Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34

Thread: A New Theory of the Speed of Light

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    9

    A New Theory of 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 "


    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 = ˝ 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

    Now we will see the trick of nature that has eluded physicists for centuries. Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment shown below.

    ( Fig 2 )


    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.

    - The reference frame concept is wrong and should be eliminated from physics as a paradigm.
    " 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 !

    - 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 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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    236
    What experimental results are not predicted by SR but are predicted by your theory? Specifically, what experiments have observed velocities >c?

    How does your theory explain/address physical phenomena such as length contraction of heavy ions in particle accelerators and time dilation in unstable particles and GPS satellites?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    I will try to invalidate the theory of relativity by presenting a compelling alternative theory.
    A theory cannot invalidate another theory. The ONLY thing which can invalidate a theory is an observation.

    So you can either present an alternate theory and support it with evidence, or you can present evidence which would invalidate General Relativity. But they are different actions. So which did you want to do here?

    I hope that criticism of Einstein's theories will not be seen as offense.
    Certainly not.

    The argument goes like: if classical theories fail and if no alternative explanation exists, then relativity must be a correct theory.
    I am not aware of anyone who would make that argument, and if anyone does they are wrong. Relativity succeeds because it matches every observation we have made so far and makes reliable predictions. The failure of classical theories may have made Relativity famous, but that did not make it correct.

    I'll look at the rest in a bit, but I just wanted to correct this misconception before we went any further.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity.....
    Hi hai and welcome to the forum.
    This is the first mistake in your theory. It is not just light - the issues were with electromagnetism. Einstein's 1905 paper establishing special relativity is "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". See History of special relativity. Solving those issues correctly lead to the theory of special relativity.

    What makes SR valid is what makes any scientific theory valid. A scientific theory has to match existing observations and make testable, falsifiable predictions which are then tested and found correct. SR does that.

    Einstein's "chasing a beam of light" thought experiment was a teenager's musings on light. It is the paradox that a observer traveling with a beam of light that is an electromagnetic wave will see static waves that violate Maxwell's equations. There is no "relativity of length and time" solution. The solution is a postulate of SR - the speed of light in vacuum to a inertial observer (teenage Einstein) is always c. Likewise no physicist tries to explain the constant speed of light because that is a postulate of SR and also supported by many experiments.
    This is a thought experiment about a beam of light, not a pulse of light

    An "Exponential Doppler Effect law of light" does not exist for the reason that the Doppler effect is measured and there is nothing exponential about it.
    You cannot match the Ives–Stilwell experiment by just asserting that you can ignore higher order terms in the expansion of an exponential function. You have to show that for this experiment, those terms do not affect the results. Especially the high precision modern experiments.

    You do not seem to describe the Michelson- Morley experiment. The original experiments mounted the apparatus on a block of stone to make sure hat there was a constant distance between the source and detector. Vaguely changing the experiment does not make the actual experiment's result wrong - there s still no evidence for an aether. You even rely on the results being evidence for no aether.

    An "Apparent Source Theory" that is just a story is not a scientific theory. We have known for centuries that there is no evidence for "absolute motion". Any observer can measure a different motion (velocity) for objects.

    A "reference frame concept is wrong" error. A frame of reference is a vital part of all physics from Newton onwards. Throw them away and there is no way to measure anything!

    A "profound, unexpected findings concerns the phenomenon of stellar aberration" error. This is stellar aberration
    In the case of "stellar" or "annual" aberration, the apparent position of a star to an observer on Earth varies periodically over the course of a year as the Earth's velocity changes as it revolves around the Sun, by a maximum angle of approximately 20 arcseconds in right ascension or declination.
    Stellar aberrations are actually measured and this is dome by pointing telescopes "forward". N.B. This is not telescopes not being able to see stars.

    A bit of light is "also a non-local phenomenon" ignorance. Light has not been treated as local since maybe the 1920's. More recently, quantum effects such as quantum teleportation has confirmed that.

    A "Apparently contradicting natures co-exist in the phenomena of light, electromagnetism and gravitation" exaggeration . QFT is a cohesive theory of light and electromagnetism. GR is a cohesive theory of gravitation. The difficulty is in combining QFT and GR to get a quantum gravity theory.

    A big "Lorentz transformation, time dilation, length contraction ideas have been invalidated" error because you have not done that. The many measurements of time dilation validates SR. That GPS works validates SR. The success of QFT (a relativistic theory) validates SR. You need to create a scientific theory, e.g. add math to your words. You need to create a better scientific theory than SR. Your theory must replicate all of SR results and makes testable, falsifiable predictions that only your theory can make.. That was why SR is such a success. It not only gives all of classical mechanics, it also makes predictions that are impossible in classical mechanics.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Sep-24 at 01:37 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    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.
    I'm still trying to understand all of this, but with my quick read through I did come across a few things I would like you to clarify, such as this one. It sounds like you don't know if your new theory will predict no fringe shift or a small fringe shift. Why not? Shouldn't the math answer this one? Please say if the fringe shift will be merely small, or actually zero?

    - 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.
    It is not possible for a phenomenon to be both local and non-local, for the same reason it's not possible to be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time, or married and single at the same time. This is because a local phenomenon literally means "there are no non-local effects", and a non-local phenomenon means "there are non-local effects". The definitions directly contradict each other.

    So, does your theory predict that light is a local or a non-local phenomenon?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Hi hai and welcome to the forum.


    An "Exponential Doppler Effect law of light" does not exist for the reason that the Doppler effect is measured and there is nothing exponential about it.
    You cannot match the Ives–Stilwell experiment by just asserting that you can ignore higher order terms in the expansion of an exponential function. You have to show that for this experiment, those terms do not affect the results. Especially the high precision modern experiments.

