PDA

View Full Version : Gravity and Light



Tinymidget
2004-Mar-03, 11:19 PM
*Please bear with me, I am not an astronomer nor am I good at science or writing. Heh, I don't even know why I am trying*

So I was thinking today, everybody knows light bends to gravity. I recently read in "Scientific American" that it has to bend for String Theory to be possible. I am not sure how much weight there is to that but that is not my question. My question is that since light is bent (and as of recently we used this light bending property as a "natural lens") eventually wouldn't the light from our own solar system be bent back 180 degrees. Think of a mirror.

So that is my first question, can light be bent 180 degrees?

My second question is this, if question number one is yes, then could we use this to view our solar system (in fact even our own earth...depending on how far this light is) when it was young?

People have proposed that once we found out how to go faster than the speed of light (fat chance as of now) then we can see the past by just trapping the ancient electromagnetic waves (by moving faster than them) and making a picture out of the information. This isn't very economical as I see it, which means that using gravity as a mirror would be more economical and would take less time.


Tell me what you think, and you think my ideas are stupid...please don't tell me. lol. 8-[

Swift
2004-Mar-03, 11:46 PM
First, welcome Tinymidget.

I'm not an astronomer, but I'll give a crack at an answer.

The explanation for light bending goes back to General Relativity. A mass (like a star) actually bends space-time. So the light has to follow the path through this distorted space-time and follows the new path. The analogy I've always like is imagine that the universe is a big sheet of rubber. Now put a star on the sheet of rubber. The rubber sheet bends under the weight of the star, the heavier it is, the more it bends. So now you have this sheet with this big depression in it. Imagine the photon of light is a marble that you can roll across the rubber at very high speed. If you get to close to the star, the marble will dip a little in that direction and change its course.

Now the analogy is poor, because the distortions are not all that much. I don't know the exact number, but we are probably talking about a few degrees over huge numbers of light years. The effects are most seen when you are looking at intergalatic distance and the lensing is caused by a distant galaxy. The alignments also are critical - I'm guessing that all the lensing we've seen have been accidentally helpful.

Could light be bent around 180 degrees. Yeah I guess so. But the odds are very remote. And over the distances involved, we wouldn't get much signal from our ancient solar system.

Sam5
2004-Mar-03, 11:47 PM
So I was thinking today, everybody knows light bends to gravity. I recently read in "Scientific American" that it has to bend for String Theory to be possible. I am not sure how much weight there is to that but that is not my question. My question is that since light is bent (and as of recently we used this light bending property as a "natural lens") eventually wouldn't the light from our own solar system be bent back 180 degrees. Think of a mirror.

So that is my first question, can light be bent 180 degrees?

My second question is this, if question number one is yes, then could we use this to view our solar system (in fact even our own earth...depending on how far this light is) when it was young?

People have proposed that once we found out how to go faster than the speed of light (fat chance as of now) then we can see the past by just trapping the ancient electromagnetic waves (by moving faster than them) and making a picture out of the information.

There originally was a theory of gravity and space, proposed early in the 20th Century, that suggested light could leave the earth, traverse the entire universe in a curved path, and then wind up back on earth again. However, when the “expansion” of the universe was proposed in the late 1920s, then it became fairly accepted that the light from the earth and the stars actually does not curve around and return to the source but goes on out into deep space and then perhaps “empty” space.

Regarding “seeing ancient electromagnetic waves”, one problem is the inverse square law. The light spreads out so much, it becomes very weak at great distances. Also, if light does not curve around and return to the source, then we would have to travel much faster than light, so we could get out ahead of old electromagnetic waves. It was suggested in the 1970s that if we could travel much faster than light, we could go out, turn around, and watch and hear “live” TV and radio shows that were originally transmitted in the early 1950s. But, again, chances are the signals have dissipated so much during that time, they would be too weak to detect from that great distance.

Wiley
2004-Mar-03, 11:52 PM
So that is my first question, can light be bent 180 degrees?


Theoretically, I believe so. But it would take an incredible strong gravitational field, i.e. a black hole. The simple formulas I've seen for the deflection angle are valid only a for weak gravity field. For comparison, the Sun deflects light by 1.75 seconds of arc or about 0.0000095 radians. Not even a little bit close.



My second question is this, if question number one is yes, then could we use this to view our solar system (in fact even our own earth...depending on how far this light is) when it was young?


