradigm, the process of emission of quantum particles such as photons and electrons is completely random and casual. In this post, a new paradigm is proposed as follows. Just as the point on the ground where a ball will land is predetermined by its initial condition (initial velocity) at the instant the ball is kicked, the point on the detecting screen of a double-slit experiment where a photon (or electron) will be detected is predetermined at the instant of photon emission, by the initial conditions of the photon. This is based on a new insight about the internal structure and dynamics of elementary particles such as electrons and photons. Imagine a mechanical version of a double-slit experiment. Suppose that there is a wall in which two holes are made and, behind this wall, another wall at some appropriate distance serving as the ‘detector screen’. The holes are designed so that the ball can exit at different angles ( ‘diffraction’ ). A boy/a girl repeatedly kicks a ball towards the holes. Suppose the boy/girl can precisely aim the ball to any given point on the ‘detector’ wall. This would be a miracle because it requires extreme fine tuning of the initial condition of the ball ( initial velocity). The boy can then repeatedly kick the ball towards either of the holes and can form an interference pattern. Note that the ball always passes only through one or the other slit, it cannot pass through both slits at the same time. As another example, imagine a super intelligent football player who can precisely aim the ball to any given point on the net, by deflecting it from either of the poles. The football player can form an interference pattern on the net by repeatedly kicking the ball. The new insight is that the interference patterns have been formed not because the ball ‘interfered’ with itself after passing through the two holes, but just because the boy/girl are super intelligent and can precisely aim the ball to any given point on the wall. This means that it is not even necessary for the wall to have two holes. The boy can form an interference pattern by using only one hole. Not only this. The boy can form a Gaussian pattern, an interference pattern, or any arbitrary pattern, regardless of whether only one or both holes are open, regardless of the distance between the holes, regardless of the distance of the ‘detecting’ wall from the holes. My argument is: to say that photons emitted at random from a light source can form an interference pattern is the same as saying that the boy formed an interference pattern on the ball by kicking the ball randomly, i.e. without any fine tuning of the initial conditions. Obviously, forming an interference pattern by the ball requires almost infinite fine tuning of the initial condition of the ball that it takes a miracle to create an interference pattern. The conclusion is that a photon (electron) in the double slit experiment is emitted with almost infinite fine tuning of its initial conditions to precisely aim it to a specific point on the screen, and form an interference pattern or a Gaussian pattern. The question is: who is fine-tuning the photons (electrons) during emission ? The emitting atoms? Or the emitting atoms conspiring with the detector screen ? These have too infinitely small intelligence to be able to do the task of infinitely fine tuning the initial conditions of a photon. Obviously, the fine tuning requires infinite intelligence. God is fine tuning every emitted photon (electron ). Imagine a physicist doing a double-slit experiment using light from a galaxy one billion light years away. Now, we know that an interference pattern is formed when both slits are open, and a Gaussian pattern is formed when only one slit is open. How is this possible with light from a galaxy one billion light years away ? The answer: one billion years ago, God foresaw that a physicist would do a double-slit experiment at some specific point and time in the universe, and sent photons for his experiment. Imagine aiming a photon from one billion light years away to a specific point on the detector screen to create an interference pattern!!! God had/has a foreknowledge of whether only one or both slits will be open and aimed the photons accordingly. Just as the super intelligent boy can direct the ball to any given point on the ‘detector’ wall, so can God. God can form a Gaussian pattern, an interference pattern or any arbitrary pattern regardless of whether only one or both holes are open, regardless of the distance between the holes, regardless of the distance of the detecting screen from the slits. The question is: why then do we always observe an interference pattern when both slits are open, and a Gaussian pattern when only one slit is open. Why then does the interference pattern consistently depend on the distance between the slits and on the distance of the detecting screen from the slits ? The answer is that God just wanted it to be that way and we call these laws of nature (optics). God does not act in arbitrary ways and he always respects the laws he created. But, occasionally, he may ‘violate’ those laws with purpose and we call these miracles. It would be a miracle if an interference pattern was to be formed with only one slit open. Perhaps physicists might claim to understand the Thomas Young double-slit experiment without the need of God’s interference, such as by probability, wave function and wave function collapse. For now I will not get into a discussion of the puzzles created by these interpretations. But there is one experiment that defies all logic and for which there can be no scientific explanation as we know science: the “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiment. How can a distant light source know whether or not there is a polarizer, so that it can aim the photons only to one of the slits or to both slits ? Does the source of the entangled photons have eyes, and, is it intelligent? The only way out of this puzzle is that God can see/foresee whether the polarizers are/will be there or not, and aim the photons accordingly. The “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiment, together with other quantum phenomena, is an overwhelming evidence of a supernatural, intelligent being. What about quantum entanglement ? Suppose that two entangled photons A and B, one with X-polarization and the other with Y-polarization are sent in opposite directions in space. The detectors are placed light years away. Suppose that photon A was detected as X-polarized. Then, instantly, photon B’s polarization will be fixed to be Y. The problem is: how did the photons communicate instantly? The quantum entanglement puzzle is a problem created by quantum theory itself and there is actually no such puzzle. The polarizations of the photons are determined at the instant of emission and there is no need of ‘communication’ between photons light years apart. The ‘communication’ happens at the instant of emission of the entangled photons. The grand question is: why do quantum phenomena point to God in such overwhelming way ? I think this is because God had/has a grand plan. He wants humanity to discover Him not only through religion and faith, but also through nature and science.

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

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.