The Tyranny of Relativity

The Tyranny of Relativity

Abstract

Various criticisms and refutations of a pre-relativistic classical model of electromagnetic radiation have been presented in mainstream theoretical physics since the beginning of last century. Critics of the then established classical model cite various experiments as evidence, including experiments made by Michelson Morley, Sagnac, Ives Stillwell and deSitters’ double star refutation of a classical emission model of light. Here in this paper these criticisms are addressed and themselves refuted, showing how all these observations and experiments and others to date can still be made to be consistent with a non relativistic classical model of light where light travels at c relative to the source only. And is wave only not particulate. This is achieved simply by interpreting Michelson Morley experiment at face value: In that all this experiment did was show theorists that the aether did not impede the velocity or deflect the path of light.

Introduction: 1) Michelson Morley experiment

The first step to restoring the reputation of a classical wave only model of light is to correctly analyse the famous 1887 Michelson Morley experiment, which incidentally predates Einstein’s first paper on Special Relativity. The experiment and its theoretical ramifications are well known as it supposedly provided the evidence that refuted the concept of a ponderable aether through which wave only light was supposed to propagate. 

After the 1887 experiment, theorists of the day were perplexed by the results of MMX in which the speed of light was shown to be not affected by any motion of the experimental setup as it rotated around the earth and solar axes. The conclusion at the time was that there could be no ponderable aether and that if there were no aether then how could light be considered to be a wave if there was nothing to wave in. Here in this paper the argument is made that this was an odd conclusion to make. And that what theorists should have realised back in the early 20thC was that the Michelson Morley and subsequent experiments didn’t disprove the existence of an aether/vacuum. They only proved that, down to measurable limits, the velocity of wave only electromagnetic radiation through the aether/vacuum was not impeded or deflected. 

Quite why theorists after 1887 didn’t realise that there still was an aether/vacuum but it just wasn’t made of atomic particles or what’s now called baryons is puzzling. Why couldn’t the aether be a medium that had only one observable quality? That it could hold one or more different magnetic fields at any one point in space but not be made of atomic particles. Because as we now know it is not the aether/vacuum that slows down or deflects light. It is the atoms that are floating within that aether/vacuum which effect the velocities and direction of EMR.

And an even more profound implication of MMX that no theorist has also ever considered is that not only is light observed to travel always and only at c in the source frame, it always travels at c regardless of how the experiment moves relative to any other reference frame whilst the light travels out from the source and back to the interferometer. In other words MMX shows us that when light leaves the source it is quite literally dragged (but not rotated) around by the source to fulfil the requirement that it travels always and only at c out from and back to the interferometer/source in the apparatus. This is a fact backed up by a centuries worth of observations. From MMX to Sagnac to Ives Stillwell through to current versions of these experiments.

Some argue that this conclusion I suggest here can be refuted

as it is based on current technological limitations only. And that with a sensitive enough apparatus the rotation of the experiment once a day around the earths axis will be measureable. However those who would present this, forget first that physics theory is only refutable if there are the observations that can refute the theory. And so far no observations of this possible measurement have ever been made. And further to that if there were to be a future experiment that could detect a fringe shift in MMX due to its rotation around the earths axis…this would also refute the theory of Special Relativity.

And so in conclusion one has to accept that contrary to myth MMX did not refute any classical wave only model of light. And further to this, one has to make the irrefutable conclusion from MMX that light can be dragged back and forth by the source after the light has left the source. As long as the light travels back and forth at c relative to the source frame as per the MMX apparatus. Because that’s exactly what is being observed and measured in any MMX style apparatus. 

So one must ignore any claims that experiments like Ives Stillwell, Sagnac and others provide evidence that is inconsistent with a wave only classical model of light. Because these are all false claims. As the following analysis made here in this paper on some of the most commonly cited examples show.

2)Fizeau experiment

Fizeau is another experiment that confused both relativists and their aetherist predecessors. In that their incorrect assumption was that for a classical model the speed v of water flow should be added to or subtracted from the speed of light in water. Presumably this erroneous assumption was arrived at by ignoring the fact that atoms sit as separate particles within the emptiness of the vacuum. At the time the accepted aetherist prediction was for the light to be dragged fully by the velocity v of water. However Fizeau observed a drag at less than the value expected. Interestingly enough Fresnels’ drag coefficient did make the correct prediction. Despite being based on an outdated partial aether drag model. An interesting case of the right formula for the wrong model. That Fresnel correctly predicted the observed drag decades before Fizeau is a significant achievement that has been largely overlooked because of its association with an aether drag model. Although the assumption that fresnels coefficient correctly models the observed change in velocity of light in the Fizeau setup is debatable as Fizeau observed an exact 1/2 fringe shift from the predicted full aether drag shift (+-v) if light were dragged fully by the water.  Yet in fact the Fizeau formula predicts a 3/7 shift which should equate to an observed 3/7 slowing of light from the waters velocity. Not the observed 1/2 velocity shift. In other words Fizeau’s results in fact do not match that predicted by the fresnel coefficient and by association, Special Relativity. Why this is the case is not ever mentioned in any literature on the subject and does potentially present a problem for any theory. 