No, since all the light from when the solar system was young has left the solar system a long long time ago. (It's now in a galaxy far far away.)

While gravitational mirrors are not pratical, to say the least; however, gravitational lenses (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalLensing.html) are quite possible.

Hope this helps.

Tinymidget
2004-Mar-04, 12:04 AM
There originally was a theory of gravity and space, proposed early in the 20th Century, that suggested light could leave the earth, traverse the entire universe in a curved path, and then wind up back on earth again. However, when the “expansion” of the universe was proposed in the late 1920s, then it became fairly accepted that the light from the earth and the stars actually does not curve around and return to the source but goes on out into deep space and then perhaps “empty” space.

Regarding “seeing ancient electromagnetic waves”, one problem is the inverse square law. The light spreads out so much, it becomes very weak at great distances. Also, if light does not curve around and return to the source, then we would have to travel much faster than light, so we could get out ahead of old electromagnetic waves. It was suggested in the 1970s that if we could travel much faster than light, we could go out, turn around, and watch and hear “live” TV and radio shows that were originally transmitted in the early 1950s. But, again, chances are the signals have dissipated so much during that time, they would be too weak to detect from that great distance.

I see, I remember reading recently in a science journal that light does not actually spread out as much. It was done as an experiment to test relativity and they found that there was no such disspersion of electromagnetic energy like they predicted (this would be seen as fuzziness). Likewise however, the counterpart scientists claim that they did not look close enough at the picture. I believe the counterpart scientists, but that also means that this disspersion of light particles wouldn't be as grand as recently expected. I know LASERs have a huge tendency to spread out per meter but that is only because the light doesn't travel on parallel tracks. On the sun however, it is safe to assume that since it is ejected from the sun at a 180 arc (then for the 3rd dimension even more so) that when we view objects in space the things we view only look brighter (luminosity) and the actual size of the sun that we are viewing is also smaller than we presume. I think that would be the extent of the disspersion, and since all electromagnetic waves travel in the same shave (with a variety in frequencies and amplititude and what not) that the only thing that could stop these thing from reaching their point is a total rip in space time (i.e. black hole). If we look at the big picture though, I agree with the "light can never return to original source". It makes alot of sense to me.
This is how I view it, tell me if I'm wrong:
If you have two trains and you both start them off in the same direction at the same speed and velocity (to account for the expansion of our universe) then you suddenly reverse one train 180 degrees (like our sun releasing light) then you reverse the train 5 seconds after you had just turned it 180 degrees, that train will always be 5 seconds behind. (I hope you get the analogy)

The only thing I don't know is that for this theory to work, the universe would have to be expanding at the speed of light (which I think it is not). Even if it isn't, it would take a lot of time for the bending to eventually return back to earth which odds of happening are probably more than that of life being born on a planet. But I think it is still possible...what is the flaw in my logic?

Taibak
2004-Mar-04, 12:09 AM
So that is my first question, can light be bent 180 degrees?


Theoretically, I believe so. But it would take an incredible strong gravitational field, i.e. a black hole.

Actually, I'm not sure it's possible with a black hole. You'd need an incredibly massive black hole to get light to bend more than a few degrees. If you're talking about a black hole that massive, you're talking about a black hole with a huge event horizon. Since the strength of gravity is determined, in part, by how close you are to an object's center of mass, you wouldn't get any severe bending until you're inside the black hole's event horizon. Granted, there are theoretical models that suggest that light gets extremely distorted once you get close to the singularity, but I'm not sure you can get a 180 degree bend since the light, as is everything else, is going towards the singularity. I'd imagine you could get some interesting spirals though.

Tinymidget
2004-Mar-04, 12:12 AM
So that is my first question, can light be bent 180 degrees?


Theoretically, I believe so. But it would take an incredible strong gravitational field, i.e. a black hole.

Actually, I'm not sure it's possible with a black hole. You'd need an incredibly massive black hole to get light to bend more than a few degrees. If you're talking about a black hole that massive, you're talking about a black hole with a huge event horizon. Since the strength of gravity is determined, in part, by how close you are to an object's center of mass, you wouldn't get any severe bending until you're inside the black hole's event horizon. Granted, there are theoretical models that suggest that light gets extremely distorted once you get close to the singularity, but I'm not sure you can get a 180 degree bend since the light, as is everything else, is going towards the singularity. I'd imagine you could get some interesting spirals though.

