SUMMARY
IS MAGNETISM ULTIMATELY
ELECTROSTATIC?
Years of
evidence
for charge polarization inside electrons
and atomic nuclei leads to the startling
implication that such electrostatic dipoles in fact can account for the
magnetism of current carrying wires and ferromagnetic materials where
electron spin and the magnetic field of an orbiting charge in combination is interpreted as due to an
electrostatic dipole inside the electron in two mutually perpendicular
directions transverse and perpendicular to its motion.
For example two electrons orbiting a helium
nucleus always diametrically opposite each other, are moving in opposite
directions say in the horizontal plane. Electrostatic dipoles transverse to
their movement in the horizontal plane have their negative poles always
pointing to the
nucleus if the electron orbits are counter clockwise and positive
poles pointing to the nucleus in the clock wise case and the dipole components
in a vertical plane have one with the positive pole upward and one with the
negative pole upward as explained below. (Thus no need for the Pauli
exclusion principle).
Also the spin and orbital movement of
planets and stars produces charge polarization in atomic nuclei transverse to
these movements and this can account for attractive radial oriented dipoles and
repelling longitudinally oriented dipoles associated with their magnetic and,
also, we will show, their gravitational fields.(note, all mechanical forces
are ultimately electrical given that all atoms are made up of charged
particles)
Also the increasing amplitude of oscillating dipoles,A(t)cos2πft, inside
the lattice nuclei of receiving antenna wires and of molecules of semiconductors and cells of the eye precede
the detectable oscillation of free electrons in the receiving antenna or the
excitation of electrons from molecules of the eye or of a photodiode or photoemissive
surface.
We show that the delay before radiation is
detectable at a distance r, from the source, after r/c seconds or kr/c
seconds, k<1, can be ascribed to this transient.
But I am getting ahead of myself. We must first show that such polarization
occurs in current carrying wires due to the electric field sustained in such
wires by a standard battery or rectified ac power source.
Also that the dipoles are transverse to the
current direction and that they increase in proportion to the separation of the
wires to produce exactly the so called magnetic attraction or repulsion between
parallel or antiparallel, current carrying wires etc.
that is observed.
In the case of parallel wires there is an
attractive force between them proportional to their lengths and inversely
proportional to their separation, k/r.
Although this force formula is usually calculated from the magnetic
field produced by one wire acting on the second wire, it can also be calculated
from Ampere’s formula for the force between parallel infinitesimal wire
segments where the force is inversely proportional to the square of the
separation, k/r2.
Thus to explain the observed attraction as
being due to electrostatic dipoles, we must require that the dipole per unit length of each
wire is r/c times the current where r is the separation. Then the inverse
fourth power collinear
attractive dipole-dipole force associated with two parallel
infinitesimal current segments reduces to an inverse square force:
F=(-2)(9)(109)((r/c)2)((ids)(i'ds')))=(6)(9)(109)/r4)(-(pds)(p'ds')
F= -9(109 )
(rnAev/c)(rnAev*/c)dsds*/r4 = -10-7ii*dsds*/r2
The current is the number of electrons,n,
(of charge,e,
and mass, m) per unit volume, times A,
the cross section area of the wire, times v, the drift velocity of the
electrons in the wire in the direction of current, and field E along the length
of the wire acting for the times between thermal collisions every t = (2)10-14 seconds for copper
and c is Ö3 times the speed of light.
For example, suppose our parallel wires are
copper of a 2mm diameter and the current of one amp is
1= nAev = (8.47)(3.14)(1.6)(1028-6-19)(v)
= 4.255(104)v
so v = (2.35)10-5 but v=eEt/m =(2)(1.6)(10-19)( E)(10-14)
/(9)(10-31) so E = 9(2.35)(10-31-5)/3.2(1033)
= 6.6(10-3) V/meter. If v and
so E increase, the time between collisions, t, becomes
smaller and E, must increase more to maintain a specific, v, value unless the
wire burns and breaks.
Since r in such tests is typically a few
centimeters and v is typically 10-5 meters/second, the dipole length, rv/c, is about 10-15 meters, roughly the diameter of an atomic nucleus.
Thus we can account for the so called
magnetic force between parallel( or otherwise
oriented) current carrying wires or streams of electrons in a plasma as the
electrostatic force between electrostatic dipoles inside the lattice nuclei of
the wires or the electrons in the plasma. At least until rv/c is no
larger than the average distance between
surrounding particles, eg about an Angstrom
inside a wire.
We consider later in discussing radio
transmission, the interaction between a pair of parallel oscillating current
carrying wires where the current in one wire is much weaker eg
milliamps to picoamps and the values of
r may be meters to kilometers to hundreds of kilometers and more. Thus the transverse dipole expansion in the
weaker current wire is inhibited initially by the transverse dipole field from
the other wire and the
effect of the surrounding orbital electrons in the weaker current
wire is effective in reducing the dipole expansion from what it would be
otherwise. Thus instead of rv/c per unit length we have in such cases only krv/c less than one Angstrom. For example, r =106 meters and v=10-6
meters/sec, k<=10-5 so that krv/c
is not larger than the atomic diameter of about an Angstrom.
How does the polarization inside atomic
nuclei (and inside electrons) come about?
We assume an orbiting charged particle within the nuclei and free
electrons of radius R=10-15 meters approximately, that are of very small mass, m*, and such
that when added to the central mass and charge,
the total charge and mass of the electron and of the nucleus are as
observed. To be consistent with the observed attraction of parallel current
carrying wires, we assume the free electrons have an orbiting charged particle
of charge -2e and larger mass core of charge, +e, and that the lattice nuclei
have orbiting charged particles of charge –e and a large mass core of charge
+2e.