Ignoring this problematic observation, to model the outcome of Fizeau for a classical wave only model involves treating the moving water in the Fizeau column as a more or less optically dense medium and as follows:

Assume the water is a collection of atoms/molecules floating in the ‘empty’ space of the aether/vacuum. As the light beam moves through the water, the light travels at a constant speed in a straight line through the vacuum between these molecules in the water. But the lights velocity through the water is impeded slightly by each molecules’ atoms as compared to its velocity if it were in just an atom free vacuum. Hence the slower velocity and the refractive index 1.33 for water. And, if the water moves towards the source, the light will encounter more atoms per second and move even slower. Because the light’s velocity through the moving water is now slower as the light is interacting with more atoms per second. Making the moving water a slightly more dense optical medium. But notice the light speed through the moving column isn’t slower by the total speed v of the water molecules . Its reduced speed is dictated by a percentage based on the increased amount of atoms the light beam encounters per second.

Here the traditional Fizeau formula c/n +- v(1-n^2) is used to describe this change in velocity due to change in density and refractive index. And this change in density is not the same as v, but as a percentage of v, as this formula correctly shows.

However to calculate and better explain Fizeau as a classical experiment one can also use a new formula presented here on this blog and for the first time. This formula shows more clearly the simple classical connection between the increased velocity and the resulting percentage change in optical density, ie refractive index of water, due to the waters motion:

c/[n+-(v/c x n)]

As described earlier, the light beam will encounter more or less water molecule/atoms when the water moves relative to the source making the water medium a more or less dense medium for the light to travel through. To model this change in optical density classically one must first define the new refractive index of the moving water by dividing the water velocity v by c in the above formula and then multiplying this by n (1.33) of water to calculate the percentage change in the refractive index of water due to the movement of the water. And then either subtract or add that small percentage difference to the usual refractive index 1.33 of water to give the relative increase or decrease in density and thus derive a new refractive index for the moving water, dependent on its velocity in the experiment. At which point a simple calculation of c/n with this newly derived refractive index of water n will correctly predict the final observed velocity of light in the moving water. As shown in the formula:

 c/[n+-(v/c x n)]. 

Which incidentally gives the same result as the original cited Fizeau(Fresnel) formula.

Proving Fizeau can be adequately explained classically without invoking relativity.

Considering Einstein cited Fizeau as a key reason for developing his special theory of relativity, the irony of the Fizeau experiment is that it proves that the speed of light in water is variable if one also moves the source at v and not the water at v relative to the source. That is if the water and observer don’t move and are in the same frame but the source instead slows down or speeds up in the water column. Contradicting the central premise of SR that the speed of light must always be a constant defined by n for water. Technically, the Fizeau experiment refutes relativity.

3)DeSitter refutation

In the decades following 1905, Willem deSitter tried to refute a classical model of light by saying that if light travelled only at c in the source frame as some classicists like Ritz were still arguing for in the early 20thC, then light would “pile up” as it travelled through space. And that this ‘ piling up’ of light in transit, would be observed in light from double star systems when observed from earth. As no such piling up was observed, he claimed this refuted any wave only classical model. Unfortunately there is a serious flaw in deSitters argument. Because in trying to prove that light was constant in all frames and did not travel at c in the source frame only as a classical model proposed, he falsified his calculations and prediction for a classical model by incorrectly having light travel at a variable speed in the source star frame as it travelled to earth from the double star system. A strange contradiction considering he was trying to disprove classical theory’s central premise that light only and always travelled only at c in the source frame!

The question should be, how did he manage to convince his peers of his day that he proved that light could not travel only at c in the source frame? When the maths of his calculations proving this impossibility for a classical model was clearly false and unscientific.

The answer to his theoretical sleight of hand was although he correctly assumed that a classical model predicates a constant speed in one frame only. His mathematical faux pas was not to have light move at c only in the source frame as a classical model dictates. But rather his calculations had light at c only in the observer frame. A frame that moved relative to the source! Completely ignoring the basic tenet of a classical model so as to conveniently and spuriously refute it as competition to relativity. 

4)Sagnac

Sagnac, like MMX has been grossly misrepresented by critics of a classical model simply by once again incorrectly calculating how long the two light paths are when the setup (ring or mirrored) is rotating. One only has to look at the many various calculations, illustrations and computer simulations that have been created since the experiment was first performed by Sagnac that show the ring rotating around the central axis with the light travelling at a constant speed in both directions as the source/detector point rotates in one CW or CCW direction. To deliberately make these calculations for a classical model incorrect they have pretended that when the mirrored setup rotates the light will travel at a constant speed (c +-v) in the lab, not at a constant speed c in the source frame. This is the same mistake that deSitter makes. Because they have forgotten that light in a classical model must always travel at a constant speed c in the source frame only. Not at a constant speed c in any or all other frames. So if one looks at any incorrect rotating calculation used for Sagnac, you can see that the incorrect calculation for a classical model has light travelling at a variable speed relative to the rotating source.

Any correct calculation/simulation for a classical model has to have the source not move in its own frame and the mirrored setup rotating around the static source. One path will always be longer than the opposite path in this frame. (This is illustrated in an associated video and blogpost elsewhere on this blog.) This is the correct frame to calculate light path lengths for a classical model. It will always give a path difference. Contrary to false claims by relativists trying to erroneously discredit the old pre relativistic classical wave only model of light.