We have more than one object in the universe to bend the light though, and thats how I am wondering it will be possible. Only 1% of all waves are
"killed" by the black hole. (and black holes tumble themselves alot and then eject x-rays every so often...often tthose x-rays are "tumbled" more than 180 degress from their original point)

This of course is from what I hear.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/03/shc.fuzzball.blackholes/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/10/03/black.holes/index.html

milli360
2004-Mar-04, 09:51 AM
could we use this to view our solar system (in fact even our own earth...depending on how far this light is) when it was young?
It's an interesting question, that has come up before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=48464#48464). At that link, I mention a quote from Max Born.

Diamond
2004-Mar-04, 11:22 AM
could we use this to view our solar system (in fact even our own earth...depending on how far this light is) when it was young?
It's an interesting question, that has come up before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=48464#48464). At that link, I mention a quote from Max Born.

Whatever happened to AgoraBasta? :o

milli360
2004-Mar-04, 11:43 AM
Whatever happened to AgoraBasta?
You mean, besides being banned?

darkdev
2004-Apr-14, 12:46 AM
...can light be bent 180 degrees?...
...then could we use this to view our solar system...
Along with light spreading out and becoming "weaker" (more faint), there is another problem with viewing light or broadcasts from far far away objects. All light (with no amplitute) will travel at the same speed, but light of different wavelengths (color) will travel at slightly different speed. The red light will travel slightly farther than the blue light at for a given amount of time. So theoretically, if you were far enough away, you would see a "seperation" of the light.

Since all sets of waves would eventually arrive, the colors would be there, but each color (frequency) would have sourced from a different point in time. For example, the red of some picture would be from Friday, but the blue would have been from Wednesday.

While correctable, it would further obfuscate any transmission.

Anyone agree?

Ricimer
2004-Apr-14, 02:33 AM
tiny: Do remember that light weakens and spreads out just like a wave does. THe article you mentioned, talking about dispursion, is saying that there should be things out there to disturbe the wave, and make it a lot choppier (as opposed to smooth if left alone). The light still gets weaker as it spreads out.



I also think it is completely possible to turn light around, 180 degrees, via gravity.

However, if you can do that, the light (heading straight away from the gravity object) is traveling slower than the objects escape velocity. This is the same reason a ball, thrown vertically, turns 180 degrees and falls back.

Now, if light is traveling lower than escape velocity...it isn't getting out, and is by definition within a Black hole! So no dice. At least, not if you use just a single thing.

Now, if you set up a series of objects, each turning it a little bit, you could. But that would be a lot of very small deflections, which isn't as impressive.

milli360
2004-Apr-14, 03:45 PM
All light (with no amplitute) will travel at the same speed, but light of different wavelengths (color) will travel at slightly different speed.

::snip::

Anyone agree?
That's not true for space though

darkdev
2004-Apr-14, 03:53 PM
That's not true for space though

Really? All light regardless of wavelength travels at different speeds in space such that all source frequencies arrive simultaneously at the destination? That doesn't sound right. That means red light moves "slower" than blue light to accomidate the wavelength differencial?

Can you clarify that?

milli360
2004-Apr-14, 04:37 PM
Really? All light regardless of wavelength travels at different speeds in space such that all source frequencies arrive simultaneously at the destination?
yes

That doesn't sound right. That means red light moves "slower" than blue light to accomidate the wavelength differencial?

Can you clarify that?
why would red light have to move " 'slower' "?

darkdev
2004-Apr-14, 08:00 PM
why would red light have to move " 'slower' "?
Because the wavelength is longer, thereby traveling farther per cycle?

milli360
2004-Apr-14, 08:35 PM
why would red light have to move " 'slower' "?
Because the wavelength is longer, thereby traveling farther per cycle?
But why would that make it " 'slower' "?

Kaptain K
2004-Apr-14, 08:37 PM
why would red light have to move " 'slower' "?
Because the wavelength is longer, thereby traveling farther per cycle?
But it makes fewer cycles per unit time!

Eta C
2004-Apr-14, 08:41 PM
why would red light have to move " 'slower' "?
Because the wavelength is longer, thereby traveling farther per cycle?

Well, no and yes here. Darkdev, the reason you give is incorrect. The speed of light in vacuum is independent of the frequency or wavlength. In fact, the two are related for light (or any wave such as sound) by the equation c = lamda * f where c is the speed, lamda the wavelength and f the frequency.

