Since the time of Newton, who thought light was emitted as corpuscles thrown off by the emitting object at c, there has been an evolution in the understanding and theoretical assumptions of light. With subsequent versions including the Huygens wave only model and various ballistic and aether models of light. Some of these were assumptions, including the aether, ballistic and corpuscle models and have since been ruled out. However throughout the history of the classical theory of light certain definitive observations have been made and remain unchallenged to this day. These include the observations that light is a wave ( Huygens) and can propagate freely in a vacuum, unhindered by any imaginary aether, at c in the lightsource frame. (The Michelson Morley experiment is the best known of these experiments). And that light does not gain velocity on reflection. ( Michelsons 1913 paper and Beckmann Mandics)
In the mid 19th century a significant although ultimately incorrect contribution was made by James Clerk Maxwell. With his undulatory model of light. Here he built upon among others the observations of Hertz and Thomson and various previous wave observations of light and assumptions of an aether, a model of light as electromagnetic radiation. With light assumed to be a combination of self propagating traverse oscillating waves of electrical and magnetic fields.
This of course makes the erroneous assumption that light oscillates in traverse waves. Which is not observed, contrary to many protestations by theorists then and now. Light travels in straight lines.
The reason for Maxwells failure to correctly model light was complex and involved relying on previous false assumptions by theorists. Including the unsubstantiated assumption of the existence of electrons and an aether medium that permeated the fabric of the universe. Since refuted by the experiment of Michelsons Morley.
What Maxwell failed to realise was that 'electromagnetic' radiation can be described solely as a self propagating magnetic oscillation in the vacuum. The emitting atoms magnetic field is excited and oscillates at various frequencies. Inducing sympathetic magnetic oscillations in the adjacent vacuum. These in turn induce further oscillations of magnetic fields in a repeating process that expands outwards at c from the source.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0NwzwUedfFk
RITZIAN vs WAVES
Arguments against a wave model are often convoluted and contradictory. Often a simple mantra of "a ballistic model has been refuted by various experiments that show no c+-v" is used. The assumption being that by proving light isn't a Ritzian particle, one can then somehow rule out that it isn't a wave only!
It is important to realise that the wave only model has light always at c+-v *relative to the source*. Which means in experiments like Sagnac and Babcock & Berman the wavespeed is variable, not constant, in the frame that the source rotates in. (As opposed to a ballistic model which throws off the particles of light which then travel at *constant* speeds in the frame which the source rotates in)
POLARISATION
Polarisation is best described by the mechanical rotation of a magnetic field. Polarisation is essentially the propagating light wave having its oscillating magnetic field restricted to a specific angle. Hence polarised plane waves are described as having its magnetic field oscillate at one specific angle only. Circular polarisation is where the angle of oscillating magnetic field rotates over time and distance. This is well described in the article on Spin and orbital angular momentum on this blog. (Check table of contents)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GODPF5K87wU
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/01/spin-and-orbital-angular-momentum.html
ATOM SIZE vs EMISSION WAVELENGTHS
Another criticism of wave theory is that the atom, being smaller than for instance, the emitted wavelength of light, cannot emit or absorb larger wavelengths of light or other wavelengths of emr. Like microwave radiation in the example of masers. The argument being that it is impossible for a smaller object to create a wave larger than its radius. This incorrectly assumes that the emr wave produced is a displacement wave like water or sound. Electromagnetic radiation is not this type of wave. It is a self propagating oscillating magnetic field. Produced by a wave model of an atom that oscillates its magnetic field at different frequencies to produce various wavelengths of radiation. Shorter or longer than the physical radius of the emitting atom itself. An example would be the following. Take a 1 cm neodium magnet and rotate it at 500 cycles per second. The emitted radiation will have a wavelength many times greater than the rotating magnets diameter of 1cm.
PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT
Once they have been confronted with the fact that Michelson Morley type experiments do not rule out the possibility of light travelling as a wave through the vacuum, critics of a classical wave theory usually switch to saying that it cannot explain the photoelectric effect. This of course is another fallacy perpetuated by relativists. They say that in this effect a current is created by photons knocking out electrons. And that a wave model predicts no lower frequency cutoff, which isn't observed. And a time lag is also predicted by a wave model between incident radiation and "ejected electron". Which also is not observed. Both these arguments are false.
A wave only classical model describes the atom as a non particulate resonant system. Where imaginary electrons are instead described with different sets of resonant frequencies for different elements. Which respond to different ranges of incident wave radiation. So to start with, to assume that there are electrons in a wave model is incorrect. And regarding the false assumption that wave radiation predicts a induced flow of current with no lower threshold. This is not the case in a wave model. Because in a wave model all incident radiation is not predicted to induce current. Only narrow ranges corresponding to the particular resonant frequency of that element. And this is confirmed in the photovoltaic effect. Relativists have misunderstood the photoelectric effect and confused it with the photovoltaic effect.
This is because in the photoelectric effect the current is produced by the applied external pd only. Photons do not create the current in the photoelectric effect. No current on any conductor will be created if one shines emr onto its surface without an external pd applied. A current or discharge, as with the gold leaf experiment, will only occur if it has previously been charged or if a pd is applied. The current observed is from an external source, not from the incident radiation. So it is erroneous to assume the current is created by photons or cannot be created by waves.
Regarding the prediction that a wave model predicts a delay between incident radiation and "ejected electron". This incorrectly assumes that each atom in the photocell starts at zero energy level and has to fill up, in order to discharge energy in a quantised amount. This ignores the reality of the wave model resonant atom. A wave atom will only discharge when full. Anything less, and it will retain its stored energy. Even after incident radiation is discontinued. So when the incident radiation is resumed, all atoms in the photocell are already at various levels of 'filled'. Some near zero, others almost full at 99%. No time delays are predicted as those atoms almost at their filled energy state will almost immediately release a quantised "electron" to the circuit without having to wait to fill from a zero energy state.
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/02/photoelectric-and-photovoltaic-effects.html
DE SITTER
The DeSitter model of how a emission theory cannot explain observed light from binary star systems is an example of how by refuting a ballistic model one can pretend that all classical models of light are refuted. In the ballistic model deSitter rightly shows how a particulate light model has an emission speed of c+-v from the rotating star, in the inertial earth frame. Current to the writing of this blog post there is a good visual example on wiki. Showing how the light thrown off by the rotating binary has a greater speed when it is emitted from the star as it moves towards the earth than when it moves away in its rotation cycle. And subsequently the ballistic model predicts light arriving to earth at different speeds and piling up in pulses. This of course is not observed. However the fallacy is that a wave model would predict the same. It doesn't. Because light HAS to be at c in the source frame. It must therefore be at a variable speed in the earth frame. So a correct calculation has does not allow any piling up of light as it arrives. All emitted light travels at the same speed in the star frame. And therefore always at the same variable speed in the earth frame.
SUPERNOVAE ARRIVAL TIMES
Another similar criticism includes the claim that light, in a classical wave model from the initial supernovae flash, would arrive not in a flash as observed, but over thousands of years. As ejecta is at different speeds in different directions in the original explosion and light from this ejecta would leave the supernova at a great range of speeds from zero to 5,000 k/s. The premise being that the light at 5,000 k/s would travel across space to earth at greater speeds and arrive centuries earlier.
First of all only the light pointing towards earth will contribute to the initial flash. And if it comes from the ejected material, which is debatable, then that ejecta which is directed towards us will have very small differencials in speed. Much much smaller than the 5,000 k/s differential assumed currently. And there is definitely a time delay already observed in the initial bright observable peak in supernovae that could account for a small variation in speeds in a wave only model. Months if not years is observed in the famous Tycho SN in the 16th century. Furthermore the claim that light would arrive over thousands of years spread out by different speeds in a wave model is not actually refuted by observations. Five hundred years after the Tycho SN we still have light arriving from the supernovae! Thousands for other earlier supernovae. Once again relativists, desperate to erroneously refute any competing theory to relativity have made up imaginary predictions for a classical model, not based on logic or fact. To refute a classical model, when in fact in every example they use a classical model is found to be consistent with the experiments or observations.
For information on how a classical post Newtonian non relativistic model can better explain the anomalous preccession of Mercury please read:https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2022/03/mercury-preccession-classical.html