Of course such a model assumes
particles moving at impossible speeds. The answer to this is not tachyons, but
rather that the apparent mass increase of beta electrons, as in the original
experiments by Kaufmann and others, to infinity as the speed of light is
approached is due to a decreasing rate of increase of the electrostatic dipoles
inside the speeding electrons to a magnetic field and an electrostatic field
through which the electrons traveled,
not to an increase in their masses. More on this
below. The centripetal acceleration of our hypothetical system inside
the electron or nucleus is
m*v02/R
= 9(109)2e2/R2
implies v0 =
[(9)(2)(2.56)]1/2(10(9-38+15)/2) = (6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2
Is there another relation which
would help in determing m*? In the time between collisions, 10-14 seconds,
the sustained electric field,E,
in the wire that produces the drift velocity of the electrons also produces a
transverse ellipse of eccentricity e, of the
orbital charge inside the atomic nuclei and the free electrons. The increase in
orbital velocity required for an ellipse of eccentricity e is
eEt/m* = v1- v0 = (1+ e)1/2v0
- v0 = (1+ e/2) v0 - v0 = v0 e/2 = (e/2 )(6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2
This follows from, (mρ2)(v2/kρ)
= 1+ ε cosα where k=9(109)e2.
and ρ is the distance from a stationary central
charged particle to a moving charged mass m etc.
And what also follows is that the distance between the center of charge of the
small orbiting mass,m*, and the position of core mass of opposite
charge of twice the magnitude can be written in terms of the eccentricity
as Re/(1-e) where we assume
R=10 -15 meters.
In our example r=10-2, v=2.35(10-5),
E=6.6(10-3)V/meter, the charge dipole moment is rv/c=
(2.35/Ö3)(10-15)
meters = Re/(1-e) =(10-15) e/(1-e) implying that e/(1-e) ≈ 2.35; so by
trial and error .9/.1 = 9 and .8/.2 = 4 and .7/.3 =2.33 so e = .7 approximately when E=6.6(10-3)V/meter.
Note a larger value of separation r, would
imply a larger dipole for the same v and E, due to a lack of interference from
the transverse dipole field of the other wire. The dipole, krv/c
could be as large say as 10-10 meters say so e =.99999 with e/(1-e) = 105 = .99999/.00001
This could also happen with drift velocity,
v= 1 meter/sec and r=10-2 meters, rv/c=10-10
would mean E=102V/meter and the current would be 100 megaAmps and the millimeter radius wire would break.
Thus the dipole could be fairly large with a
small or medium E field and an average drift velocity small enough so as not to break the
wire. The value of e might be slightly larger say .999 instead of .7. This suggests a
maximum value of E of about 1V per meter and that our estimate of m* based on
our example is reasonable although it could be a one or two order of magnitudes
greater or less.
Thus, v0 =(6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2,
we can solve for m*: eEt/m*=
(e/2 )(6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2
so eEt = (e/2 )(6.62)(10-7) (m*1/2), so m*1/2
= (1.6)(6.62)(2)10-19-3-14/(.7/2)(6.62)10-7
= 9.11(10-29), so m*= 10-56
kg approximately. So v0
= (6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2 = 1021
meters/second, and the frequency f0 = 1021-(-15) = 1036
approximately.
Why does such charge polarization with its
magnetic effects not occur in dielectric wires subject to an electric
field? Because the
loosely bound electrons around atomic nuclei in these dieletrics,
redistribute themselves, to cancel the effects of the outside electric field on
the central nuclei. The
dielectric as a whole becomes polarized opposite to the applied field.
But if the applied field is constantly
changing, then the nuclei of dielectrics have a chance to respond to the
applied field before the surrounding electrons can completely cancel the
changing applied field. The result of each change in force will be a small
amount of charge polarization transverse to the force or force change.
This in fact happens all the time as the
Earth spins. As the Earth spins on its
axis and orbits the sun, etc, the motion of the Earth's atoms implies
constantly changing forces. These mechanical forces are ultimately electrical
on mostly dielectric atoms, eg silica, and oxygen,
and so produce a small amount of charge polarization in these atomic nuclei
each time the forces change direction. (That mechanical forces are ultimately
electrical, is seen from the example of two colliding billiard balls and the
electrical nature of the constituent atoms.)
IS
GRAVITY ULTIMATELY ELECTROSTATIC?
Thus the gravitational force of the Earth on
terrestrial objects is attributable to charge polarization inside their atomic
nuclei transverse to the direction of the Earth's spin, ie
along the Earth's radii and lines of longitude. The inverse square
gravitational force is equivalent to an inverse fourth power electrostatic
dipole-dipole force if the dipoles in any pairwise
interaction are proportional also to the distance between the dipoles. Thus adjacent objects along a radius attract and objects on
adjacent longitudes repel but the total force on any object is the sum total of
all such pairwise forces. We show that this is equal
to the gravitational force directed to the center of the Earth.
We show also that the horizontal
gravitational force between any two terrestrial objects, a small lead ball
suspended near a larger lead ball as measured by Cavendish, can be written with
a little basic trigonometry, as the horizontal projection of their attraction
to the Earth's center. We show that it is possible to generalize this cause of
the gravitational force of all planets, their satellites, the sun and other
stars to charge polarization inside their nuclei attributable to their angular
momentum. Thus gravity would not exist
in a motionless universe.
And so the gravitational
field of the earth is not due just to its size and mass but to its spinning and
orbital motion. It is the same as the earth’s magnetic field when the
object being acted upon
is a magnetized ferromagnet etc.. For example, the downward motion of a
magnetic steel needle pulled in the radial direction toward the earth’s center
and its lining up with a line of longitude can be understood in terms of the
dipole needle reacting to the chain of electrostatic dipoles pulling one pole
down along a radial line and the parallel dipoles along lines of longitude that
rotate the needle until it lines up along its. line of longitude. The extent to
which the Earths’s gravitational and magnetic fields
differ at any point is mainly due to the distribution of iron beneath
the earth’s surface and the material of the reacting body.
The greater magnetic field produced by
magnets, ferromagnets, is due to the alignment of
charge polarization, mistakenly associated with
‘spin’, in the many unpaired electrons in the particular arrangements
possible in such materials in addition to the charge polarization of nuclei
common to all materials. These and the
diamagnetic atoms with paired electrons and the paramagnetic electrons with
unpaired electrons all have electrostatic dipoles inside their nuclei and are
attracted along radial lines to the
Earth’s center and repelled from parallel
longitudinally oriented
dipoles. The strong attraction of all of
these atoms to the Earth’s center and slight repulsion from parallel atoms
along lines of longitude due to the nuclear dipoles is slightly increased in
the case of ferromagnetics and paramagnetics
by their unpaired electrons.
The slight repulsion of copper, graphite and
dielectrics such as
diamonds, plastic, water etc when brought near a magnetic pole
suggests the orbital electrons in the diamagnetic material are
1)made to orient
themselves so that they are moving in the opposite direction of those in the current
carrying coil equivalent of the magnetic pole.
2)Then the net
transverse dipole repels the magnetic pole: Consider a square orbit in the
horizontal plane where the electron is moving in a counterclockwise direction
looking down on the orbit. The moving force on
the right leg creates an elliptical extension to the left of the negatively
counterclockwise orbiting particle inside the electron creating a negative pole
of the electron pointing toward the atomic nucleus. For each of the four legs
the negative pole is pointing inward to the atomic nucleus.
Thus the net dipole field at a point on a
line passing through the center of the square orbit has, for the
counterclockwise electron orbit, a projection of the center directed dipole, with the negative
pole, pointing upward. For a counterclockwise electron orbit has the positive
pole pointing upward. Thus a magnetic pole or its current carrying coil
equivalent, brought to this point after producing a changing magnetic field
causing the circular electron orbits to
orient themselves in the opposite orientation,
will produce the observed diamagnetic repulsion. (note
we have done this with the horizontal transverse dipoles not the vertical
transverse dipoles associated with an orbiting electrons. The vertical dipoles
of diametrically positioned electrons are in opposite directions and cancel)
The electrostatic dipole explanation of
superconductor diamagnetism at higher temperatures may be accomplished in the same way or
in a way simlart to ferroelectrics where rows of
similarly aligned dipoles are sustained by smaller oppositely aligned dipoles
at low enough temperatures, ie below their Curie
temperature.
EXPLAINING
LIGHT SPEED WITHOUT
PHOTONS OR WAVES
Since James Clerk Maxwell in 1864, the theory of Light
has involved ever stranger, non intuitive
assumptions: eg a vacuous space filled with
invisible wheels and ball bearings like vortices in a gas but utterly massless; Later, massless, even probabilistic particles(photons)
transferring discontinuous changes in energy, time dilation, space contraction
and curvature, one dimensional
objects(‘strings)’ vibrating in 10 dimensions,etc..
Oh what tangled webs we weave….
The reason for these first non intuitive
assumptions was the greater difficulty in conceiving of instantaneous forces
acting over unbelievably large distances, masses,volumes and sequences of velocities and accelerations
involved in these forces, occurring over time scales and space scales that then
were inconceivably small and beyond the scope of then available technology.
More recent discoveries have led to
measurements of smaller and smaller time and space scales. Particularly
measurements of charge polarization inside electrons and atomic nuclei.
And the possibility that what was attributed to the mass of electrons
increasing indefinitely with velocity could be attributed to changes inside the
electron as its mass increased causing a decrease in the rate of increase of
magnetic and electric responsiveness of the electron.(The reason this was not
considered originally may have been that it was easier to explain the effect by
one thing, the mass, instead of two things, the magnetic property and the
electric property of the moving electron. Also the success of the space
contraction and time dilation formula that Einstein and Lorentz used to explain the Michelson Morely experiment was extended to explain this mass
increase)
An implication of charge polarization inside
electrons and atomic nuclei is that the so called speed of light or rather the
delay in the response of a radiation receiver to radiation from a radiation
emitter could be due to changes in charge polarization inside the electrons and
atomic nuclei of the receiver resulting from rapidly changing instantaneous
electrostatic forces from the emitter. The cumulative effect then of
instantaneous forces would produce an observable response in a distant receiver
after kr/c seconds if the light or microwave or am/fm/tv source forces per unit charge, Es(t),
are repeated often enough and are not too weak relative to the source receiver
distance, kr<= r and to the ambient noise in the
receiver.
Something like (1-exp-ct/kr)[( (2πkrf/c)2(sin2πft)QD/4πε0r3]
= ER(t) as derived below.
Notice that the term in brackets is when the r’s
are cancelled formally
the same as predicted by Maxwell’s
famous equations, involving
alternating magnetic and electric fields proceeding wavelike through the ether,
arriving at a receiver r/c seconds after
emission, but we allow that there is some value kr
less than the source to receiver distance r, and time, kr/c < r/c
seconds later that the field at the
receiver rises above noise to its maximal value.
How do we arrive at this formulation? An electrostatic dipole field, and inverse
cube field, varying over time is produced by oscillating dipoles; for example,
an oscillation of nAL=8.47(3.14)10(28-6) free electrons in a vertical emitting radio
antenna L meters in height of 2 millimeter diameter or excited bound atomic and molecular electrons,
a few Angstroms in height on and around for example, a vertical heated tungsten
filament of a light bulb in an Argon atmosphere. Note that these oscillations occur only when
the bound electrons of an atom or molecule are thermally excited to wider
orbits and fall back to less wide orbits and to their ordinary bound orbit.
Radiation from adjacent out of phase ground and wider metastable
orbits cancel each other such that energy lost in part of the orbit is regained
during the rest of the orbit. The frequency emitted during a transition between
two such orbits is the average frequency of the two orbits(which
is within measurement error equal to the difference frequency)
Not all radiation energies are possible but only integral
multiples of Planck’s constant,h, which Bohr showed
was the energy expended by an electron of charge e, in a single orbit around a
central core of opposite charge in a circular path with a radius,r0=
12/ 10-10meters. Roughly 10-18 Joules times 10-16
seconds). That is ˝mev02 times 1/f0 where mev2/r0
=9(109)e2/r02 and solving for
v0≈ 10(10-38+10+30)/2 ≈106, 1/f0=2πr0/v0
≈ 1016.
We can extend this to fine structure frequencies associated with other
distinct orbits and energy levels explained in terms of electron spin and
relativistic mass of elliptical orbits which are otherwise of the same energy
but ascribe these effects to electrostatic dipoles in the electron. Also Xray radiation from inner electrons in smaller orbits, we
can use the same Planck constant and a frequency f such that fh=f*h* where f is defined as f*h*/h and where h* is the
kinetic energy expended in 1/f* seconds of these smaller radius orbits and f*
is the frequency of these smaller orbits. Since only the energy,fh, of the radiation is measured, this is ok. However we must realize that the actually occurring frequency is
not f, but rather f*. We can extend the convention to half cycles of
braking radiation as well. The point is that all radiation energy is a multiple
of the product of a mass times its squared velocity
which can be represented by convention as Planck’s constant times some
frequency.
The orbital excitations are produced by
thermal collisions. At each collision,
we propose, a tangential force acts on an orbiting electron to produce
additional transverse expansion of the elliptically moving negative charge in
the electron of charge, -2e, around a larger core mass of charge, +e, and radial
charge polarization inside the orbiting
electron. Since the attractive force and
repelling force between the nucleus are equal at the
ground orbit radius, this charge polarization must increase the repulsion
between the electron and the negative charge inside the nucleus beyond this
equilibrium and so add to the velocity increase of the electron.
This could explain the discrete frequencies
and energies observed. Why it leads to elliptical orbits then circular orbits
of radius n2r0 , and velocity v0/n
and frequency f0/n3 is explained in part by the
additional kick given to the thermal collision increase in orbital velocity
and by the least energy arrangement of
adjacent orbitals so as to cancel one another’s
radiation which means that the energy
lost in part of an orbit to an adjacent
orbit, is wholly or partially regained
in the rest.
. For example, the average frequency and
energy radiated during the transition between a ground orbit radius,r, and a radius 4r or 9r is:(h)1016( ˝)(1+1/8) or
(h)1016(˝)(1+1/27).
As the receiving oscillator is constantly
changing its orientation, the sequence of forces from the source is constantly
changing direction in the sense that the component oscillating forces from the
source in the direction of a receiver molecule orientation is constantly
changing but their effect on the receiver can be described in terms of the
combined effect of component oscillations in the plane of the receiver molecule at
successive instants of time.
Thus as in the case of a radio antenna
receiver, where the source field acts for short times between thermal collisions on free
electrons but again and again at a specific frequency in the same direction, a
similar repetition of force that leads to a cumulative increase oscillation
amplitude in the light receiver, occurs
at each successive time interval between successive thermal collisions
which is the same as the period of visible light oscillations, 10-14
seconds. Since the forces in both cases
are acting again and again for very short times, the velocities are much
smaller than the free electron velocity or the orbital velocities eg 10-5 meters per second typically versus 106
meters per second.
Initially in the receiver there is a
sequence over time,t, in picoseconds or less, of Coulomb
forces, F(t)=9(109 ) times Ne2Dsin2πft/r3
=Kesin2πft/r3, K=NeD/4πε0, perpendicular
to a line from the source, on free or orbital electrons and on the orbital
charge inside the lattice nuclei. As a first approximation, the resulting
displacement of the charged particle from its equilibrium position is
proportional to this force and inversely proportional to the mass x(t) =
Kesin2πft/mr3; its
velocity, v(t)=x'(t) = (Ke)(2πfcos2πft/mr3).
As in the case of a constant voltage, there
is here a transverse distortion of the orbits of negatively charged particles
around a more positive core inside the lattice nuclei of the radio antenna or
the atomic antennas of the photoreceptors which produces transverse dipoles, (kr/c)(Ke)(2πfcos2πft/mr3
) perpendicular to the displacements of the electrons.
As the longitudinal force in a radio antenna
and movement of charge varies sinusoidally, this
produces a current of varying transverse dipoles inside the atomic nuclei. This
transverse current creates dipoles transverse to itself, i.e., longitudinally,
(Kekr/c)(krx''(t)/cmr3 ) = - Ke(2πfkr/c)2
sin2πft/mr3.
The longitudinal dipoles produce a field in
the opposite direction of the initial longitudinal field that is (2πfkr/c)2 times the original field and thus
equal to the delayed radiation field derived from Maxwell's equations. This is
all quite analogous to Maxwell's changing electric field creating a magnetic
field and the changing magnetic field creating an electric field. But instead of changes happening through
ethereal vortices or wheels and ball bearings or some mathematical equivalent,
i.e., the curl_and divergence of vector fields, ie magnetic
and electric fields, in the intervening space between source and receiver, it happens in orbital movements of actual,
charged particles inside atomic nuclei in the receiver and source.
ER( t) =
(1-exp-ct/kr)(Es )( 2πfkr/c)2(sin2πft)/r3 then is the indicated equation we
derive more rigorously later for the field at the receiver at a distance, r,
from the source analogous here to a forced mechanical harmonic oscillator eg a child being pushed back and forth on a swing. We allow
that the field at the receiver may rise above noise before r/c seconds, namely at some fraction, kr/c seconds where the transverse dipoles in the receiver
per unit length, krv(t)/c, reach an upper limit of about 1 Angstrom at a
much smaller value than rv(t)/c, if v(t) rises to a sufficiently large average or
rms value after t = kr/c
seconds less than r/c sec..
In the case of forces produced on orbiting
electrons in the atoms and molecules of a photoreceptor such as the silicon
material in a ccd array, the
orbital electrons react to a tangential force that produces at first charge
polarization inside the electron and an excitation of the orbital electron into
a wider orbit. Before and during this
time, the nucleus of the same atom experiences charge polarization from the
same outside force which is transverse to the direction of force which is the
same as the tangential direction of the force on the orbiting electron.
The effect of these forces
inside the nucleus of the orbiting electron are equivalent to the forces
in the longitudinal radio antenna. That is, changing transverse polarization
creates changing longitudinal polarization and an amplification of the
source ‘longitudinal’ forces but the directions of transverse and longitudinal
are constantly changing. The result is an increase over kr/c
seconds in the tangential forces acting on the orbiting electron, and so an
increase in the orbit until the electron in the photosensitive silicon is
ejected into a region of the silicon where it is held by a capacitor plate and
the energy per second of the received radiation is calculated by a digital
circuit.
We can infer the final v(t)
from measurements of the average or rms voltage and current in a receiver antenna at a distance
r from a
radio(am or fm) or a microwave transmitter. In the case of photoreceptors, we can infer v(t) from the number of emitted electrons assuming 1.26eV
per electron emitted in a CCD array, the total energy. The voltage times current associated with
this energy gives an estimate of the maximal v(t)
etc..
Such an explanation of light transmission
requires that the cumulative increase of the received radiation above a
threshold of observation depends on constant exposure of the receiver to the
source. That is, radiation we observe
from stars cannot have originated years or centuries ago as implied by the
extrapolation of terrestrial light speed measurements to such distances; indeed it could not
have originated more than 12 hours or 12 times 3600 = 43,200 seconds earlier at
most when a heavenly object rises and then falls below the horizon of any
observer tracking its trajectory across the sky.
One of the side benefits of this explanation
of light transmission is that the Lorentz
Transformation,1/(1-v2/c2) times mass, length or
duration, where v is the relative velocity of source and observer, which
Einstein used to explain infinite mass increase because it so well
explained the lack of ether drift in the
Michelson Morely experiment is unnecessary. That is, if light is not the motion of
something but rather the additive effect of repeated instantaneous forces at a
distance. Then there is no need for space contraction
or time dilation etc.. Red Doppler shifts of spectra from a source moving away from a receiver would
be expected because the transient associated with increasing values of source
receiver separation and have nothing to do with time slowing down. Slower muon decay in very fast moving muons
can be ascribed to the interaction of forces causing the high speed of the muons and the forces causing decay and may have nothing to
do with time slowing down in the muon.
Also, as shown in detail later, there is
no need to have the force of gravity, say between the Sun and the Earth, depend
on curved space, ie the rate of change of the force,
proportional to the mass and inversely to the distance squared, to avoid the
supposed light speed delay of gravity. This was Laplace’s
concern around 1800, that the Earth orbiting at .5km/second, for example
would be dragged backward when pulled in the direction the Sun was when the
force was “emitted” and so spiral into the Sun unless the speed of gravity was
much larger than the speed of light. If the force of gravity is instantaneous
and continuous unlike the repeated oscillating relatively weak instantaneous
forces causing increases in oscillations of light or microwave frequencies etc.
From comparable distances over times that are still much less than the r/c
seconds usually ascribed, there is no need to worry.
The bending of starlight by the sun
associated with the curved space effect is the same as predicted by the
difference in the influence of the Sun on radiation reception on the Earth when
the sun is facing the earth compared to its effect when the Sun is on the other
side of the earth. Other supposed validations of the curved space hypothesis
have other feasible interpretations as discussed later.
LIGHT SPEED MEASUREMENTS
Everyone assumes that light speed is
something that has been verified hundreds of times at all frequencies and terrestrial distances and confirmed by gps devices for satellites 12000 miles away , microwave communications
with space probes up to billions of miles away, lidar
and radar reflections sent from the earth to the moon and Venus
etc., the light from stars up to four hundred light years away as determined by parallax and
further as determined by the relationship determined between apparent
brightness and spectrum peak detected brightness for these distances applied to
greater distances. If one looks at the details, the experimental
confirmation is not always what it appears to be.
I will try to make the case that radiation delay
is really a function of krv(t)/c, where v(t) is the root mean square velocity of
oscillating charge at time t. If at time, t* = kr/c, krv(t*)/c=1 Angstrom where kr is sometimes
much less than r, then light has arrived earlier than the predicted r/c
seconds; ie
when the oscillating charge in the radio antenna or field producing charge
oscillation in the loosely bound electrons in the atoms of semiconductors and
other photoemissive surfaces, the atoms of the rod and cone cells of the eye, etc. becomes
detectable, eg krv(t*)/c has
an rms amplitude near the Angstrom, atomic diameter.
If r is very large then the rms, oscillating voltage of free electrons or inside atomic
nuclei of the receiving antenna or of loosely bound electrons or inside atomic
nuclei of
photoreceptors must be very small so that the product does not
exceed one Angstrom.
Before presenting historical measurements that
everyone including NASA considers as
support for the speed of light delay extrapolation to astronomical distances,
let me state the following.
In the Pioneer probes that went to the edge of the solar
system before their signals became too weak to be observed on Earth let me point
out that they found Doppler shift measures of successive changes
of position wrt
time to be more reliable than range measures of the time between sent and
received signals.
Note that as the craft-Earth distance
increased, the number of repeated bits in each signal increased to avoid errors
and the time of this repetition exceeded the speed of light delay. The range measures
based on light speed delay thus
became impossible and the ratio of the
craft velocity to the speed of light constant and some assumptions after
Jupiter as to the previous position and Doppler estimated velocity gave the
trajectory.
That is, the change in frequency received on
the ground showed the relative speed of craft and the Earth antenna. Increasing
conflict between successive Doppler measures after the probes passed Jupiter and
the gravitational anomalies then can be attributed to incorrect assumptions
about the speed of light delay and implied positions of the craft when signals
were received supposedly many hours after they were sent from the craft and the
earth was not aimed at the instantaneous position of the craft.
Let us consider first, Roemer’s so called
measurement of the speed of light in 1676. Roemer’s measurement of the speed of
light required that light be a wave front or a group of moving particles. That is, Roemer's measurement required that
reflected sunlight, reflected from the
surfaces of Jupiter's moons, traveled as a wave front or particle for about 40
minutes using Bradley's value (or 55 minutes using Roemer's value) until it
reached the Earth.
By which time an observer on the Earth would
have orbited and spun with the Earth a substantial distance, sometimes from
under clouds, to a location with an unclouded view of the night sky. Roemer's
measurement did not entail constant exposure of the light receiver to the
light. But nothing of course could block
the reception of light at the expected time of arrival.
Until Bradley's paper on stellar aberration
in 1728, the most knowledgeable astronomers at the time, like Cassini, thought that the changes Roemer observed were due
to the changes in viewing position and not to light speed.
Unlike Roemer's measurement, Fizeau’s measurement of light speed in 1849, entailed constant
exposure of the light receiver to the distant mirror when light from the
distant mirror was supposedly traveling about five miles to successive gaps of
a spinning cogwheel or toothed wheel. That is, a strong sodium vapor light
source reflected off of a nearby, slanted, partially transparent mirror, the
source mirror, and was focused by a lens to pass through a fixed region of
successive gaps in a spinning toothed wheel to a distant mirror 8.67km away
through the still
dark enough Parisian night sky and then reflected back and focused through the
same or another gap if not blocked by a tooth, going straight through the
slanted glass to the observers eye.
The wheel with 720 teeth when revolving at
25 revolutions/s gave
maximum light intensity and at 37.5 rev/s the teeth apparently
eclipsed the light and at 50 rev/s maximum light intensity again. If the wheel made one complete revolution in a
second, the time between successive gaps at the locus of the focused light
would be 1/720 of a second. So 1/25 times 1/720=1/18000 second is the time it
takes for light to leave through one gap and reach the distant mirror and then
to return just in time to pass through the next gap. This meant a speed of
(17.34)km./5.566(10-5)s. = 3.10204(108
)m/s,
But it is also true that the during the
supposed travel time or rather one quarter of it, light from the source mirror
is exposed to the distant mirror and then, for half of the travel time, a tooth
is interposed between the source and distant mirrors and then for another
quarter, the observer's eye behind the source is exposed to the distant mirror.
Now if during these times of exposure first
the mirror and then the eye are responding to the oscillations of charge in the
source and mirror
respectively. During the time the cog tooth is blocking the eye,
these forces from the source or lenses as secondary sources cannot act on the
eye.
Thus it is possible that instantaneous
forces at a distance initiated at these unobstructed times, and, delays taking
place in the distant mirror, the lenses and the receiver's eyes, could account
for the observed delay made measurable by the spinning toothed wheel.
In terms of the proposed mechanism, the
transient rises to a maximum value of krv/c where v
is a sine function of the visible light frequency when t=kr/c
where r is the total distance of about ten miles and k is apparently 1. If the light speed delay in this case was half as much the light.
It is interesting to note that Bradley’s
1723-28 light speed observations also could be explained as well as in terms of
the light delay from the observed star but also in terms of the light delay
from the refractive glass, the objective lens at the far end of his 12.5 foot
telescope, where the star's light is then re-emitted to the eyepiece in front
of the eye (forming a reverse image there) and then being reversed again by the
refracting eyepiece into the eye- or even from the eye’s own lens to the
receptor molecules in the rods and cones.
That is, a bright northerly star, gamma draconis, the brightest star in the Dragon constellation, at
a specific time, spun briefly into the narrow view of the telescope
raised from a north south line of longitude to point directly overhead ie the zenith(51degrees lat. at London) and capable of
being moved by a micrometer mechanism in seconds of a degree but not to exceed
eight minutes of a degree of altitude up or down or to the side being east or
west or north or south.
The Earth, orbits at 29km/s in its orbital
plane directly below this somewhat polar star. In March, the motion was such
that if you drew a line from this star to the object glass of the telescope and
then down to the eyepiece at the time of day the star passed into and out of
view in a east to west direction you would see that the star appeared more
south than at other times of year.
That is, at this time, the star appeared 41
seconds of arc more southerly than in September as determined by moving the
micrometer until the star was exactly at the center point of the cross-hairs of
the eyepiece at the time of day when it crossed the line of longitude ie the
It was as if the earth and eye were moving
exactly opposite to the way they were moving in September and in a more
directly north direction so that by the time the light reached the eye, the eye
had moved more northerly and the image of the star appeared to come from a more
southerly direction.
This meant that the time it took the light
impinging on the objective glass to register on the eye 12.5 feet away was the
time it took the Earth and so the observer's eye, to move in the Earth's
orbital plane a small southerly distance from the base of a vertical
perpendicular dropped from the objective glass edge at the instant the
starlight impinged on the objective glass.( Of course all this time the spin of
the earth makes the star image to move in an east to west direction also but we
are ignoring this and just looking at the orbital movement that appears to be northerly
at this time of year.) The distance along the vertical perpendicular is ct
where c is the unknown speed of light and the horizontal(north-south)
distance is vt where v is the orbital speed of the
earth. The time, t, is the same in both cases.
We know that at one day in March, this
distance is 41 arc seconds more south than at the opposite time of year in
September and thus 20.5 arc seconds more south than when 3 months earlier or
later where, there is no such change. Consider then the right triangle formed
by the vertical side of length ct, the hypotenuse being the 25.5 foot telescope
and the horizontal side, vt.
The quotient, vt/ct , is the
tangent of 20.5 arc seconds =.0000099 and so c is 29 times this or 2.929292(108)
meters/second. The implied delay is about 25.5
nanoseconds and other telescope lengths,ct, would have
longer or shorter delays. Bradley’s
calculation here allows the possibility that light delay could be in the space
between the star and the eye or, as one in Bradley's circle, T Melvill, in 1753 suggested, wholly inside the eye. (p483 of Bradley, Miscellaneous Works and Correspondence
edited by Stephen Rigaud). As the telescope length,
and vertical distance expressed as ct, is made smaller or larger, so also is
the horizontal distance that the Earth moves expressed as vt.
But only one value for c will work in all of these cases.
We can interpret these times, t, as the
delays before the oscillations of charge in the receiver atomic nuclei increase
to a maximum amplitude when the distance projected on the vertical is ct and the receiver is moving along a horizontal.at velocity,v. Thus
light from a telescope objective twice as far away as that from a smaller
telescope objective could have r/c delays produced by the interaction between
longitudinal and transverse dipoles induced in the eye as described above.
It is possible that light from the star
could have been delayed for t* such that ct* is the distance to the star about
148 light years where ly=(5)1012
miles, determined by parallax and other
astronomical theory but it is not necessary and Romer’s
observations do not require it to be so. That is, Romer’s
observations of Jupiter’s moons could be explained by changes in the vantage
point from the Earth as the Earth and Jupiter and these moons moved.
Also it is difficult to imagine the
horizontal length now as the length of many rotations of the earth, vt* to be the distance the Earth moved as light
supposedly moved as light moved from the star. Also, the telescope objective
explanation does not require the assumption
that light is something moving and all of the problems that these assumptions
entail, space contraction and curvature, time dilation etc, probabilistic
photons etc..
But then we are left with the question as to
how long is the actual delay of light from the star?
According to our model, the magnitude of krv/c = 1 Angstrom
when the light becomes detectable after kr/c seconds
at the objective glass or directly in our eye without going through a
telescope. So our model implies that if the rms
velocity is very small say v=10-10meters/second when krv/c becomes detectable and is equal to one, and r= 148 ly or 148 times (5)1012 miles times 1.6 to yield
1184(1012)km
= 1018
meters. Then rv/c is 1018-10-8 so
k=10-15. Thus and kr/c is 10-11
seconds. Effectively we see the star instantaneously not after 148 light years!
If we choose Cassini’s
explanation of Romer’s observation then, Roemer’s
observations are not due to light delay but due to changes in the view from
earth of Ju piter’s moons
at different times. Thus light from the sun or from the reflection of sunlight
on Jupiter and its moon’s could be observed in small fractions of a second
after it is emitted without being inconsistent with Roemer’s observations.
Similarly for observations of Binary Stars whose explanations in terms of the
speed of light could equally well be explained in terms of changes in the view
from the Earth at the times used.
The Earth's orbital speed, 29km/sec, was
known then from the known 365 day period and Cassini's
1672 observation of Mars' position from two widely separated points on Earth(Paris
and French Guyana) at the same time which gave the Earth sun distance or
orbital radius as 1.4(108)km. (1.46(108) is the more
accurate present estimate). Since 39370inches =1km, 29km/sec is 1.141730(106)
inches per second.
Thus in the case of the Bradley and Fizeau measurements,
the delays in the perception of light are nanoseconds or milliseconds
and not 40 or 55 minutes in the case of Roemer’s measurement and the receiving
eye was exposed to the refracted image at the time of secondary emission from
the glass lens.
In any case, Maxwell’s theory of light
transmission and delay in 1861 based on Kirchoff’s
theory of transmission in an aerial coaxial cable(1857),
both a few years after Fizeau’s measurement in 1849,
showed that Fizeau’s light speed measurement agreed
roughly, not only with the Bradley, Roemer values but also with the ratio of
the magnetic constant, µ0
=4Л(10-7 ) to the electric force constant, 1/4Лε0
= 9(109 ). That is, the force between parallel wires a meter apart
carrying currents of 1 amp or 1 coul/s is 10-7 Newtons and the force between two charged spheres a meter
apart each carrying one Coulomb of charge is 9(109)Newtons. And that light speed was a fundamental constant
relating magnetism to electricity, c2 = 1/(ϵ0µ0)
, Kirchoff's
value was c=3.1(108 )m/s..
This led many to conclude that the
differences in the other measurements were due to experimental errors and that
more care in making these measurements- Albert Michelson spent his entire life
doing this- would yield exactly the ratio of the electric force to the magnetic
force. Another possibility is that the speed of light could vary with power of
the received radiation.
But an even more important implication
of the theoretical value is that some unknown mechanism involving the interplay
between magnetic and electric forces might explain the radiation of light.
Modern experiments showing charge polarization inside atomic nuclei hint at the
nature of this mechanism, perhaps, as summarized above and examined in more
detail later.
It is necessary to point out here that radio
communications with distant space probes, and weak, radar reflections off the moon with wide
error bands or off distant planets that are not otherwise confirmed, etc.,
assume but do not confirm the light speed interpretation of Roemer's
observations of Jupiter’s moons,. False assumptions about the speed of light leading to false
assumptions about successive positions of the space probes have produced notable miscommunication with the probes. This explains the
unexpected space vehicle motions and so anomalous gravitational effects of the sun on some of
the Pioneer 10 and other probes inferred
by John Anderson, as well as an unaccounted for change in trajectory
after the probe’s encounter with Jupiter as it moved to the edge of the solar
system; also the unexplained disappearance of many space probes after
successful launching. The false
assumption is that
radiation could be received at the expected time from a space probe by one of
the three antennas on earth that was not facing the probe at the time of
reception. This assumption contradicts the evidence of other light speed
measurements eg Bradley,Fizeau,Foucault, Michelson etc..
Radio communications with the gps system involving transmission delays
supposedly of about 66 milliseconds to orbiting satellites about 12,000 miles
or 1.9310(107)m away can have
speed of light delays which are much
less than .066 seconds and still give the accurate measures of distance as they
are shown to give. (That is, if the average or rms current produced by the source on the gps receiver produces rv/c=10-10
in r/c seconds then v=(3)(1/1.931)10-10+8-7
≈ 10-9 is such
that average free electron velocity, v(t) is small enough so krv(t)/c, is less than about 1 Angstrom after t = kr/c seconds where kr may be less eg
1/100,000th of r where r=2.02(107)m approximately).
Thus two gps devices where one is 1 meter closer than
the other, (r-1<2.02(107 )-1) meters) will show the carrier
rising above noise still at slightly different times, eg,
2.02(102)/3(108) = .6(10-6) seconds and 1/3(108) = .33(10-8
) seconds or 3.3 nanoseconds
earlier. Note this would mean that the
further away gps device would show the rise above
noise, not during the first bit
of about .6
microsecond duration, but during the second repetition of this bit for
example. Thus, so long as the rise time
above noise is less than the difference in distances divided by the so called
speed of light, the distances between gps positions
can be detected. (The matching up of the
stored replica would be one bit earlier in the closer gps).
Now instead of the other gps device substitute the
position determined at the same time implied by Doppler shift data from the
satellite and almanac data about where the satellite is at any specific time
relative to a specific latitude and longitude position.
Thus the gps device
does not directly measure the time, t*= .066 seconds about, it takes a radio
signal emitted by a satellite to register on a satellite on the earth over a
distance of about 12000 miles(19310km), but rather the much shorter time
differences divided by the speed of light that establish where the satellite is
with reference to some almanac position and earth latitude and longitude below
the satellite position and where the gps device is relative to this earth latitude and longitude.
The replica code is .0001 second long so that distances x<(12000/.066)(.001)
=181 plus the otherwise known distance from the craft can be determined.
Something similar may be true for communication with the 8kW
transmitter on the Pioneer 10 space probe near Pluto at a distance of 4.34(1012)
meters or, dividing by 3(108) m/s, 14,400 seconds or 4 hours away or
something similar for the Voyager space probes.
But it may also be, as allowed by the proposed mechanism, that the speed of
light delay was less. I am told by NASA that the duration of repetition of ones
and zeros in a series (comprising a code or an instruction or a set of instructions)
sent to and from deep space probes usually exceeded the speed of light delay ( 4
hours per bit or group of bits). Even if the duration or
repetition of the carrier modulation for a one or a zero was less, even much
less than the speed of light delay, the difference in positions of the space
probe at successive times would have been accurately detected.
Note that the speed of light used in Doppler
shift measurements of the red(blue) shift of stars receding(advancing) at some
rate of speed, v, could apply to the rate of delay of the star light in
successive receding positions after it scattered from a refraction grating and
before it was observed and recorded in the spectrometer. This is analogous to
Bradley’s measurement of light speed where only the ratio of v/c is used.
Similarly for radar signals from a space probe reflected by a dish onto the
waveguide slit at the focus of a parabolic dish.
One of the objections to this proposed
mechanism is that instantaneous forces are impossible and that an orbital
system inside atomic nuclei involving orbiting particles moving at speeds
greater than the speed of light are impossible. This contention is based on the
apparent increase of mass of high speed beta electrons whose speeds approached
the speed of light. Beta electrons (electrons emitted by nuclei of radioactive
atoms) of various speeds near the speed of light were observed.
Their increasing responsiveness to a
magnetic field and electric field as their velocity increased was seen,
unexpectedly, to slack off when the velocity increased beyond a specific
amount. The rate of increase of the response, as the velocity increased,
unexpectedly decreased. Instead of being attributed to changes in magnetic
responsiveness, these changes were attributed to increasing inertia or mass.
The force producing the velocity seemed to show a conversion of energy into
inertial mass which instead was the absorption of a greater amount of energy
needed to produce a smaller increase of charge polarization or particles not
observed at the time, inside the electron. Also the electrons passed through an
electrostatic field which may have deflected the faster electrons slightly less
due to a slight attraction of the greater positive pole of the dipole in these
faster electrons.
Walter Kaufmann, the one person in 1901-1906
who had most familiarity with this sort of experiment objected that the data
seemed to require different values for the inertial mass in different
directions and thus cast doubt on changes in mass as being the cause. But his
objections were ignored in favor of the simple explanation offered by Special
Relativity whose success in explaining the Michelson Morely
experiment was in its favor. Also the
fact that it was more reasonable perhaps to attribute the cause of the changing
electron deflection to one property, changes in mass, instead of two
properties, changes in magnetic responsiveness and changes in electrostatic responsiveness.)
Thus we have sketched a mechanism, and evidence
for it, that explains observed delays in light and radio/radar transmission in
terms of real (non zero mass and volume) particles inside atomic nuclei, The proposed mechanism allows various delays that
are often less than the assumed speed of light delay, eg
light from Jupiter and its moons, the sun and visible stars may, for all we
know, arrive within nanoseconds, while much weaker radiation such as light from
planets and stars refracted from a telescope objective lens arrive with various
r/c delays where r is the telescope
length or microwave radio signals from deep space navigation probes and gps satellites etc arrive with kr/c second delays
where kr is less than r. The validity of the measurements are shown to
be based, not
on the assumption that light is something moving at a speed, c, over possibly
indefinitely large distances, but that the forces are produced instantaneously
by a distant electrical oscillator and these forces, if sufficiently strong and repeated often
enough, produce effects at great
distances, that increase at a rate, kr/c where kr need not be equal
to the distance,r, to the source oscillator and can
be considerably less.
For more details see