Now this being said, there are materials in which the speed of light is frequency (and thus wavelength) dependent. The speed of light in any substance is given by the realtion v(i) = c / nu where v(i) is the speed in the material and nu is the index of refraction. Glass is a classic example here. A prism works because the index of refraction varies with the frequency of light. Therefore the speed of light in glass differs depending of the frequency. This effect, by the way, is also responsible for chromatic aberration in lenses.

Now I don't know about the index of refraction of interstellar space. I know it's not a pure vacuum, but it's awfully close. Still, if its index of refraction for red light is slightly greater than for blue, then over long distances the red component will take longer to traverse it than the blue. (Please note that this is not responsible for the red shift of distant galaxies. That's from the doppler effect.)

darkdev
2004-Apr-14, 08:57 PM
why would red light have to move " 'slower' "?
Because the wavelength is longer, thereby traveling farther per cycle?
But it makes fewer cycles per unit time!
Eww...
I can picture this if I switch to visualizing compression waves (sound) moving through some medium, then I can say that while compressions per length differs, the compressions as a whole move at the same speed.

Does this analogy hold true for em radiation, is it "compression" in the spacetime medium (whatever is left perfect vacuum, bosons)?
Does this mean that magnetism is also a local warping of said medium?

But when I go back to visualizing a sine wave, and remembering that C is the speed of a point traversing the wave, I am back to thinking that V varies because the "red" has a much more direct path than "blue".

What am I missing here?

darkdev
2004-Apr-14, 09:06 PM
Still, if its index of refraction for red light is slightly greater than for blue, then over long distances the red component will take longer to traverse it than the blue. (Please note that this is not responsible for the red shift of distant galaxies. That's from the doppler effect.)
But I am supposing that red would be faster. Did you just reverse the colors? Otherwise that throws me a bit. #-o
I don't think there would be an appearant red-shift from this except for the amount of time between the first red wave and the first blue wave arriving. After that I conclude all the colors would arrive, just from separate points in time.

milli360
2004-Apr-14, 10:05 PM
But when I go back to visualizing a sine wave, and remembering that C is the speed of a point traversing the wave, I am back to thinking that V varies because the "red" has a much more direct path than "blue".

What am I missing here?
That sounds like you are visualizing a point moving along the sine curve, with the speed along the curve a constant (whether its blue or red). That's not how it works.

Ricimer
2004-Apr-14, 10:09 PM
for light, that "compression" analogy is invalid.

Light, in a pure vacuum, travels at speed C. the wavelength and frequency are related in such a way as to maintain that.

So if your wavelength increases, the frequency drops enough to keep you going at C. If your frequency increases, your wavelength shrinks, keeping you at C again.


Now, if you have the two sine waves, a long one and a short one (red and blue) and you traverse it at C you'll notice something:

The waves are observed to have different wavelengths (I mean, we made them that way afterall). And as you zip by the shorter one, the crests rise and fall rapidly (high frequency). As you look at the longer one, the crests rise and fall slower. So the "longer reach" of each wave is mitigated by a slower oscillation rate.

darkdev
2004-Apr-14, 10:29 PM
:oops: My understand of C was completely WRONG! :oops:

I was under the impression that C = light when wavelength is infinite. You can imagine why I was so confused.

Bomb. Thanks for the excellent answers guys. =D>

Not to push my luck here, but since we're here, can you tell me what it is that light is propagating through since the "compression" analogy is invalid? What do the crests and peacks represent when using a wave model?

Brady Yoon
2004-Apr-14, 10:40 PM
I don't know if I'm interpreting your answer correctly... Well, the distance between succesive crests is called the wavelength, and the deviation from normal of a wave is called the amplitude, the number of times a wave propagates per unit time is frequency, and the wave period is the time it takes for a wave to repeat.

darkdev
2004-Apr-14, 10:50 PM
nope, I know the wave model, I don't know *how* it is actually applied to spacetime.

For instance, in sound, amplitude indicates compression and wavelength indicates distance between compressions (of matter, like air or water).

So, in light, amplitude indicates ___ and wavelength indicates ___ ?

Ricimer
2004-Apr-14, 10:57 PM
brady:

The "wave period" is actually the frequency. The time it takes for the wave to repeat, as it passes a fixed observation point. The um, other one, your definition of frequency, isn't really anything (a wave propagates, it cannot propagate several times).

darkdev:

Light does not propagate through a medium. It is not a distortion in a medium. Light propells itself, it is a composition of magnetic and electric fields, each one causing the other. As the magnetic causes the electric (and vice versa) the entire mess moves as well.

