Physics of light

A new concept of electromagnetic radiation is exposed in the article.

First of all it shall be said that the following concept is a revolutionary one. But I urge you not to start blaming it too quickly for this reason, because the very approach may lead us to vast explanations.

The following hypothesis is based on rather spare but canonical and still quotable materials. The Michelson–Morley experiment using interferometer is the core. Besides, not a single new formula has been discovered ever since – well, there were no calls for it. However, the new idea of semi-inertance is introduced for the first time in this work; explanation of the phenomenon’s origin is apprehensible. The mathematics here although simple, still meets all the strictest requirements, which is the only possible way.

Electromagnetic wave, in particular when it comes to the postulate of its independent propagation velocity, is deemed a fundamental concept developed as early as in classic era. It seems everything is as clear as a day here. But we have discovered a crack in this foundation, thus it needs troubleshooting. Modern representations of such concepts as dualism, invariant mass (zeroing for some reason), energy differences in an isolated system (and photon is such a system) violating the law of conservation – this all sounds lame and inconsistent. Interestingly, the first inconsistency can be seen in the construction of Michelson–Morley experiment conducted more than 120 years ago. But the problem of parallel formation on the basis of Euclidean axioms is even older and is solvable. No future without a past, and no brandnew theory of electromagnetic radiation would have appeared without pains of ancient scientist to their glory. The concept of relativeness, Einstein’s postulates, and Lorentz transformations are predominant in the modern theory of matter and spacetime. However ,its the objective of science to reflect upon any concept to either turn it over or leave it be. I must say I anticipate this text would sound horrible to some experts because I appeal approach rather complex concepts with undue simplicity. I can do nothing with it, so I’m afraid the only thing I may suggest here is to take it as it is. Our ambitions however minor they are, or scientific search for truth– everyone is up to judge on its own which one is more important. Thank you.

So, I am to start with the starting points of the hypothesis.

First – I believe that the absolute space is yet a reality. If one had observed the gravitational attraction of two commensurable masses – of the Earth and the Moon, for instance – from a distant star, then he would have found three relative gravity accelerations (g). A man from Earth, and later from the Moon would obtain equal approaching (gravity) accelerations – the same distance and the same time. However, according to the Newton’s law, the acceleration should be dependent from mass of an attracting object and independent from the mass of an object being attracted. The famous formula is lawful exclusively if related to stars, i.e. in the absolute space.

The conclusions deduced from the experiments comparing g’s of various objects are inconsistent since such experiments were held using objects incommensurably small against the Earth. It’s worthless trying to detect the difference using wooden or lead balls. Existence of the absolute space follows from existence of the Universe itself. The formula of gravity in the relative space is as follows:

F=mзg=[m(m+M)/rл2]Gз=Mлg=[m(m+M)/rA2]Gл where

G3 - relative to the Earth

Gл - relative to the Moon as a sum of two countering accelerations when travelling the same distance.

Mass of the Earth measured from the Moon equals mass of the Moon measured from the Earth, is we consider mass as a force gaining a specific acceleration. For this to become valid, we need a base such as friction or spring tension; in both cases dependant from gravity. We obtain an non-relative value when employing the comparison method (using scales) independent from gravity, i.e. beyond the relativity. That’s all subject to conditions, of course. The gravity constant is just another relative value itself – we get another value when measuring from the Moon. The unconditional this here is that the real value is possible to measure only in conditions free of gravity. Thus, if start measuring objects’ masses gaining them up gradually, there would come to a point from which mass and weight would grow inequally, i.e. we would find inequality between inert mass and gravity mass. The formula above shall be of significant practical importance since no motionless support points exist in the Universe. As for the absolute space, two fundamental properties of matter are essential: existence of the universal gravity center, and inertia.

That’s all simple with Time. Time is an interval between events; and it’s not Time’s fault that no constant intervals (to be used as measurement units) exist in nature. Time is not a train one can speed up or down, stop or reverse.

Next, I shall say I can not perceive the space curvature resulting from the presence of a mass; if it had existed, it would have been easier to enter an orbit considering there is no gravity. Inertial motion implies no speed changes in space. However, if the Moon had not been speeding up or down, it would not have rotated about the Earth. Gravity is the only possible cause of such alterations of speed.

Next, I don’t believe Lorentz transformations are viable. Let us consider three space vehicles, each of them moving self-sufficiently. Now, if Lorentz transformations happen inside one of them in relation to another, then what kind of transformations happen in relation to the third vehicle? Nonsense. If however, we understand speeds in relation to the absolute space, then we speak off the subject.

Now, let us consider the Michelson–Morley experiment. If electromagnetic wave would have been inertial, then would have been no doubts regarding the experiment outcomes. However, the postulate claims independence and invariability of light speed, not its inertance. Is seems as if Nature conceals the movement from us in the outer space. Yet the non-inertance of light is not the only reason of the interference displacement. When studying this case the incorrectness of the very idea of the experiment was surprisingly revealed. In cross direction the beam must reach the mirror earlier, forming an angle to the straight line which is from glass to mirror. This fact is described in every guidance, but the fact is omitted that this angle remains the same after revolving the assembly – during revolving they do not displace it. Both directions are always negligently described simultaneously and independently presuming that the situations is balanced after the revolving is completed. However, it is imperative to examine each of the two beams in one direction and subsequently in the other. A beam heading along with the Earth’s direction remains its direction after the assembly was revolved, and it’s the mirror now that displaces aside.

As the result the interference displacement should have happened in any case. Lorentz transformations of time and distance don’t remedy the situation. But this just does not happen!

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the two things – the postulate of light speed relativity and the Michelson–Morley experiment outcomes – do not live together.

Being devoted to experiment-based approach, I have developed the hypothesis.

The idea emerged from the Einstein’s law, i.e. the equivalence of mass and energy. It is a common place nowadays that an elementary particle is able to transform to field energy and vice versa, and also to other particles. Or– one type of field, the symbolic for instance, is transformable to a neutral type, and so on. Transformations, being the permanent state of particles and energy, are universally widespread in Nature.

Then what if the light yet bears the property of the rest mass mo=/=O, if passing with time, thus kind of pulsating constantly. It means photon has a habit of constant transformation (annihilation and emergence) from particle to energy and vice versa. The moment after the atomic electronic shell swells up from excess of energy the photon emerges within its action area. Simultaneously the decline of the shell –of its level– takes place. The particle annihilates instantly, thus forming its own field which emerges from the opposite edge of the field but still within its borders. After living extremely short while the photon particle transforms again – so getting further and further away from the atom where it was initially born. Thus the photon remains literally motionless in relation to its source, but the shortness of its life allows for independent and constant expansion with its wild speed until it reaches another atom. Based on the unity of the universal energy, the space limited by every phase (period) of the transformation process is adopted simultaneously. No forward movement of energy or particle ever happens – but it is the redistribution (transformation) of their forms, types and intensities towards the direction of the emission; unity of matter interaction forces, for short. In general, where the energy field is found, the particle shall present, and vice versa – the particle is always followed by the energy. Thus, electromagnetic radiation is in physical terms motionless in a coordinate system referenced to the source but it expands by transforming. It is hard to imagine what a ‘mayhem’ the electromagnetic wave –this Mistress of the Universe– would have done to us (in any cases – with or without particle) would that all have been structured otherwise. Besides, according to the theory, the mobile mass of photon should be increasing to almost an infinite scale, isn’t it? And regarding the pressure which the light yet exhibits – it results from photon particles aggregations impacting the matter with their inertia when their fields (of particles and matter) mutually interfere.

Variable intensity of existence of mass and field – represented by a sine wave graph – should me mentioned as well. The graph below shows that the energy sine in form of electric and magnetic fields acts against the law of conservation of energy. Existence of the corpuscle eliminates the contradiction, since it makes the sum of the three energy types constant at any point of time given.

This concept does not go against any discovered properties of the electromagnetic wave, but it gives feasibility to introduce a very important property – semi-inertance, i.e. the light speed nevertheless bears half of the source speed!

Not we are able to interpret the interferometer experiment outcomes. After the assembly is displaced the beams have no effect on the interference travelling different distances with different speeds but for one and the same time. The waves are found in the right place in the right time. But these waves belong not to vibration but to the photon. Furthermore, it does not matter whether the assembly arms are of the same length, or which is the angle between them. The same principle as with an inert object – only the trajectories differ. These are the outcomes we get in this famous and historic experiment when making allowance for the semi-inertance of light.

Let us address to the beam reflection from the side mirror. The reflection angle differs like a ball bouncing from wall which keeps moving relative to the viewer. The only difference here is that the photon particle, unlike the ball, makes no forward movement along the beam direction, and the reflection angle may be calculated using a somewhat different principle – still in full accordance with this concept. Presumably we deal hear with mechanical interaction of fields, which influences the wave direction.

Now, if we measure lengths, time intervals and masses in different labs, we obtain different values, i.e. apparent change. Let us note that the values received in keeping with semi-inertance principle are very close to those received by employing Lorenz transformations based on trigonometric calculations. For example, when observing the star during eclipse (mentioned earlier) the flexure appeared to be 2 times more than anticipated. In the guidances this fact is considered accordant to the relativity theory. But the semi-inertance concept allows for a specific explanation. The inertia mass of the photon is twice as small as the gravity mass since the field energy – aspect of the photon – has gravity mass but no inertia mass.

It is possible to detect inertance of the light – or, rather, its semi-inertance – by making experiments employing the Earth movement both directional and axial, if we register positions of the fixed beam on the screen every hour or two over a period of 24 hours. Inertance of the beam is revealed by presenting the major diameter of the resulting ellipse. Another possible method – we direct the beam towards revolving disk, the edge surface of which is mirror-polished. Any deflection of the reflected beam happening along with change of revolving speed would speak for inertance. The photon particle may be also discovered by smashing the beam with a bundle of elementary particles (e.g. electrons) from a distance divisible by the wave length.

The concept provided explanation to my own following observance. The bright side of the Moon is slightly directed towards the Sun. It is well seen even by unaided eye when the Moon and the Sun appear together within the field of sight. Optical (lens) effect of atmosphere comes not in play here due to its insignificance.

The explanation is the following – axial rotation of the Sun and the resulting corpuscle shifting across vector direction ‘falls down’ subject to gravity leads to trajectory curvature. The further from the Sun the weaker gravity is, and the beam straightens , but the trajectory distortion remains (due to inertance) thus reflecting from the Moon. The direction is radial, it is not the space curvature caused by a massive object that matters.

Now, briefly about the parallel postulate. It Is deemed impossible to be proved based on the foregoing axioms. Yet, it possible owing to the present concept – concept of movement within one and only coordinate system with no place for any forward movement at all, and where the minimal distance between two points of a line exists since the geometric locus exists. Employing the triangle strength one can build a line, all and every single points of which are equally distanced from the initial line. Such building is considered a terminated cycle, i.e. we may continue building it endlessly in cycles. These two lines can not cross over, which means they are parallel to each other. When transferring this principle to a spherical surface we suddenly face an invincible obstacle. According to Euclidean axioms, any geometrical shape can be duplicated, then shifted, flipped, rotated, and then applied again to the surface, and it shall remain the same as the initial shape. However this principles does not work with a sphere. We cannot chip off a bit of an egg shell and put it back to the egg by its external side keeping the initial shape perfectly. Such an element is involved in the mentioned building. But if we assume change of curvature tensor to the reversed sign, we get lines approaching each other, thus violating the parallelism. Interestingly, any two straight lines surfaced on sphere cross over each other in two points, and yet these lines are deemed parallel. Besides, at most one line parallel to the given line can be drawn through the point not on it since another line, if possible, shall present either a tangent line or transverse – a third is not given. But in the first case (tangent) the line will be directed not along the largest circle thus may not be deemed a straight line of the given surface i.e. sphere. In the second case (transverse), the line forms angles in the cross point, thus the sum of unilateral angles at the line crossing both parallel lines in the mentioned point shall not be equal to 180^o – which conflicts with the definition of parallelism. Displacement by transformation process of material points aggregates ‘molded’ by other forces (i.e. displacement of objects) due to partial lack of forward movement may resolve the paradoxes of such ancient Pythagorean philosophers as Zeno and others (the paradox of Achilles overrunning the turtle). The track where they run (as well as any other object) is also the geometric locus. Expanding the concept, there is no other forward movement of matter than inertial one corrected for gravity against semi-time.

The variety of directions (vectors) and intensities are resulted from interaction of material points, and then the same scenario comes in play. Yet the initial impulse was given at the moment of initial explosion in the same way is the light pressure works. The directional lines of the explosion I believe had a spiral configuration due to spinning. All the rest are radiations (transformations) of the corresponding direction within the second semi-period. Yet another thing – material transformations may be both external (radiations) and internal. The Brownian motion may be explained by this fact. Molecules are not bees in a hive, and haze is not energy which activates the bees. But the transformations are totally dependant from energy absorption by levels of electrons. The energy is partially re-absorbed, partially appears in inertial clashes when the fields interact.

What shall I say in conclusion? Infinity of the Universe looks nonsense, just as its finiteness. I am the physicist, not a philosopher. I believe the Universe keeps its mysteries not in the far-far galaxies, rather in its yet uncovered properties. What if antimatter, just like matter, is dissipated not uniformly, and there are vast anti-agglomerations able to transform entire stellar systems by creating the illusion of infinity, and its finiteness is lost in endless variety of transformation types?