    You do not seem to describe the Michelson- Morley experiment. The original experiments mounted the apparatus on a block of stone to make sure hat there was a constant distance between the source and detector. Vaguely changing the experiment does not make the actual experiment's result wrong - there s still no evidence for an aether. You even rely on the results being evidence for no aether.

    A "reference frame concept is wrong" error. A frame of reference is a vital part of all physics from Newton onwards. Throw them away and there is no way to measure anything!
    For V << c , Exponential Doppler Effect theory makes almost the same prediction as classical formula.

    Yes, the new theory is fully consistent with the fast ion beam experiment.

    Let fR and fB be the frequencies of the two lasers. The ion is receding from laser (fR) and approaching laser (fB).

    The frequencies of the two laser beams as seen by the ion are related to the transition frequencies as follows:

    f01 = fR e (-V/c) and f02 = fB e (V/c)

    where f01 and f02 are the two transition frequencies, in the rest frame of the ion.

    Therefore
    f01 f02 = fR e (-V/c) * fB e (V/c) = fR * FB

    From which
    (f01 f02 ) / (fR FB ) = 1

    The reference frame concept should be replaced by Apparent Source Theory . The reference frame paradigm is fundamentally wrong and can only be used as approximation.

    I will respond to other comments also.

    Moderators: Thank you for letting me post my theory.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
    I'm still trying to understand all of this, but with my quick read through I did come across a few things I would like you to clarify, such as this one. It sounds like you don't know if your new theory will predict no fringe shift or a small fringe shift. Why not? Shouldn't the math answer this one? Please say if the fringe shift will be merely small, or actually zero?



    It is not possible for a phenomenon to be both local and non-local, for the same reason it's not possible to be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time, or married and single at the same time. This is because a local phenomenon literally means "there are no non-local effects", and a non-local phenomenon means "there are non-local effects". The definitions directly contradict each other.

    So, does your theory predict that light is a local or a non-local phenomenon?
    For absolute velocities along the longitudinal axis, both in the forward and backward directions, there will always be a null fringe shift. For other directions, there will be a small fringe shift, accounting for the small fringe shifts observed in the Miller experiments. The detail quantitative analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment is found in my paper at Vixra:

    New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,806
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    The detail quantitative analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment is found in my paper at Vixra:

    New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory
    Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, hal. Our rules are a bit different than other discussion sites and that's especially true of the Against The Mainstream forum. Please familiarize yourself with our rules, linked in my signature line below. I also recommend that you read our alternative theory advice, also linked below.

    At issue here, is your use of off-site materials. We require that you make your arguments here, in this forum. You may reference your papers but such citations must support the argument or point being made and they must be specific, that is, you must cite a specific paragraph, page, figure, table, etc. Argument by link or simply saying "go read my paper" is not acceptable.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    For V << c , Exponential Doppler Effect theory makes almost the same prediction as classical formula.
    My point was that the experimental measurement for the Doppler effect at all velocities show that this "Exponential Doppler Effect" does not exist. Another point is that SR is experimentally correct. It is SR that you need to duplicate, not classical physics. Read Relativistic Doppler effect

    However you just have an assertion so my first formal question.
    IF01: Show that your "Exponential Doppler Effect" reduces to the classical Doppler effect for v << c.

    Hint: The answer is that you cannot. f ' = f e V/c = f(1 + v/c + (v/c)^2/2 ...) ~ f(1 + v/c) = f(c+v/c). The classical Doppler effect is f'=f(c +/- v1/ c +/- v2). The exponential function has no +/-. You have derived that maybe half of all of measurements of the Doppler effect are impossible. Foe example astronomers measure the rotation of stars and gas in galaxies by measuring a red Doppler shift on one side of the galaxy and a blue Doppler shift on the other side.

    Repeating an error about basic physics foe not make it correct = there is no "reference frame paradigm". This is a frame of reference
    In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements.
    .
    You are throwing away what allows physics to be done! So a formal question.

    IF02: Give the answer to the following question without any frames of reference as in "Apparent Source Theory".
    An observer is using a frame of reference with Cartesian coordinates. They are observing a car moving along a road. At time 0 they measure the coordinates of the car as (x1, y1, z1). At time t they measure the coordinates of the car as (x2, y2, z2). Now throw away the frame of reference with Cartesian coordinates. How does "Apparent Source Theory" calculate the distance that the car has travelled?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Sep-24 at 09:28 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    Yes, the new theory is fully consistent with the fast ion beam experiment. ...
    These are the fast ion beam Ives–Stilwell experiments: In heavy ion storage rings, as the TSR at the MPIK or ESR at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research, the Doppler shift of lithium ions traveling at high speed [18] is evaluated by using saturated spectroscopy or optical-optical double resonance. followed by a table of 5 experiments.

    Vague math resulting in the number 1 does not make your theory "fully consistent with the fast ion beam experiment". It actually suggests that your theory is wrong because there is no number 1 in the experiment! It looks like you are saying that no time dilation can be measured. That is not the case because time dilation was measured in this and many other experiments. Even high school students measure time dilation with the Rossi–Hall muon experiment.
    IF03: Analyze an actual fast ion beam experiment using your theory and show that they are consistent.
    For example, Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed by Botermann B, et. al (2014)
    They verified SR time dilation to within +/-2.3 * 10-9.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, hal. Our rules are a bit different than other discussion sites and that's especially true of the Against The Mainstream forum. Please familiarize yourself with our rules, linked in my signature line below. I also recommend that you read our alternative theory advice, also linked below.