Light travels in spacetime, just as I do. It moves across a distance, and takes time to do so.

A wave in spacetime is actually a gravitational wave, a distortion in spacetime.


In light:

Wavelength indicatates color
Frequency indicates color
Color indicates energy

(so wavelength can directly indicate energy too)

Amplitude is intensity. A very bright red light has a wavelength of 650 nanometers, and a very high amplitude. A dim red light has a wavelength of 650 nm and a low amplitude.

darkdev
2004-Apr-14, 11:38 PM
Light travels in spacetime, just as I do. It moves across a distance, and takes time to do so.
You... displace matter as you move.

Light is EM radiation, and an electromagnet also utilizes the E<-->M duality. Magnetism is said to be cause by an electrons "spin". Since the electron is the source for (-) electrical charge AND magnetism, where does the distinction of light and EM field come in?
"bound" and "unbound" ???
On one hand light exhibits alternating EM phases, on the other we utilize altering M fields to produce E and vice versa.

Can I at least be sure that if a radio-station tower where to up the transmission frequency (a lot), it would be emiting light?

How about heat? Is that an EM radiation frequency? No, then why do inferred cameras work? All matter is emitting EM radiation relative to it's temperature?

-------------------

"Questions are many, answers are few."

Taibak
2004-Apr-15, 05:13 AM
Can I at least be sure that if a radio-station tower where to up the transmission frequency (a lot), it would be emiting light?

Yup. Radio waves are a form of light with a very long wavelength - or more accurately, a form of electromagnetic radiation with a very long frequency.


How about heat? Is that an EM radiation frequency? No, then why do inferred cameras work? All matter is emitting EM radiation relative to it's temperature?

No, heat isn't light. However, every object in the universe is emitting some form of EM radiation. Cold objects emit light with less energy than hot objects do. Therefore, cold objects emit light with longer wavelengths than hot objects do. Most animals are warm enough to emit infrared light whereas, say, colder objects emit longer wavelengths, such as radio waves (incidentally, the mighty Arecibo radio telescope has to be insulated from the surrounding vegetation). Anyway, if you were to use an infrared camera, things that emit infrared light (animals) would look bright whereas things that emit radio (plants, walls, etc.) will look dark.

Edited to fix an important, but annoying, typo.

swansont
2004-Apr-15, 10:42 AM
Can I at least be sure that if a radio-station tower where to up the transmission frequency (a lot), it would be emiting light?

Yup. Radio waves are a form of light with a very long frequency - or more accurately, a form of electromagnetic radiation with a very long frequency.

Long wavelength. Low frequency.



How about heat? Is that an EM radiation frequency? No, then why do inferred cameras work? All matter is emitting EM radiation relative to it's temperature?

No, heat isn't light. However, every object in the universe is emitting some form of EM radiation. Cold objects emit light with less energy than hot objects do. Therefore, cold objects emit light with longer wavelengths than hot objects do. Most animals are warm enough to emit infrared light whereas, say, colder objects emit longer wavelengths, such as radio waves (incidentally, the mighty Arecibo radio telescope has to be insulated from the surrounding vegetation). Anyway, if you were to use an infrared camera, things that emit infrared light (animals) would look bright whereas things that emit radio (plants, walls, etc.) will look dark.

To be more specific, object will radiate a continuous spectrum (http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/applist/blackbody/black.htm) according their temperature. Object near room temperature radiate relatively strongly in the IR, near 10 microns, but they also radiate in throughout the radio part of the spectrum.

Eta C
2004-Apr-15, 12:54 PM
Darkdev, I recommend that you get a hold of an elementary physics text. It would help clear up a lot of your questions about how waves propagate, the relations between speed, frequency, and wavelength, and about the nature of light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It wouldn't need to be a college level text, a good high school text should do. The concepts we're discussing here only require some knowledge of trig functions. Calculus isn't necessary. The problem with asking questions on a board like this is that the skill levels vary greatly. Even those of us who do know the subject well (for example, I'm a physicist) don't always make ourselves clear when posting. One of the limitations of the medium.