5)Faster than light, instantaneous transmission of information over great distances using effects first discovered in MMX

To follow on from section 1) a further effect can also found in the Michelson Morley experimental observations. As is also discussed above in section 1 of this post the experiment shows that light appears to be dragged  back and forth for any observer in any frame that is not the source frame. In that as long as light is observed to travel always at c in the MMX source frame then it will appear to be dragged back and forth as it propagates away from the source in any observer frame that has relative motion to the source. Conversely it follows that if a source emits light that propagates away from the source and arrives at an observer, then if the source is then moved or vibrated rapidly back and forth relative to the observer, the observer will Instantaneously observe this vibration in any light that has already left the source before the vibration in the source was started. The result is that the Michelson Morley experiment gives us the blueprint for a design of a mechanism that will give faster than light, indeed instantaneous, transmission of information through a vacuum over great distances. Truly an important invention first published here on this blog for the upcoming space race. Just imagine what is within easy reach of future mars unmanned robot landers;  Virtually instant communication between ground control and the robot lander. How much faster the current NASA mars explorer robots could operate with this easy to construct communication device. Yet because the backwards mindset of relativists and their unscientific theories controls our scientific community, we are being held back in space exploration.

This hi lites the advantage a wave only classical model has over relativity. Classical physics is based always and only on what is observed. Relativity is usually based only on what is assumed. Observations seem to be ignored by relativists.

6)Particles at detectors explained as quantised waves 

All of the previous analyses of the experiments cited above have not yet mentioned Newtons particle and Einsteins photon. However in any classical wave only model as the one outlined here in this paper it is imperative to stress that light is never considered to be a particle. It’s always wave only. This doesn’t necessarily matter for the above analyses of experiments but for more observations using photodetectors a classical explanation of light incident on a photodetector plane is necessary. 

When dots appeared in film and photo detectors in various experiments  the automatic assumption was that these are proof of the wave/particle duality of light and that it is considered to sometimes be a particle. 

This ignores centuries of the physics of oscillation, resonating systems and resonant catastrophe. We have centuries of observations of real world macro objects that will sympathetically resonate when subjected to external wave energy at or around that objects natural resonant frequency. And not only will they sympathetically resonate to incident wave energy, these macro objects are observed to store and release this energy in pulses to another external system. It is proposed here that this also happens to the atoms or collections of atoms in each pixel in any photo detector. The incident electromagnetic wave energy is observed to elicit resonance at and around that photodetectors atoms natural resonating frequency. And we know from observations of visible resonant systems that resonant systems release their energy in pulses. This is what’s called classic resonant catastrophe. And so for photodetectors the classical model has EMR wave energy incident on the detector atom. The detector atom resonates sympathetically and then releases it in pulses to the electron cascade in the circuit. Or simply transfers the resonance to the next atom in the electric circuit. To be then sent to a pc screen as a pulse and to be mistaken by quantum theorists as a particle of light hitting the photo detector.

7)CERN particle paths as wave only interferences.

The same logic is used here to explain the sub atomic particles apparently “seen” in colliders. Once again theorists have ignored centuries of study of wave interference. Young showed us in 1827 that two light sources could interfere to produce bands of light and dark on a 2 dimensional screen. In 3 dimensions those 2 overlapping interfering wavefronts produce what’s called an annulus ring. That’s 2 expanding wavefront ‘bubbles’ overlapping and producing a single expanding ring of interference as they propagate out in space from their separate sources at c.

If one calculates what happens when three coherent sources each produce an expanding wavefront bubble. Then it can be shown here that the first two waves will produce a single annulus ring where the brightness from interference between the two is at its greatest. And as the third overlapping wavefront bubble can only interacts at two points on that annulus it will produce two identical opposite direction single particle like paths that are a direct consequence of 3 separate expanding coherent waves interfering at only two points in space. These “paths” produced by the 3 expanding wavefronts are identical opposite twins. And can be either spiral, curved  or straight. This is exactly what is observed. 

In summary the proposal here is that the apparent ‘particle’ paths in colliders are in fact interference paths between 3 energy wavefronts overlapping as they spread out after being emitted by 3 protons colliding. Those “paths” represent the point of greatest energy due to wave interference between 3 expanding overlapping wavefronts. Simple geometry of wave only propagation in space explains this illusion of particles in cloud detectors. No wonder China has cancelled their new super collider this November 2025. They read my earlier blogpost and YouTube video on my blog and realised that the particles in colliders were illusions. And it was a waste of billions of pounds of money looking for mythical particles in particle accelerators like CERN.

Ives Stillwell

There are various erroneous claims made for a classical model of light from Einstein through Ives Stillwell to the present. All of them claim that a classical model predicts no offset for the Ives Stillwell experiment. As we know, an offset is observed. Supposedly ruling out a classical model of light which apparently predicts an even displacement of light from Doppler shifting. The reason why this claim has survived unchallenged for so long is simple. The various formulas evoked for "classical" are actually not correctly modelling light as c+-v for a classical model because they incorrectly use wavelength w instead of frequency f. One must calculate the offset using frequency and then convert that result to wavelength to check against the observed wavelength offset. The excuse relativists use is that one must model Doppler shift for light in a classical model by erroneously assuming there is an aether and that this imaginary aether/vacuum slows light down. This is pseudoscience from relativists. Because they conveniently ignore the earlier results from MMX in 1887 that show that the aether/vacuum does not impede or deflect light paths velocities and direction. If MMX showed that light in a classical model was not impeded by the aether/vacuum,…why do relativists insist that a classical model of light must ignore the 1887 MMX experiment?!

If one wishes to *correctly* model observed speeds for a classical model the following formula using f must be used: 

Assuming v is 0.005, and f is the emitted source frequency as in the Ives Stillwell experiment. 

1.005 X f = f1(forward) 

0.995 X f = f2(rearward) 

Calculate the two Doppler shifted frequencies. Convert both shifted frequencies f1&2 to wavelength w1&2 and average them out ((w-w1)+(w2-w)/2). This gives an average predicted offset for a classical model, that now matches the observed offset in the Ives Stillwell experiment. Verifying that a classical model is still very much consistent with Ives Stillwell.

GPS

Probably one of most misused excuses to refute a classical model is GPS, although technically it involves modelling atoms as well as light for a classical model. Following on from section 6 “Particles at detectors explained as quantised waves” it is assumed here in this paper that atoms in a wave only classical model are not considered to be particulate but rather as wavelike like resonating systems in the vacuum of space.

Because resonating systems are always observed to respond to more or less external force by lowering or raising their resonant frequency, then this same classical observation is used to correctly predict that atoms, being resonating systems will lower or raise their natural resonant frequencies when subjected to more or less external force. This is exactly what is observed in GPS. The caesium clock atoms will speed up their natural resonant frequency in response to a reduction in the force of gravity where there is also an increase in radius distance from the centre of planet earth. Because GPS clock atoms are farther out from the centre of earths gravity field, they oscillate faster. Time doesn’t change with altitude, the clocks tick rates are speeding up or slowing down in response to more or less gravitational force. 

Another false argument that is sometimes used against this being relevant for a classical model is that for classical theory the force of gravity is always erroneously assumed to be defined by r^2 in Newtons’ gravitational acceleration formula F= m1 +m2/r^2. An odd hypocritical condition for relativists to impose on a classical model, considering they accept that the force of gravity on mass in a gravitational field is relative to radius in their relativistic model. Not radius squared. Why is it OK for force to be different from acceleration for relativity theory, but not OK for a classical model to make this same assumption. When did Newton ever claim that acceleration is the same as force? Never.

But this false assumption about what the force of gravity is in classical physics is designed to have classical automatically fail the GPS test

Because in a classical universe we can observe with our own eyes that you need to apply a constant force to an object to get a constant acceleration. The object isn’t observed to accelerate all on its own. So for a classical model one must use a constant force of gravity (potential) applied to a point mass to get it to a constant acceleration.

And so it is this constant force (potential) on an object that is the true force of gravity in a classical model. Which means of course that to model resonance effect from gravity at different radii in a non relativistic classical model one must use r, not r squared.

To give Einstein credit, he realised that Newton and Laplaces potential defined the force of gravity more accurately than acceleration. He realised what both Newton and LaPlace had already discovered centuries earlier. Which is that Newtons little g (acceleration )was only a product of a force of gravity acting on a mass.

And finally to explain what is this mechanical classical explanation for gravity one need look no further than a revised wave only LeSagian push gravity theory to find the classical solution to what is behind this force of gravity. And it ties atoms neatly to waves for a wave only classical universe. 

Atoms are pushed down towards centres of larger masses by wave only “push” radiation. Not the original LeSagian particles which failed to accurately explain why masses didn’t increase constantly when subjected to the external LeSagian force of push gravity. These waves are all the electromagnetic waves that exist from all EMR sources in an infinite non Big Bang universe. Mass is derived from EMR. EMR is produced when mass moves relative to other masses.

And it is no accident that modelling the shadow of the earth on a satellite using arc degrees of the earth’s shadow as seen from the satellite gives a shadow gravity area that increases with r. Not r ^2. Confirming push gravity as a valid explanation for different tick rates in GPS.

Conclusion

By correctly calculating predicted effects for light in a classical model one can make all known observations and experimental results consistent with a classical model. As long as that model assumes light is not a particle in a viscous aether. But is instead a wave only phenomena that always travels at c relative to its source in this aether/vacuum. In this paper only a few key experiments are analysed but one can apply the classical model to any know observation. Simply by ignoring the same incorrect assumptions cited above in this paper that critics of a classical model erroneously apply to it to ensure it fails the above cited experimental or observational tests.

Reference

1)On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether. 1887, Michelson,Morley

2)On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies. 1905, Albert Einstein

3)The Hypotheses relating to the Luminous Aether and an experiment which appears to demonstrate that the motion of bodies alters the velocity with which light propagates itself in their interior. 1851, M. H. Fizeau

4)A proof of the constancy of the velocity of light (1913),Willem de Sitter

5) Recherches critiques sur l'Électrodynamique générale. 1908, Walther Ritz, Annales de Chimie et de Physique. 13: 145–275.

6)The luminiferous aether demonstrated by the effect of the wind relative to the aether in a uniformly rotating interferometer (1913),Georges Sagnac

7)An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock. 1838, Ives,Stillwell

Coherent and incoherent light scattering by single-atom wavepackets

 Coherent and incoherent light scattering by single-atom wavepackets

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.19671

With a summary here : 

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/zwhd-1k2t

The usual quantum nonsense from physicists pretending that light, when sent through a double slit, is sometimes observed to be a photon and other times as a wave. Fact is; Light isn’t ever actually observed to be a photon. That is a false assumption. Seeing as no one can actually see an imaginary photon as it hits the photodetector plane. All we see is a readout on a pc screen of wave light incident on the photodetector. And as a classical wave only model correctly models, that incident wave radiation is quantised into pulses by the detector atoms and delivered, as an the ‘electron cascade’, to the circuit. To be then sent to the computer screen as dots. Dots that theorists incorrectly assume to be imaginary photons. Any interference pattern created by these dots is simply a readout of the intensity of wave only incident radiation on the detector screen and at that corresponding point on the pc screen. Where there is more light due to an interference pattern at the detector plane, there will be a greater intensity of incident wave radiation at that point. And more of these quantised dots will  appear at that corresponding point in the interference pattern on the computer screen. 

And where there is less incident wave only radiation at other points in the interference pattern there will be fewer quantised pulses from the photodetector and thus at that same corresponding point on the pc screen, fewer dots will be observed. 

No quantum wave particle duality is needed to explain both the dots and any of those dots creating the interference pattern. 

That is unless one is a QT theorist who, when looking at these dots on his pc screen pretended they were photons hitting the detector plane. And then erroneously assumed this collection of these imaginary photons arranged themselves magically into a wave like interference pattern when the source atoms were constrained into a coherent lattice. In fact, all they actually saw was an amplified second generation image of wave only light being quantised at and by the photodetector atoms. Then amplified electronically and delivered via software to the pc screen as an interference pattern.

But to deal specifically with this papers claims of quantum photon/wave duality magic is the following scientific classical wave only theoretical explanation:

What is creating the coherent light in the experiment described in above cited paper? 

If the array of atoms is held in a lattice and reflecting/re-emitting the incident laser light then the atom lattice is essentially a collection of coherent light sources. As we know only coherent light when split into two or more same coherent sources at a “slit” can create interference patterns when incident on any detector plane. First described in Thomas Youngs famous slit screen experiment.

And further to this, what is creating the incoherent light in the experiment when no interference patterns from the source atoms are observed? 

If the atoms are not in a lattice and moving randomly, and reflecting or re-emitting this incoherent light onto the detector screen, then at this point we know that no interference patterns can be created or observed from two or more incoherent sources. This is indeed observed in the above cited paper.

Because, as any one with a basic grasp of physics knows, two or more incoherent light sources cannot produce an interference pattern. And thus in the experiment only the atoms held together in a lattice and reflecting or re-emitting the light are considered multiple coherent light sources. And as mentioned above, two or more coherent sources can create interference patterns at any detector screen. As is observed and confirmed in the paper.

In their attempts to pretend they have supplied further proof of the quantum nature of light, the authors of the paper have forgotten basic physics. In that a classical model can fully explain their experimental results. In that in a wave only classical model of light, any incoherent classical wave light sources will not produce any interference at a detector plane. And will only do so only if the multi atom incoherent light source is artificially constrained into a lattice of multiple coherent light sources that can then produce interference. As is observed in the paper.

For more information on how a classical wave only model can explain so called wave particle duality, read here

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

Quantum Theory refuted again

Looks like they discovered that the so called “ Space Quantisation” explanation for the Stern Gerlach theory was incorrect. The split beams can be explained classically. And the theoretical discreet jumps in an atoms reaction to an applied external field never materialised once technology was actually able to measure an effect so small. It seems that recent published research found that the atomic response to an applied field went up exponentially as described by a classical model. Rather than in discreet jumps as QT has erroneously claimed since 1922. More on this can be read here... https://phys.org/news/2024-12-particle-mass.html

“ When a magnetic field is applied to any material, the energy levels of electrons inside that material become quantized into discrete levels called Landau levels, Shao explained. The levels can only have fixed values, like climbing a set of stairs with no little steps in between. The spacing between these levels depends on the mass of the electrons and the strength of the magnetic field, so as the magnetic field increases, the energy levels of the electrons should increase by set amounts based entirely on their mass—but in this case, they didn't.

Using the high-powered magnet in Florida, the researchers observed that the energy of the Landau level transitions in the ZrSiS crystal followed a completely different pattern of dependence on the magnetic field strength. Years ago, theorists had labeled this pattern the "B2/3 power law," the key signature of semi-Dirac fermions. “ Yinming Shao et al 2024

Fast radio bursts: bright FRB 20190203 detected at 111 MHz

Mystery remains for GRB theorists as to why no gamma ray transients can be found for non repeating FRB’s. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.13561

This lack of a gamma transient for this FRB is easily accounted for in my proposed theoretical model Here which describes the physical mechanisms responsible for the observed GRB  and FRB transients. An FRB in my model, is proposed to be simply a very fast, very short timescale GRB. 

FRB’s are just very short Gammaraybursts. Their observed activity in all frequencies are compressed proportionally on the timescale compared to their larger relative, the GRB. As an FRB has at most a second long transient in radio, it will have a proportionally much smaller transient time length in gamma. The observed total luminosity in each frequency would also in turn be proportionally less the shorter the observed transient length.

My model predicts here and on other pages of this blog that instead of the usually observed; seconds for gamma, minutes to hours for optical and days for radio transients normally seen in GRB’s, single FRB’s should have all their frequency transients durations on  much shorter timescales length. Notice that the entire observed radio transient for FRB20190203 was only in fractions of seconds. One only has to see that if a fast radio burst is only seconds long in radio frequencies, not for days as observed in the GRB radio transient, then it is clear that under my model, outlined in the link above, an FRB optical transient is predicted to be only on the order of a thousands of a second long. And in turn this model predicts that the FRB Gamma transient must  last for even shorter timescales in many order smaller than a thousandth of a second timescale. 

No wonder they can’t find optical or gamma transients for FRB’s. They are far too short to be recorded with our current technology

Inner core backtracking by seismic waveform change reversals. Wang et al 2024

With regards to a recent paper in Nature titled  ‘Inner core backtracking by seismic waveform change reversals’ Wang et al 2024

I would like to point out here that the authors have ignored or were unaware of a theoretical model of the dynamo that drives the earths magnetic field that Inpublished in 2008 here on this blog. I predicted in this 2008 paper that the earths more solid inner core rotates at different speeds from the outer mantle. And is now beginning to slow down its rotation speed relative to the mantle. I notice that this Nature paper, using the latest data and recently published, confirms my 2008 predictions. Without giving any credit to my earlier predictions which I must point out predates their papers conclusions by almost 2 decades.  

Please notice the last paragraph of the my 2008 paper and linked below. It predicts the inner core is beginning to slow down. http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2008/12/earths-magnetic-field.html

Three Photon Quantum interference and Harmonic of single energy scales

 Quantum computers have been “just around the corner” for 3 decades or more. And will never be realised. They are science fiction fantasy based on an imaginary magic pseudoscience called Quantum wave particle duality. Quantum “theorists” seem to publish almost daily their misunderstandings of the classical interference effects of wave only Electromagnetic radiation. Below is a link where once again quantum theorists have misunderstood classical resonance in atoms. Because in truth Atoms are just classical harmonic oscillators and will produce a specific range of harmonics and sub harmonics from just one source fundamental wavelength. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240423113051.htm

And from another paper on imaginary 3 photon interference I’ve quoted below some text from another paper on imaginary 3 photon quantum effects. Essentially the researchers have once again misunderstood classical wave only interference effects and harmonic oscillators. And pretended these basic classical effects are spooky quantum magic! https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.02189

“A high-quality single-photon source based on a semiconductor quantum dot [27] embedded in an open microcavity is used to deterministically produce single photons that are converted to the telecommunication band with a quantum frequency converter [28, 29]. These single photons are deterministically demultiplexed into six indistinguishable singlephoton sources [30, 31], which are manipulated in a fully programmable photonic chip [32]. Heraled by the detection of four output spatial modes with high-efficiency single-photon detectors”

This quote above is an experimental description quoted directly from the opening page of the above linked arxiv paper. And is essentially describing a classical interference effect. Nothing to do with imaginary quantum effects. 

There is no need to invoke quantum theory to describe classical wave theory of light. Here below is my classical translation of the above “Quantum” papers quoted text: 

“A (low level) light source produces wave emr that is then converted into different wavelengths of emr following centuries old knowledge of resonance and harmonic oscillators. Wavelengths which are then made to interfere with each other in what is called classical wave interference. And the resulting wavelength radiation is then detected at various detectors where wave radiation is absorbed by the detector atoms. Each atom acting sort of like a atom sized capacitor which absorbs discreet amounts of incident wave radiation and releases it in pulses to be amplified and sent to the detector hardware using the “electron” cascade effect. And misconstrued as some sort of magical spooky quantum action at a distance effect.“

The following link is a graphic description of how wave radiation and atom absorption can model imaginary ‘single double or triple photon’ quantum detection as a purely classical effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

And regarding the process cited in these papers as “quantum frequency convertors” and the supposed “surprising” harmonic order observed in SPE’s indicating a energy scale in the Science daily press release cited above.  Once again the classical nature of atoms as harmonic oscillators has been ignored in favour of quantum spookiness. 

To get the correct explanation using a classical wave only model of atoms and light that does not involve spooky quantum nonsense look to this following paper on Harmonic and sub harmonic wavelengths generated from a single fundamental wavelength in Hydrogen atoms: https://vixra.org/author/p_g_vejde

No need for any quantum magic. Any researchers or institutions wishing to try to harness classical wave interference correctly to try and exploit any possible advances in computing that classical interference could offer to computing had best stop wasting their time and budgets looking for mythical quantum dragons and spooky entangled angels. And hire me to explain how quantum theory has misled research into theoretical physics for more than a century ever since Neil’s Bohr published his misguided Electron shell model in the early 20th C. The fact is that all observed energy levels in all atoms can be modelled succesfully  using a wave only classical model. No imaginary electron shells or photons needed.

Fast Radio Burst mystery solved. They are short Gammaraybursts.

As usual the theorists haven’t the faintest idea about what mechanism produce Fast radio bursts and Gammaraybursts. In their ignorance they think imaginary massive explosions caused by imaginary black holes etc produce these flashes. Some fantasists have even imagined there is a time reversal structure, so desperate is their desire to try to explain why their “explosion” model always fails to model each successive new observation of either Gamma or Fast ray burst data. As these following links show:

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-fast-radio-approach-characterize-behavior.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-astrophysics-advances-gamma-ray.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aad335/pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927324000793?via%3Dihub

The actual mechanism of gamma and fast radio bursts is well described by a simple classical model where light is a wave only. GRB and FRB data is only consistent with a model where the universe is infinite and not expanding. And the speed of light is always and only c relative to its source. In other words ignore the all relativity based physics.

DO NOT make up a fantasy model that continually needs to be corrected as the actual data comes in as all established models currently do. Instead base your model on the data first and foremost. Not as an afterthought. If you do, as I do, it will always correctly predict any subsequent new observation. As the link below explains.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2019/12/grb-190114c.html

To start with all current data on Fast radio bursts is consistent with them being just very short Gammaraybursts where the burst time line itself is so short that all data above radio frequencies occurs too fast to be measured by our instrumentation above the background noise. So for instance if a FRB is observed to last only seconds, then it’s optical counterpart will be a flash in less then a thousandth of a second and the gammaray part of the burst will last in even smaller timeframes of millionth of a second or less. Too small a time to be measured currently by our latest technology.

Proof of this model is that if one looks at any FRB lightcurve it will always show an exponential decay in peak fluence from hi to low frequencies. Proportional to wavelength. The fluence of the FRB lightcurve lasts for longer times at longer wavelengths. This same decay rate is also observed in all GRB data for all observed wavelengths. Confirming that an FRB is just a very short GRB. 

So that for instance if in a GRB, the gamma lightcurve peaks at t_0 seconds and lasts 20 seconds, then the xray peak will be delayed slightly and last longer. And this trend will continue. Optical peaks later than xray and lasts for even longer. And, the trend continues through IR, far Infrared through to radio. Where shorter radio wavelength parts of the electromagnetic spectrum of the burst will not peak for hours or even days after gamma peaks. And the radio lightcurve also lasts for days and weeks longer than gamma. This model is confirmed by ALL grb and FRB data since they were first observed in the 1990’s.

The delay and stretch of each part of the EM spectrum of any burst will always follow this rule. That is that it will peak and decay later and longer proportional to wavelength.

This model of mine first developed in 1990 when GRBs were not known even to be isotropic. And, not only did I successfully predict  in 1990 that they would be isotropic. I also succesfully predicted that similar rebrightenings in all other wavelengths and lightcurves would be observed to be delayed proportional to wavelength. When no such data had yet even been observed. Nor even considered possible by the fantasies of the ridiculous fact free Neil Gehrels explosion model.

And to date, 35 years later, my models predictions have always been confirmed with each successive year. Whilst the explosion progenitor model’s predictions have failed each year since 1990.

Links to my own theories articles and videos cited above describe in more detail how this “Doppler” effect of light in a classical model can explain all GRB and FRB data. 

But in a nutshell let me here offer a simple analogy: Imagine a gedanken of a flat surface of a large body of water. Create a series of waves of a particular wavelength on this surface. Now imagine you are on a motorboat travelling with and at the same speed as those waves as they propagate across the surface of the water. You don’t measure any up and down of the waves because your are moving at the same speed as those waves. Now speed up and slowly overtake these wavefronts. What do you see or measure? Your boat now bounces up and down slowly as it overtakes/passes each wave crest. Speed your boat up again and those waves will appear to you to be at an even higher frequency. Thus the faster your boat moves, the higher the observed frequency of those waves you overtake will appear to be. Do this same gedanken with lightwaves in a non BBT universe and you will get a GRB.

This is just a Doppler effect. That is what GRB and FRB’s are. No explosions involved

Sagnac Experiment and Undulatory emission theory

Abstract

Reference on ring gyro Sagnac instruments show that these gyros measure any rotation and not just those ones where the Center of the instrument is the Center of rotation. By putting the Center of rotation of the mirror setup in the traditional Sagnac experiment underneath the source in the experiment the source will now not move relative to the lab and instead the experimental mirror setup rotates in circles in the lab and around the source.

Current theoretical assumptions on emission theory

According to most if not all current reference is the prediction that; Under emission theory the speed of light in the lab frame of the mirrored sagnac experiment should be at c plus or minus any extra velocity from the motion of the source as it rotates in the lab frame. The calculation made using c+-v is not consistent with the observations of path difference in Sagnac X and thus emission theory can apparently be ruled out and replaced with SR.

Alternative and correct interpretation of observations.

Further scrutiny of this assumption shows that this c+-v calculation is incorrect. Whatever this calculation represents, is doesn’t correctly calculate for any emission theory. Because the one central property of all emission theories is that light always has to be at a constant speed c in the source frame in the Sagnac X. And if this were correctly translated to the lab frame, light should therefore be at a variable speed in the lab frame if indeed the source were rotating in the lab frame.

Not at a constant c+-v in the lab frame as many of those critics of emission theory seem to contend. So it is interesting to note that all these critics avoid making a calculation in the only other frame that counts. The source frame.

The Source Frame. A frame where emission theories predict light must always be at c. The most notable emission theory being Ritz’s undulatory theory of light from the early 20th C in which he very specifically states light must always propagate away from the source at c. Regardless of the  motion of the source relative to anything else. Reflection of the light does not change the speed of the light in the sources frame also in Ritz’s model.

This can be tested empirically using any version of the Sagnac X. The key is to combine the source with the lab frame by putting the axis of rotation of the mirrors exactly at the same point below the source. Which is the where the light path splits into 2 at the Beam splitter. By doing so one makes the source frame the same as the lab frame. Seeing as in the lab frame the source will now not be moving. And now the mirrors rotate around the unmoving source. And in this source/lab frame it is easier to calculate the speed of light for an emission model by measuring distances travelled for each clockwise and counter clockwise beam. As is also currently done for predictions for SR.

At this point predictions from both emission and SR theories are consistent with those observations of light paths where the path is calculated in the source/lab frame. 

What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

 What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

To follow on from previous articles on this blog describing how light and atoms are wave only and how the offset between emission and absorption spectra can be described by waves only, I would like to supply a possible explanation and mechanism for what could cause the redshifting of light in a non expanding universe. This mechanism that occurs between an atom and emr and leads to a redshifting of light between absorbed and emitted light is the same mechanism. But on a much smaller scale when light propagates through a vacuum.

Distributing higher energies received to lower energies transmitted by any point in space of the vacuum.

Offset between absorption and emission spectra

 Offset between absorption and emission spectra

Although atoms are said to emit and absorb emr at only very specific frequencies (ie. Hydrogens Balmer series), observations contradict this. And show that there is an offset between the absorbed and re emitted light. Which seems counter-intuitive, given the assumption that the atoms resonant frequency should respond to and produce the same frequencies of light. Not two slightly different frequencies

To explain this one must realise that the each of atoms resonant frequencies is actually a range of resonant frequencies clustered around a single frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve. And confirmed also in spectra by the observed width of the emission/absorption line. With the peak amplitude of resonant wavelength being at the Center of the spectral line. 

In other words at each resonant frequency of the atom, as illustrated by the width of the observed spectral line of the atom, the atom actually has a range of resonant frequencies clustered around that specific frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve with the maximum frequency being at the peak of the curve at the Center of the observed spectral line.

Taking this into account one can then explain how the offset between emission and absorption occurs. Because although the frequency range of the atoms resonant frequency is a uniform bell curve above and below the center of that particular resonant frequency. The input and output energies are different on either side of the Center. 

The Higher frequency side of the bell curve will have more input energy than the lower frequency side seeing as higher frequencies have more energy. Thus the absorption spectral line appears to be stronger on the higher frequency side of the curve. And conversely when that same absorbed energy is emitted again by the atom, the lower frequencies appear brighter. Because although a larger part of the input energy to the atom was from the higher side of the frequency bell curve of the atom, the total emitted energy is split equally between both hi and low frequency sides of the resonant frequency bell curve. Resulting in a slightly lower frequency emission line

This assumption is based on the fact that the atoms resonant frequency is centered on a single hypothetical wavelength. When absorbing equal frequencies of energy on either side of the bell curve it becomes obvious the higher frequency side receives more energy and appears brighter in the observed spectra. But when this energy is emitted equally between lower and higher frequencies ...the lower frequency side of the bell curve appears brighter. Thus shifting the emitted spectral line slightly to a longer spectral wavelength. As observed.

A new model for a wave only atom

 A new model of a wave only atom

In this blog and it’s associated YouTube channel I have provided various descriptions of how a wave only model of light and atoms can explain phenomena like induction and radiation and particle paths in particle accelerators. Here I would like to focus on a way to describe how emr waves can be used to model the atom itself.

We know from centuries of observation that EM radiation emitted by atoms is wave like. And that atoms when measured always appear to be wave like as resonant systems. 

Starting off from the oft repeated assumption in this blog that the universe is non expanding and infinite in size and age it is possible to then say that light itself from very distant sources will not only be redshifted.  But also blueshifted as distant parts of a non expanding universe move towards or away from our relative position here on earth.

This means that in an infinite non expanding universe light from any direction can not only be blueshifted but also can be redshifted. So much so that the wavefront itself will appear stationary to us here on earth. Superimpose these standing waves of the same wavelength coming in from all directions so that they meet at one central point. This is the theoretical Center of the wave atom. This physical effect can be seen in 2 D examples like waves rippling in to the Center of a vibrating bowl of water. Vibrate the bowl and the waves radiate in to the Center and where they meet is a central node  where the converging waves overlap and there is a concentration of energy at that point. Ie the Center of energy of the system which is the analogy of the Center of a system of the wave atom. In this example the vibrating source( edge of bowl) doesn’t move relative to the Center so waves move in to and through the center. If this were the case with a wave only atom then the magnetic field would oscillate betwen north and south. It doesn’t.

But if the source for all these waves were moving away from the ‘Center’ at c, then the wavefronts converging at the Center of the atom would be stationary. Allowing the atom to display a stable north south magnetic field.

Imagine this wave only scenario  in 3 dimensions and we not only get a Center point corresponding to the atom , we also find that the closer together the converging waves are the more amplitude the spherical converging waves possess. This gives a shell like structure to the atom for that wavelength. And corresponds to what particle physicists incorrectly call electron energy levels of atoms. The closer the converging waves are to the Center, the greater the strength  of the magnetic attraction. And conversely it’s repulsion ( sometimes called the strong interaction)

Each element has its own set of converging wavelengths. Which are observed as the different lines in an emission or absorption spectra.

It’s no coincidence that the more lines the element has, the “heavier” and thus farther down the periodic table the atom sits.

Obviously these wavelength shells I describe are directly related to the mass of the atom. Seeing as each wavelength shell is essentially a n-s magnetic field, lined up with all the other n-s orientations of the different wavelength shells. It thus takes energy (in the form of a external magnetic field) to move or rotate each shell. The more shells,...the more energy needed to move or rotate all the shells of that atom. Hence the mass of the atom is accounted for. 

And as described elsewhere in this blog we can then relate this model and describe ALL other known forces and phenomena related to atoms. Including gravity as a LeSage push gravity, Van der Waals and the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. Without having to resort to the veritable overpopulated and ridiculous zoo of particles and imaginary forces that the precopernican Standard model has become littered with.