    At issue here, is your use of off-site materials. We require that you make your arguments here, in this forum. You may reference your papers but such citations must support the argument or point being made and they must be specific, that is, you must cite a specific paragraph, page, figure, table, etc. Argument by link or simply saying "go read my paper" is not acceptable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    My point was that the experimental measurement for the Doppler effect at all velocities show that this "Exponential Doppler Effect" does not exist. Another point is that SR is experimentally correct. It is SR that you need to duplicate, not classical physics. Read Relativistic Doppler effect

    However you just have an assertion so my first formal question.
    IF01: Show that your "Exponential Doppler Effect" reduces to the classical Doppler effect for v << c.

    Hint: The answer is that you cannot. f ' = f e V/c = f(1 + v/c + (v/c)^2/2 ...) ~ f(1 + v/c) = f(c+v/c). The classical Doppler effect is f'=f(c +/- v1/ c +/- v2). The exponential function has no +/-. You have derived that maybe half of all of measurements of the Doppler effect are impossible. Foe example astronomers measure the rotation of stars and gas in galaxies by measuring a red Doppler shift on one side of the galaxy and a blue Doppler shift on the other side.

    Repeating an error about basic physics foe not make it correct = there is no "reference frame paradigm". This is a frame of reference
    .
    You are throwing away what allows physics to be done! So a formal question.

    IF02: Give the answer to the following question without any frames of reference as in "Apparent Source Theory".
    An observer is using a frame of reference with Cartesian coordinates. They are observing a car moving along a road. At time 0 they measure the coordinates of the car as (x1, y1, z1). At time t they measure the coordinates of the car as (x2, y2, z2). Now throw away the frame of reference with Cartesian coordinates. How does "Apparent Source Theory" calculate the distance that the car has travelled?
    To moderator:

    I want and am happy to make all discussion here, defending my theory. I referred to my offsite paper because it is a bit involved analysis, even though it is just a straightforward geometrical optics. The key is the interpretation. I couldn’t make more detail discussion here also because I am under some temporary constraints. Nevertheless, I fully agree with the rules and advice and will try to conform to them. I also apologize for any delays to respond to comments, for some time. I hope that I will address all comments and questions satisfactorily.

    To Reality Check:

    No, Exponential Doppler Effect diverges from classical and relativistic formulas as relative velocities approach the speed of light. So the new theory will not duplicate SRT. Doppler effect measurements near the speed of light, for example V = 0.95 c , directly receding or approaching, will decide between the two theories. So far I don’t know of any such experiment.
    In the Wikipedia article, there are three experiments mentioned.
    1. “ Ives and Stilwell-type measurements”
    2. “Direct measurement of transverse Doppler effect “
    3. “ Time dilation measurements “

    I have already analyzed the first and third experiments according to the exponential theory ( I will have to figure out your argument/criticism with regard to the third) . Regarding the second experiment, I know that the claimed result is extracted from a lot of vibration noise, with claimed high precision, in a not very convincing way. According to the new theory, transverse Doppler effect doesn’t exist. The origin of the observed Doppler effect in the Mossbauer effect is acceleration. In my post in this forum I presented only Apparent Source Theory for the special case of inertial motion of observer. For the analysis of the Mossbauer experiment the generalized Apparent Source Theory for accelerating observers is used.

    So in the analysis of the Mossbauer rotor experiment we apply exponential Doppler effect in combination with the generalized Apparent Source Theory. The result of that analysis is:
    f' = f ( 1 + (ωR/c )2 )

    See page 191 of my paper on Vixra (the latest version): ( links can be posted ? not mentioned in the rules ?)
    Absolute/Relative Motion and the Speed of Light, Electromagnetism, Inertia and Universal Speed Limit c - an Alternative Interpretation and Theoretical Framework

    So, at least I have been able to demonstrate that Doppler effect exists even if the velocity of the source is orthogonal to the direction of light source.
    However, I think it is better to keep our discuss on the simpler case of inertial motion at first.

    The Hasselkamp experiment is problematic. See paper on Arxiv by NASA scientist, Daniel Y. Gezari
    “ Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector”

    In which he says:
    “ Hasselkemp et al. did not initially detect a transverse Doppler effect, but claimed a detection after correcting for a possible misalignment. “

    “ The exponential function has no +/-. “

    If I have understood your question, in the formula f’ = f e(v/C) , V is positive for approaching velocity and negative for receding velocity.

    By “classical” I just meant formulas such as f ’ = f c/(c-V), where V is just relative velocity. i.e. formulas containing terms c ± V . I didn’t assume a medium. I will clarify this.

    With regard to your question of determining the distance travelled by a car in a reference frame, I am trying to figure out how to accurately formulate the explanation. However, I recommend that the best way is first to try to practice a bit applying Apparent Source Theory, which is a model that can explain and predict experimental outcomes correctly, to the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiments for example. Then you can see for yourselves what I mean by: dual (local and non-local) nature of light, the irrelevance of reference frames, e.t.c. These are not independent hypotheses, but insights I gained after working on Apparent Source Theory. I will come back with an explanation.

    The procedure of analysis of the MM experiment is:
    1. Replace the real source by an apparent source
    2. Analyze the experiment using elementary geometrical optics.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,806
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    To moderator:
    Again, please read our rules. If you feel the need to question, dispute, or otherwise comment on moderation you should use the report button, PM the moderator directly, or start a discussion in the feedback forum. But please do not comment on moderation within the thread, unless specifically asked to do so.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    No, Exponential Doppler Effect diverges from classical and relativistic formulas as relative velocities approach the speed of light. So the new theory will not duplicate SRT. ...
    Relativistic effects are found to exist in experiments and happen to match what SR predicts. Any theory that does match what the real world does is wrong! You are stating that your theory is wrong because it cannot match the real world like SR can. You even cite "Direct measurement of transverse Doppler effect" which your theory cannot match yet.