darkdev
2004-Apr-15, 06:48 PM
Darkdev, I recommend that you get a hold of an elementary physics text. It would help clear up a lot of your questions about how waves propagate, the relations between speed, frequency, and wavelength, and about the nature of light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It wouldn't need to be a college level text, a good high school text should do. The concepts we're discussing here only require some knowledge of trig functions. Calculus isn't necessary. The problem with asking questions on a board like this is that the skill levels vary greatly. Even those of us who do know the subject well (for example, I'm a physicist) don't always make ourselves clear when posting. One of the limitations of the medium.
The problem is that I have varying levels of exposure. In grade school I was sent to the high school for calculus, but by high school I had other interests. As of late my focus is programming but cosmology is just so irresistible. I have done a good amount of research, but have also been interested and open to findings which are not commonly accepted (http://www.distinti.com/publications/newgravity.htm), and hence have a somewhat tainted view... but hope to refine my "gut feel for the way everything is".

Do you mean to imply that you believe everything you know about the universe is absolutely correct?
If it was, I don't think it would be referred to as theory, as in electromagnetic theory (http://ceta.mit.edu).

dictionary.com says theory means:
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

I never studied music thoery, instead devised my own, and I can play guitar just as well as some people who have studied music theory. Sometime, I hope, better. :-({|=
(I always wanted to use that one ;))

Eta C
2004-Apr-15, 07:48 PM
Do you mean to imply that you believe everything you know about the universe is absolutely correct?
If it was, I don't think it would be referred to as theory, as in electromagnetic theory (http://ceta.mit.edu).

No, there are always gaps and things that current theories do not fully explain. That's why science continues to evolve as our picture of the universe grows to include more effects that were not previously explained. That being said, I can be quite sure that the current theories describe and explain the effects they cover quite well.



dictionary.com says theory means:
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

how about this one


Systematically organized knowledge applicalble in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

Actually not much better. In short, a scientific theory is something with a lot of evidence and proof behind it. Thus, the current "theory" of electromagnetism called quantum electrodynamics (developed by Feynman and others) successfully combines Maxwell's classical electrodynamics with quantum mechanics. It predicts and explains a wide variety of phenomena with phenomenal precision. I would be willing to say that it is an accurate description of how the universe works although it is called a theory.

What the non-scientist calls a theory, scientists might refer to as "conjecture"
Inference based on incomplete or inconclusive evidence.

darkdev
2004-Apr-15, 09:12 PM
"Conjecturists", I would be interested IYHO of Distinti's New Gravity (http://www.distinti.com/docs/ng.pdf), based on Distinti's New EM (http://www.distinti.com/docs/ne.pdf), a superset of the accepted theory.

Eta C
2004-Apr-16, 04:16 AM
OK, I read the first few pages of the EM section. I'll take a look again tomorrow, but I'll tell you off the bat that I'm not impressed. We have someone trying to redo classical electrodynamics here. He uses a lot of technical terms, but I doubt he really understands them. As an example, on page 11 he "redefines" the Coulomb and Biot-Savart laws. Although he thinks he's creating a "new electro-magnetism all he's really doing is introducing a new set of units of his own creation. As an example, in coulomb "reformulation" he replaces the term (1/(4*pi*epsilon naught) with a new constant he calls K sub e. What's the difference? He replaces Faraday's law of induction with one of his own devising. It's really just a reformulation of Faraday's law with two components. Basically, he tries to rewrite Maxwell's equations in a more obtuse, confusing, and non-useful form. Then he has the gall to claim he has a better formulation than Maxwell did.

But aside from that, before he can claim to have made any improvements in EM theory he'll have to out-do quantum electrodynamics (QED). Can he predict the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron with his theory? QED has done this and many other predictions to precisions beyond that of current experiments to measure. Can he make any predictions that QED can't? I don't think so. In my brief perusal I can't see anywhere where the author tries to take QM into account and he'd need to do that to deal with these effects.

For a short description of QED check out this link. (http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=quantum+electrodynamics&page=1 &offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26req uestId%3D4359d77cd37e9afa%26clickedItemRank%3D6%26 userQuery%3Dquantum%2Belectrodynamics%26clickedIte mURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%252Fhbase%252Fforces%252Fqed.html%26i nvocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPIndex2%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remov e_url=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fforces%2Fqed.html)

Now I haven't read the paper in detail, and I'm just a simple experimentalist. I'll take another look tomorrow, but my guess is that my opinion won't be much different than my pal Wolfgang's.

Edited once to add the link and to correct one mis-statement. Sorry. :oops: