lidal Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 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
Ghideon Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 46 minutes ago, lidal said: 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. Who makes that argument? Is that something scientists use as argument for, or against, a theory? Observations and experimental evidence supports the mainframe theory of relativity making the theory the best there is at this point in time, within its area of applicability. And we already know that the theory does not correctly describe some concepts. As for the rest, I'll try to comment when having had time to read it properly.
studiot Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 1 hour ago, lidal said: 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. How do you explain the waveguide equation (experimentally verified many thousands of times every day) ? VpVg = c2 Where c has its usual meaning as a constant Vp is the phase velocity Vg is the group velocity
swansont Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 3 hours ago, lidal said: 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. You can't. Self-consistent theories are only invalidated by comparison with experiment. Quote 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. No, the argument is that classical (i.e. Newtonian) physics fails to match experiment, and relativity succeeds. Quote 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 Is this consistent with experiment? Such as absorption and emission of resonant light when there is relative motion between and atom and the light source? Quote 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. What experiment will show that one is at absolute rest, or determine one's absolute velocity? Quote - 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 ! So your idea contradicts actual experimental evidence? Quote - 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. Then why do they behave otherwise? Quote 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. How do you get a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and basically uniform intensity from this? Quote - 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. No. Especially without a theoretical framework to back this up. Massive amounts of evidence is required, too. Quote 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. Over the course of a day, this alignment will change. We should see diurnal effects. And we do a similar experiment (with clock measurements), and don't see this effect. (If we had data that showed relativity to be in error, people would jump at the chance to publish it) How big should it be if you sent signals, say, 100m? What fractional frequency shift or timing shift would you expect between orthogonal directions of light travel?
lidal Posted September 23, 2019 Author Posted September 23, 2019 Just now, studiot said: How do you explain the waveguide equation (experimentally verified many thousands of times every day) ? VpVg = c2 Where c has its usual meaning as a constant Vp is the phase velocity Vg is the group velocity 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. Just now, swansont said: You can't. Self-consistent theories are only invalidated by comparison with experiment. No, the argument is that classical (i.e. Newtonian) physics fails to match experiment, and relativity succeeds. Is this consistent with experiment? Such as absorption and emission of resonant light when there is relative motion between and atom and the light source? What experiment will show that one is at absolute rest, or determine one's absolute velocity? So your idea contradicts actual experimental evidence? Then why do they behave otherwise? How do you get a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and basically uniform intensity from this? No. Especially without a theoretical framework to back this up. Massive amounts of evidence is required, too. Over the course of a day, this alignment will change. We should see diurnal effects. And we do a similar experiment (with clock measurements), and don't see this effect. (If we had data that showed relativity to be in error, people would jump at the chance to publish it) How big should it be if you sent signals, say, 100m? What fractional frequency shift or timing shift would you expect between orthogonal directions of light travel? 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.
Strange Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 45 minutes ago, lidal said: 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. ) And what are the results of these experiments? Which peer-reviewed journals have they been published in? 46 minutes ago, lidal said: Regarding the theory that gravity is a net electrostatic force, it is so simple, compelling that it can be seen as self evident. It is trivially and obviously wrong. 47 minutes ago, lidal said: See Tom Van Flandern's " The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say " A notorious crackpot
swansont Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 1 hour ago, lidal said: Failure of Newtonian physics does not necessarily lead to special relativity. Thank you for admitting your earlier claim was wrong. 1 hour ago, lidal said: 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 " I asked for numbers. 1 hour ago, lidal said: 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. 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. 1 hour ago, lidal said: 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. So, no theoretical framework to present? 1 hour ago, lidal said: See Tom Van Flandern's " The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say " His work has been discredited already. 1 hour ago, lidal said: 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. Why? Shouldn’t a timing difference occur for any orientation, as long as the angle to the direction of absolute motion isn’t the same? Some orientations would yield maximal differences, to be sure. I asked for numbers. Let’s see your predictions.
lidal Posted September 23, 2019 Author Posted September 23, 2019 " 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.
studiot Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, lidal said: 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. It is your hypothesis which is why I asked you to derive the specific classical equation from your premises. It is not enough to state "the new theory makes the same prediction as classical theory", you need to prove this. Edited September 23, 2019 by studiot
Mordred Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) Unfortunately the OP isn't using any of the correct formulas to properly correlate phase velocity or group velocity in terms of the energy momentum equation. The phase velocity is not the velocity of the particle the group velocity is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave Group velocity (equal to the particle's speed) should not be confused with phase velocity (equal to the product of the particle's frequency and its wavelength). In the case of a non-dispersive medium, they happen to be equal, but otherwise they are not. you can read further on that link but if you ever do the calculations you will find that for any particle less than c the phase velocity will always exceed c. However that is a product of its frequency and wavelength as noted by that link. It does not represent the velocity of the particle even in the case of photons. edit one side note phase velocity is not a true velocity but an apparent velocity it will not allow superluminal communication even if it's value exceeds c. You are dealing with group velocities in redshift equations whatever of the three primary types and not the phase velocity for the reasons above. Primary reason is the phase velocity carries no energy. Which is why it doesn't violate causality. (In a vacuum the phase velocity and the group velocity of light is equal) particularly since a vacuum is NOT a dispersive medium with a refractive index. Phase velocity has nothing to do with your claims above in point of detail a dispersive medium is precisely when the phase velocities become distinctive from the group group velocities. (As different wavelengths respond differently with the refractive index) primary example a prism. Edited September 24, 2019 by Mordred
Mordred Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) When In a vacuum the following electromagnetic relations for phase and group vecocities [math]\omega=ck [/math] [math]v=\frac{\omega}{k}=\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial k}=c[/math] The group velocity will equal the phase velocity both will equal c to all observers. The constant c is frequency independant. See dispersion relations given here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation Edited September 24, 2019 by Mordred
lidal Posted September 24, 2019 Author Posted September 24, 2019 15 hours ago, swansont said: Over the course of a day, this alignment will change. We should see diurnal effects. And we do a similar experiment (with clock measurements), and don't see this effect. (If we had data that showed relativity to be in error, people would jump at the chance to publish it) How big should it be if you sent signals, say, 100m? What fractional frequency shift or timing shift would you expect between orthogonal directions of light travel? 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.
Strange Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, lidal said: What kind of experiments ? Do you mean GPS ? Clearly describe the experiment so that I can explain it in terms of Apparent Source Theory. How about you present some evidence that 1. Relativity is wrong, as you claim 2. Your hypothesis is correct. Without that evidence there is no reason for this thread to stay open.
studiot Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 7 hours ago, Mordred said: Unfortunately the OP isn't using any of the correct formulas to properly correlate phase velocity or group velocity in terms of the energy momentum equation. The phase velocity is not the velocity of the particle the group velocity is. Which is why I asked the OP to develop the formulae using his hypothesis and to see if he comes up with the same formula - as he claims he will, but I don't think so. 21 hours ago, lidal said: 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. Are you saying, "I have a replacement universal theory for relativity which only works in a vacuum" ? The theory has to work everywhere! Or are you claiming that the phase velocity in a homogeneous medium is not constant, even though we all agree it is not c ?
Strange Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 @lidal has talked about the constancy of the speed of light, but this is less important than the fact that is it invariant. That does not appear to be mentioned in this "theory".
lidal Posted September 24, 2019 Author Posted September 24, 2019 Just now, studiot said: Which is why I asked the OP to develop the formulae using his hypothesis and to see if he comes up with the same formula - as he claims he will, but I don't think so. Are you saying, "I have a replacement universal theory for relativity which only works in a vacuum" ? The theory has to work everywhere! Or are you claiming that the phase velocity in a homogeneous medium is not constant, even though we all agree it is not c ? 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. Just now, Strange said: How about you present some evidence that 1. Relativity is wrong, as you claim 2. Your hypothesis is correct. Without that evidence there is no reason for this thread to stay open. 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.
swansont Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 3 hours ago, lidal said: 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 Why is this not 50 MHz? Quote 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. If I send a signal down an optical fiber, would I see similar results? (Optical fiber is a much more common method of sending a signal) And instead of just sending pulses, what if I sent an analog signal at, say, 5 MHz? Its frequency would change, right? Quote What kind of experiments ? Do you mean GPS ? Clearly describe the experiment so that I can explain it in terms of Apparent Source Theory. See above. (Though I don't see how GPS would work if there is an absolute speed.) 1 hour ago, lidal said: 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 You might want to get in the habit of providing links for experiments you cite. It will save everyone the trouble of having to ask for them. And, of course, an explanation of how they support your hypothesis. But the key is finding an experiment that would be able to show your idea is wrong, if it is indeed wrong.
Mordred Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, lidal said: 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. You obviously didn't read or understand a single formula I posted if your still declaring this to be a problem. 7 hours ago, Mordred said: When In a vacuum the following electromagnetic relations for phase and group vecocities ω=ck v=ωk=∂ω∂k=c The group velocity will equal the phase velocity both will equal c to all observers. The constant c is frequency independant. See dispersion relations given here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation In a vacuum the group and phase velocity are both constant. A vacuum isn't a dispersive medium. Perhaps you need to understand that first. As mainstream science already does. Not that phase velocity has anything to do with particle velocity. Which is also important to understand. It is the group velocity that is important to redshift. Redshift isn't due to dispersion. If it was it would have some funky side effects on spectronomy measurements of the hydrogen 21 cm line Edited September 24, 2019 by Mordred
swansont Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 43 minutes ago, Mordred said: In a vacuum the group and phase velocity are both constant. A vacuum isn't a dispersive medium. Perhaps you need to understand that first. As mainstream science already does. Not that phase velocity has anything to do with particle velocity. Which is also important to understand. It is the group velocity that is important to redshift. Redshift isn't due to dispersion. If it was it would have some funky side effects on spectronomy measurements of the hydrogen 21 cm line Speaking of the hydrogen 21 cm line: I suspect that if there was an absolute velocity then a hydrogen maser would undergo a frequency shift if the maser was in motion relative to the absolute frame. And Cs beam clocks would see a frequency shift for different orientations of their beam (and Rb fountain clocks as well)
Mordred Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) I would also suspect an absolute frame would have additional ramifications for GW waves. Even in gravitational lensing there is no indication of a refractive index you would distortions that are not present on observation. Not to mention CMB distortions or lack of. Edited September 24, 2019 by Mordred
Strange Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, Mordred said: I would also suspect an absolute frame would have additional ramifications for GW waves. Even in gravitational lensing there is no indication of a refractive index you would distortions that are not present on observation. Not to mention CMB distortions or lack of. If the OP were correct that SR is wrong, then GR would have to be wrong as well. In which case there are no gravitational waves and the CMB does not exist. So I suspect the OP may be incorrect.
studiot Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 8 hours ago, lidal said: 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. Thank you for attempting to reply to my question. I'm sorry you side stepped the issue, but OK let us concentrate on light in a vacuum. First problem (and it is a big one) There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum anywhere in the known universe. So any of the experiments you are referring to as supporting your proposition must automatically be ruled out if you insist on only considering a vacuum. Second problem. Can you explain to me the difference between the phase and group velocities of light in a vacuum? I ask because you apparently wish to substitute one for the other in conventional formulae. I look forward to your explanations
Mordred Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 2 hours ago, studiot said: Can you explain to me the difference between the phase and group velocities of light in a vacuum? I ask because you apparently wish to substitute one for the other in conventional formulae I too look forward to seeing how the OP is defining group and phase velocity as none of his descriptives match the mainstream definitions.
lidal Posted September 25, 2019 Author Posted September 25, 2019 On 9/24/2019 at 6:50 AM, Mordred said: When In a vacuum the following electromagnetic relations for phase and group vecocities ω=ck v=ωk=∂ω∂k=c The group velocity will equal the phase velocity both will equal c to all observers. The constant c is frequency independant. See dispersion relations given here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation 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.
Mordred Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) Phase velocity varies depending on its wavelength in a dispersive medium. The only time it can be constant is in a vacuum. However group velocity is also constant in a vacuum. If you have a paper showing otherwise please post it (preferably arxiv) I'll bet there is some medium involved in those papers. In essence in circumstances where w does not equal ck. However your still missing one key problem. [math] the group velocity and not the phase velocity describes the velocity of a particle [/b] Good example the QM or QFT superposition particle state is described via its group velocity. Edited September 25, 2019 by Mordred
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now