    IF01: Show that your "Exponential Doppler Effect" reduces to the classical Doppler effect for v << c.
    Your theory is wrong because of math. Your function cannot give the classical Doppler effect for v<<c. The symbol v is s speed. Doppler effect. There is a + speed v. There is a - speed v. Doppler effects for light are red shifted and blue shifted both in theory and what is measured. The fix is easy. Use the textbook notation where the velocity v has a magnitude (speed) v which is positive. Then chuck in a +/-.

    Then what you have is a equation pulled out of thin air that reduces to the classical Doppler equation for v << c but cannot match any relativistic Doppler effects yet. These effects are matched by SR. That means that any replacement has to be close to SR math, e.g. have math that reduces to square roots for the tested range of v. This is not an exponential function. So a formal question:
    IF04: Derive a transverse Doppler effect equation (showing that it does not exist!) from your theory.

    N.B There are many experiments that test each aspect of a scientific theory such as SR. A scientific theory thus derives equations that can be used in all of the appropriate tests. We do not look at each time dilation experiment and go back to Einstein's 1905 paper for each paper to see what SR would predict. SR has a derived time dilation equation that can be used in all time dilation experiments. You need more than 1 equation. You need to derive the equations that we have experimentally verified ar matched by SR. And then show that your equations at least match the experiments.

    IF02: Give the answer to the following question without any frames of reference as in "Apparent Source Theory".
    Answered: All you have so far are "insights" that cannot even address a simple classical mechanics question. A "reference frame concept is wrong" statement is what you imagine not what you can show.

    IF03: Analyze an actual fast ion beam experiment using your theory and show that they are consistent.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Sep-25 at 09:42 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    According to the new theory, transverse Doppler effect doesn’t exist. ...
    This makes your theory wrong because the transverse Doppler effect has been measured as you know. Argument from incredibility ("in a not very convincing way") does not make experiments invalid. An "analysis" with no working (and using a theory you later state you cannot us to explain a simple example), does not make experiments invalid.

    Relativistic Doppler effect.
    The measured relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect is affected by time dilation (v/c is basically replaced by the Lorentz factor).
    The measured transverse Doppler effect is "one of the main novel predictions of the special theory of relativity".

    Read What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Sep-25 at 10:02 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    For absolute velocities along the longitudinal axis, both in the forward and backward directions, there will always be a null fringe shift.
    When you say "null" fringe shift, does that mean there will be no fringe shift?

    For other directions, there will be a small fringe shift, accounting for the small fringe shifts observed in the Miller experiments.
    I'm still a bit confused here. Are you claiming your theory will predict an identical fringe shift to what SR predicts? If so, I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. Are you claiming your theory will predict a different fringe shift from what SR predicts? If so, I would like to see the math of SR and what amount of fringe shift that theory predicts as well the math of your theory and what amount of fringe shift your theory predicts. Then we can compare the 2 numbers. Please consider this a direct question.

    You also did not answer my question of "Does your theory predict that light will be a local or a non-local phenomenon?"

    Doppler effect measurements near the speed of light, for example V = 0.95 c , directly receding or approaching, will decide between the two theories.
    Since you brought this example up, can you please run the math on this example for us? Run the math for what SR predicts, and run the math for what your theory predicts, and then we can compare them. It would also be interesting to know what speed would be needed for our instruments to detect the difference between these 2 theories. Have you already run the numbers for this? If not, why not?

    Thanks.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed
    We present the concluding result from an Ives-Stilwell-type time dilation experiment using 7Li+ ions confined at a velocity of beta = v/c = 0.338 in the storage ring ESR at Darmstadt. A Lambda-type three-level system within the hyperfine structure of the 7Li+ triplet S1-P2 line is driven by two laser beams aligned parallel and antiparallel relative to the ion beam. The lasers' Doppler shifted frequencies required for resonance are measured with an accuracy of < 4 ppb using optical-optical double resonance spectroscopy. This allows us to verify the Special Relativity relation between the time dilation factor gamma and the velocity beta to within 2.3 ppb at this velocity. The result, which is singled out by a high boost velocity beta, is also interpreted within Lorentz Invariance violating test theories
    Emphasis added. SR correctly gives Ives-Stilwell-type results up to v = 0.338c. hal needs to show that his theory matches the results up to v = 0.338c.

    ETA:
    A coupe of minor points about "Doppler effect measurements near the speed of light, for example V = 0.95 c , directly receding or approaching, will decide between the two theories".
    SR does not have any "directly receding or approaching" restriction. Motion in an arbitrary direction
    The analysis used in section Relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect can be extended in a straightforward fashion to calculate the Doppler shift for the case where the inertial motions of the source and receiver are at any specified angle.[2][9]
    The statement assumes that such measurements are currently practicable and possible. Look at the above Ives-Stilwell-type experiment. That needed ions that serve as clocks by driving a transition using lasers. That gives at least 2 requirements for any experiment.
    • A particle accelerator that can accelerate ions such as Li+ to ultra-relativistic speeds such as 0.95c.
    • Lasers that can excite these ions in that accelerator to become clocks.

    The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC /ˈrɪk/) is the first and one of only two operating heavy-ion colliders. The other collider looks like GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research used in the above paper.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Sep-26 at 02:01 AM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
    When you say "null" fringe shift, does that mean there will be no fringe shift?



    I'm still a bit confused here. Are you claiming your theory will predict an identical fringe shift to what SR predicts? If so, I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. Are you claiming your theory will predict a different fringe shift from what SR predicts? If so, I would like to see the math of SR and what amount of fringe shift that theory predicts as well the math of your theory and what amount of fringe shift your theory predicts. Then we can compare the 2 numbers. Please consider this a direct question.

    You also did not answer my question of "Does your theory predict that light will be a local or a non-local phenomenon?"



    Since you brought this example up, can you please run the math on this example for us? Run the math for what SR predicts, and run the math for what your theory predicts, and then we can compare them. It would also be interesting to know what speed would be needed for our instruments to detect the difference between these 2 theories. Have you already run the numbers for this? If not, why not?

    Thanks.

    Null fringe shift = no fringe shift at all

    Small fringe shifts can be produced in the Michelson-Morley ( MM ) apparatus in two ways.

    1. By setting the apparatus in absolute motion
    OR
    2. By slight actual/physical change of the source position about its initial position ( this is elementary geometrical optics).

    Now, for every given absolute velocity ( magnitude and direction) of the MM interferometer, there is a corresponding actual/physical change of source position that will produce the same fringe shift. In other words, to determine the fringe shift for a given absolute velocity, we simply compute the fringe shift due to the corresponding physical change in source position. This procedure changes the difficult problem of absolute motion into a simple classical geometrical optics problem.

    To get the corresponding source position for a given absolute velocity, we follow Apparent Source Theory ( AST ) procedure. It depends on the position (distance and direction) of the detector relative to the source and on the magnitude and direction of absolute velocity. To keep our discussion simple, we can see the procedure of finding the corresponding source position later.

    With this in mind, try to answer the following classical geometrical optics question. Imagine an MM interferometer at rest. Initially note the position of the fringes. Then suppose that the source is slightly moved ( say 1 mm ) to four different positions: forward and backward ( along the longitudinal directions ) and up and down ( in the transverse directions ). What will be the fringe shift for each of the four positions ? Try to answer this question for yourself.

    My answer is that for the two positions along the longitudinal direction, there will be no fringe shift, which is intuitively clear. Both the longitudinal and transverse beams will be delayed ( for backward position ) or advanced (for forward position ) equally and hence there will be no fringe shift. For the two positions in the transverse directions, there will be small fringe shifts because the path lengths of the two beams will no more be equal; there will be a small difference. Consider the up position for example. Unlike the cases of positions along the longitudinal axis, the beam going from the source to the mirror will no more be horizontal and will be tilted downwards and hence will not be reflected back on itself from the mirror. The same applies for the transverse beam. This can be shown clearly only in diagrams. In my papers, I have computed the difference in path length of the two beams ( hence the fringe shift) for absolute velocity of 390 Km/s , in the upward (transverse) direction, for the Michelson 1881 experiment which had an arm length of 11m. The calculation is a bit involved. I obtained a fringe shift of 0.013 fringe shift which is the same order of magnitude measured by Michelson: 0.018 fringes. This discrepancy can be reduced if the detail dimensions of the 1881 experiment are available, specifically the distance between the source and the beam splitter and the distance between the detector and the beam splitter. Note that these distances are irrelevant in special relativity and in ether theory ! By only slightly changing these dimensions, I obtained a fringe shift of 0.021 fringes.

    Please refer to the diagram of the light paths found in my paper ( page 4 )
    “ New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory “

    One of the significant results of the Apparent Source Theory (AST) analysis of the MM experiment is that it may explain why the direction obtained in the Miller experiment differed ( by almost ninety degrees) from the CMBR direction ! According to AST, absolute motion along the longitudinal directions will not produce any fringe shift ; a small fringe shift will occur for motion in the transverse directions. This is unlike ether theory that predicts a maximum fringe shift for absolute velocities along the longitudinal direction.

    Regarding your question of comparing the Doppler effect predictions of SRT and Exponential Doppler Effect ( EDE ) theory:

    For β= V/c = 0.7 (approaching )
    f’ / f = e V/c = 2.014 ( EDE )
    f’/ f = SQRT((1+ β)/(1- β)) = 2.38 ( SRT )

    For β= V/c = 0.95 (approaching )
    f’ / f = e V/c = 2.5857 ( EDE )
    f’/ f = SQRT ((1+ β)/(1- β)) = 6.245 ( SRT )

    For β= V/c = - 0.7 (receding )
    f’ / f = e V/c = 0.4966 ( EDE )
    f’/ f = SQRT ((1+ β)/(1- β)) = 0.42 ( SRT )

    For β= V/c = -0.95 (receding )
    f’ / f = e V/c = 0.3867 ( EDE )
    f’/ f = SQRT((1+ β)/(1- β)) = 0.16 ( SRT )

    An interesting result is what happens in the case of an observer receding away from a light source at the speed of light, i.e. V/c =1 .
    λ' / λ = e V/c = e ≈ 2.718282 ( EDE )
    λ' / λ = SQRT ((1+β)/(1-β))= SQRT ((1+1)/(1-1)) = infinite

    SRT predicts an infinite wave length for an observer receding at light speed, but EDE predicts that the wave length will be increased only by a factor of 2.718282 .

    Also for the case of an observer approaching a light source at the speed of light:
    f' /f = e V/c = e ( EDE )
    f' / f = SQRT ((1+β)/(1-β))= SQRT ((1+1)/(1-1)) = infinite ( SRT )

    Thus SRT predicts infinite frequency for approaching relative velocity, V/c = 1.
    This means that, if there are galaxies in the universe approaching us at the speed of light, their lights would be shifted to infinite frequency and there would be no life on Earth. Note that superluminal galaxies have already been observed. The standard explanation that they are just illusions does not completely rule out the possibility of superluminal galaxies.


    " You also did not answer my question of "Does your theory predict that light will be a local or a non-local phenomenon?" "

    I have stated that light is a dual phenomenon, at the same time: local and non-local. For every point in space around a light source, light acts as if it arrived at that point without passing through the intervening space. Yet we have to assume that it is 'virtually local' . I think this becomes more clear as one understands AST better.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    Repeating an error about basic physics foe not make it correct = there is no "reference frame paradigm".

    You are throwing away what allows physics to be done! So a formal question.

    IF02: Give the answer to the following question without any frames of reference as in "Apparent Source Theory".
    An observer is using a frame of reference with Cartesian coordinates. They are observing a car moving along a road. At time 0 they measure the coordinates of the car as (x1, y1, z1). At time t they measure the coordinates of the car as (x2, y2, z2). Now throw away the frame of reference with Cartesian coordinates. How does "Apparent Source Theory" calculate the distance that the car has travelled?

    Instead of a car let us consider the motion of an electron. Let there be an electron source at point P(x1, y1, z1 ) and let there be an electron detector/observer at point Q (x2, y2, z2 ), in the reference frame. Let the reference frame have zero absolute velocity at first. Electrons are emitted with velocity V. When the system is at rest both the reference frame and AST give the same results and it is impossible to distinguish between the two in this case. In both cases the distance travelled is the actual/physical distance D between P and Q.

    Let the reference frame be attached to the Earth which is in absolute motion. With the reference frame concept, the electron still starts from point P and is detected at point Q, hence travels the physical distance D between P and Q. The mystery is that the electron acts as if it was emitted from point P’, not from point P ! It acts as if it was emitted from an apparent source position P’, not from the real source position P, hence acts as if it travelled apparent distance D’ not physical distance D. Perhaps this may explain the apparent superluminal neutrinos! ?

    Suppose that the times of emission and detection are recorded, from which the time of flight t can be determined. Since the Earth is in absolute motion, the time of flight of the electron will vary with change in orientation of the emitter detector line with respect to the direction of absolute motion. The reference frame concept erroneously leads to the conclusion that the speed of the electrons changes with direction, from the equation V = D/t , because it always assumes the physical distance D. Apparent Source Theory (AST) gives a different interpretation, V = D’/t , that the variation in time of flight is not due to change in velocity of the electrons but due to an apparent in position of the source.

    Physically we can say that the speed of the electrons has changed because the time taken by the electron between two fixed points in that reference frame has changed. But this is fundamentally flawed.

    Note that once we replace the real source with an apparent source we assume that the electrons are emitted with velocity V relative to the apparent source. The only thing that changes is the (apparent) position of the source. The speed of the electrons is still V relative to the observer and, since the observer and the apparent source are at relative rest, is also V relative to the apparent source.

    Crucially, once the real source is replaced by an apparent source in the MM experiment, we just assume classical emission theory. The crucial consequence of this is that motion of the mirrors is not considered , for the same reason that we don’t consider motion of the mirrors in classical emission theory !! Once we replace the real source by an apparent source, we analyze the experiment by using classical optics ( such as angle of incidence equals angle of reflection ), by assuming the actual position of the mirrors. There is no confusion regarding the motion of the mirrors as in ether theory, Lorentz theory and SRT.

    Although the reference frame concept is deeply flawed, it can be used for every day / ordinary phenomena such as motion of a car, as an approximation. In the same way that we don’t apply quantum mechanics to cars, we don’t apply AST to cars. Just as this doesn’t invalidate QM it doesn’t invalidate AST. I think AST is deeply connected to the phenomena of wave-particle duality. However, the application of AST to particles should be studied further. At this point, I believe that AST is a law of nature that applies to all physical phenomena at the fundamental level. For example, we know that the Sagnac effect has been demonstrated for electrons. The Michelson-Morley experiment also can in principle be done for electrons. AST governs not only light speed experiments, but also particle experiments.

    Therefore, the reference frame can be used for ordinary everyday phenomena, but cannot be used to formulate the most fundamental laws of nature such as light and electromagnetism.

    This is also connected to another fundamentally flawed view of light like ordinary local phenomena, such as the sound wave. If one thinks of a light wave as some objectively existing peaks and troughs fixed out there in space ( although time varying), then one is thinking in terms of the ether. Physicists avoided the word ether, but couldn’t avoid thinking in terms of the ether. If one rejects the new theory that wavelength changes for a moving observer, then one is accepting the ether.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    Instead of a car let us consider the motion of an electron. ....
    Read your post and note the use of coordinates,. That is a frame of reference.
    Moving the goalposts is not good. My question is a simple one about a car with 2 measured positions and how your theory would measure the distance between these two positions.
    IF02: Give the answer to the following question without any frames of reference as in "Apparent Source Theory" [or whatever you replaced frames with].

    This derail from IF02 is very wrong.
    You have 1 frame where an election is emitted from P and detected at Q. You then transfer to a frame rotating with the Earth. The electron is still emitted from P and detected at Q in the first frame. Points P and Q are P' and Q' in the second frame. The election is emitted and detected at the same position in both frames. Frame of reference
    In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements.
    I have emphasized what you seem to have not understood. The physical reference points can make different reference frames physically different and not directly comparable. N.B. there is also no requirement for different reference frames to have the same coordinates, Your derail has a first frame with Cartesian coordinates but a rotating Earth is easier treated with spherical coordinates. Earth is also an oblate spheroid and there are coordinate system to cater to the Earth not being a sphere..

    A simpler example: Alice is an observer at the electron source. Bob is an observer at the electron detector. They both select the Cartesian coordinate system. However Alice decides to make herself the physical origin of her coordinates while Bob decides to make himself the physical origin of his coordinates. Obviously they will disagree abut the position of everything in the universe, including the electron source and detector! That is why there are transformations between coordinate systems. In this case we can just take Bob's coordinates and subtract the distance between the source and detector D to get Alice's coordinates.

    "Since the Earth is in absolute motion" is wrong if only for the simple reasons that you have not defined "absolute motion", shown that it exists or shown that Earth is in this "absolute motion". Real world measurement show that the motion of the Earth is relative. The Earth has one velocity when measured relative to the Sun, another relative to the Moon, another relative to a surface observer, another relative to the center of the galaxy, etc.measurement of v. That is another 2 points, one of which can be a previous point.

    You have found no flaws in mainstream physics.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Sep-26 at 10:38 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,806
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    Instead of a car let us consider the motion of an electron.
    hal,

    Our rules require that you provide direct and timely answers to the questions asked of you. You may not replace a question with one more to your liking. Answer it as it is asked...then, you can point out issues with the question, propose an alternative scenario, etc.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    This is also connected to another fundamentally flawed view of light like ordinary local phenomena, such as the sound wave.
    This is still wrong, hal, because no one has this view. As pointed out before, everyone who learns current physics knows that light has non-local properties. We know that light does things that an electromagnetic wave cannot do. The modem view of light is QM particles (photons) described by a wave function extending throughout the universe.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Sep-26 at 11:42 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    Null fringe shift = no fringe shift at all
    Thank you.

    Small fringe shifts can be produced in the Michelson-Morley ( MM ) apparatus in two ways.

    1. By setting the apparatus in absolute motion
    OR
    2. By slight actual/physical change of the source position about its initial position ( this is elementary geometrical optics).
    I don't think the part I bolded is true. The MM apparatus was in motion after all, it was revolving along with the Earth and yet no fringe shift was detected.

    Regarding your question of comparing the Doppler effect predictions of SRT and Exponential Doppler Effect ( EDE ) theory:

    For β= V/c = 0.7 (approaching )
    f’ / f = e V/c = 2.014 ( EDE )
    f’/ f = SQRT((1+ β)/(1- β)) = 2.38 ( SRT )

    For β= V/c = 0.95 (approaching )
    f’ / f = e V/c = 2.5857 ( EDE )
    f’/ f = SQRT ((1+ β)/(1- β)) = 6.245 ( SRT )

    For β= V/c = - 0.7 (receding )
    f’ / f = e V/c = 0.4966 ( EDE )
    f’/ f = SQRT ((1+ β)/(1- β)) = 0.42 ( SRT )

    For β= V/c = -0.95 (receding )
    f’ / f = e V/c = 0.3867 ( EDE )
    f’/ f = SQRT((1+ β)/(1- β)) = 0.16 ( SRT )
    Thank you for these, I really do appreciate it when there is some math to go along with a new theory. According to the link Reality Check gave you, we have tested the doppler effect up to speeds of 0.338c. So, when I use your equation and run the numbers for that speed I get:

    EDE: e V/c= 0.919
    SR: sqrt((1+B)/(1-B)) = 1.421

    And the experiment was found to be in agreement with SR to (I believe) 1 part in 10 billion. Since your theory is giving wrong predictions and disagrees with experimental results, doesn't this prove your theory wrong right here?


    " You also did not answer my question of "Does your theory predict that light will be a local or a non-local phenomenon?" "

    I have stated that light is a dual phenomenon, at the same time: local and non-local. For every point in space around a light source, light acts as if it arrived at that point without passing through the intervening space. Yet we have to assume that it is 'virtually local' . I think this becomes more clear as one understands AST better.
    But I have replied with this (which you may have missed):

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave241
    It is not possible for a phenomenon to be both local and non-local, for the same reason it's not possible to be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time, or married and single at the same time. This is because a local phenomenon literally means "there are no non-local effects", and a non-local phenomenon means "there are non-local effects". The definitions directly contradict each other.

    So, does your theory predict that light is a local or a non-local phenomenon?
    Can you respond to this? Thanks.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    Small fringe shifts can be produced in the Michelson-Morley ( MM ) apparatus in two ways....
    Any fringe shifts can be produced in the Michelson-Morley apparatus in more ways than 2 starting with experimental error and incorrect analysis (the latter was an error in the 1881 MM experiment).
    1. A "setting the apparatus in absolute motion" is too vague to be a way. You have no definition of "absolute motion". Thus you cannot say if the many MM apparatus are in this "absolute motion".
    2. A "slight actual/physical change of the source position about its initial position" is ruled out by the fact that the apparatus are rigid. The original MM experiment attached the apparatus to a big block of stone to make sure of that! See the stone in the image at the Michelson–Morley experiment.
    3 & 4. Thermal and vibrational effects.
    Heat could cause one arm of the interferometer to expand more then the other arm producing fringes. Vibrations would blur out the fringes making them harder to detect.
    Michelson–Morley experiment
    As shown in Fig. 5, the light was repeatedly reflected back and forth along the arms of the interferometer, increasing the path length to 11 m (36 ft). At this length, the drift would be about 0.4 fringes. To make that easily detectable, the apparatus was assembled in a closed room in the basement of the heavy stone dormitory, eliminating most thermal and vibrational effects. Vibrations were further reduced by building the apparatus on top of a large block of sandstone (Fig. 1), about a foot thick and five feet square, which was then floated in a circular trough of mercury. They estimated that effects of about 0.01 fringe would be detectable.
    5. The purpose of the experiment - light traveling through an aether!
    Michelson–Morley experiment
    The device he designed, later known as a Michelson interferometer, sent yellow light from a sodium flame (for alignment), or white light (for the actual observations), through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle by small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference whose transverse displacement would depend on the relative time it takes light to transit the longitudinal vs. the transverse arms. If the Earth is traveling through an aether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of aether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    ...One of the significant results of the Apparent Source Theory (AST) analysis of the MM experiment is that it may explain why the direction obtained in the Miller experiment differed ( by almost ninety degrees) from the CMBR direction !
    This is wrong, hal.
    You do not give any result from any analysis here.

    You do not cite any Miller experiment or what direction was found. MM experiments cannot not give a single direction - they would give all directions of the Earth moving thru an aether during its orbit - the ecliptic plane. All MM experiments had null results. Dayton Miller did some MM experiments for which his analysis gave a non-null result but further analyses shows the results were a statistical analysis error.

    There is no actual "CMBR direction". The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background"]CMBR[/URL ] goes in all directions. The closest thing to a "direction" are the direction to the Axis of evil (on the elliptic plane) and CMB cold spot. Neither seems "almost ninety degrees" off the directions that an hypothetical MM experiment could give.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    My answer is ...
    Unfortunately dubious assertions, hal. You state that one of 2 arms of a Michelson interferometer fixed to a stone slab was somehow moved to have a different length. Phrases like "up position", "no more be horizontal" and "tilted downwards" when an MM interferometer is flat. We can handle "a bit involved" calculations so:
    IF05: Give your calculations for the different lengths of the arms of a Michelson interferometer fixed to the stone slab in the 1887 MM experiment.

    FYI: A reason for adding the stone slab was that the 1881 MM experiment with its inadequate accuracy had metal arms on a stand. The stone slab removed the possibility of the arms moving and also allowed longer arms without bending. Thermal and vibrational insulation was a bonus.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    ... I have computed the difference in path length of the two beams ( hence the fringe shift) for absolute velocity of 390 Km/s , in the upward (transverse) direction, for the Michelson 1881 experiment which had an arm length of 11m..
    As already pointed out there is no "upward (transverse) direction" in the 1887 Michelson experiment (the 1881 experiment failed due to a lack of accuracy but measured horizontally). The Michelson interferometer was fixed to a flat stone slab and rotated horizontally. But:
    IF06: Where does this "absolute velocity of 390 Km/s" come from and how do you know it is absolute (cannot be measured as different by anyone in the universe)?

    The MM experiment tests for the Earth moving through an aether (for an "aether wind"). The Earth has an orbital speed averaging 29.78 km/s.
    There is The earth is moving with respect to the CBR at a speed of 390 kilometers per second but that is definitely a speed relative to the CMBR and a relative speed from 1998 (WMAP and Planck would have refined this relative speed).
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Sep-27 at 04:06 AM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    9
    Reality Check

    You misunderstood me on two points:

    1. When I say " change of source position " I am NOT saying that there was an ACTUAL change of source position ( due to some factor, for example temperature) in the 1881 or the 1887 Michelson and Morley experiments!

    I am saying that:
    - the effect of absolute motion on the Michelson interferometer is to create an APPARENT change in the position of the light source relative to the detector
    and,
    - This APPARENT change in source position causes a fringe shift AS IF it was an ACTUAL change of source position.

    2. When I said "downward " I did not mean relative to the Earth. I meant relative to the page on which the MM experiment is drawn. That was why I referred you to my paper, so that there would be no misunderstanding. Please see the diagram of the light paths in my paper.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
    Thank you.



    I don't think the part I bolded is true. The MM apparatus was in motion after all, it was revolving along with the Earth and yet no fringe shift was detected.



    Thank you for these, I really do appreciate it when there is some math to go along with a new theory. According to the link Reality Check gave you, we have tested the doppler effect up to speeds of 0.338c. So, when I use your equation and run the numbers for that speed I get:

    EDE: e V/c= 0.919
    SR: sqrt((1+B)/(1-B)) = 1.421

    And the experiment was found to be in agreement with SR to (I believe) 1 part in 10 billion. Since your theory is giving wrong predictions and disagrees with experimental results, doesn't this prove your theory wrong right here?




    But I have replied with this (which you may have missed):



    Can you respond to this? Thanks.
    1. Absolute translational motion of the Earth has been detected in multiple experiments
    - the Miller experiments, which always gave a maximum fringe shift in a consistent direction, and correlated with sidereal time
    - the Silvertooth experiment, which gave the same magnitude and direction of absolute velocity as the CMBR velocity
    - the Marinov experiment
    - the Roland De Witte experiment, which showed sidereal correlation

    2. For V/c = 0.338

    e V/c = 1.402 ( EDE)

    sqrt ( (1+0.338)/ (1-0.388) ) = 1.422 ( SRT)

    e V/c = e raised to the power of V/c ( I am sorry I can't write it correctly)
    ( not e times V/c)

    3. When I say light is a dual phenomenon (local and non-local), I mean light behaves AS IF it is both a local and non-local phenomenon at the same time.

    Yes it is not possible to be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time. But light behaves as if it is VIRTUALLY (not 'really ') local and VIRTUALLY non local at the same time. When I say light is not REALLY local, I mean it is not local like sound wave or like the hypothetical ether wave.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is still wrong, hal, because no one has this view. As pointed out before, everyone who learns current physics knows that light has non-local properties. We know that light does things that an electromagnetic wave cannot do. The modem view of light is QM particles (photons) described by a wave function extending throughout the universe.
    Light does not "know " what experiment we are doing. That is, if light exhibits non-local behavior in quantum experiments, then this nature of light should also have a role in the explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. But there is no reference to this nature of light in SRT. In fact, light is treated as ordinary local phenomenon in SRT, that is why SRT requires length contraction and time dilation to explain the MM null result.

    Reality Check also said " . . . You have no definition of absolute motion "
    Absolute motion is not motion relative to the ether. Absolute motion is motion relative to all matter in the universe.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    You misunderstood me on two points:
    I did not misunderstand. There needs to be an actual change in source position to change the actual, measured fringes in the MM experiment. A semantic change to "apparent" position does not change the explanation. The MM experiment still gets null results for the existence of the aether.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •