First observation of a focused plasma wave on the sun

The following link is from an article titled ‘First Observation of a focussed plasma wave on the sun’

https://phys.org/news/2024-05-focused-plasma-sun.html

I have to say the quality of this research seems to be very poor. Or at the very least a rather complicated and torturous mathematical description of what is simply two convex wavefronts travelling across a liquid surface. An ubiquitous example seen everyday in waterwaves.  

The paper claims in the following quote from the article on the paper linked above:

“the original arc-shaped wavefronts changed to an anti-arc shape, with the curvature flipped by 180 degrees, from curved outward to saddle-shaped outward”

Fortunately a time based series of images from the Solar Dynamics Observatory is also supplied to show the data in graphic form. Making it  easier for visual analysis. No need for algorithms and pseudoscientific mathematical models. And let me stress the point: There is no “anti arc” concave wavefront. The researchers, being visually illiterate mathematicians, were unable to understand the data in a simple visual graphic format. Despite the fact that this data in graphic form is presented as evidence in their paper.!! Hi-liting how maths has prevented theoretical physics from understanding the true nature of the universe.

Look at and study frame by frame, the animated sequence of solar images from the paper and also supplied in the linked article above at the phys.org website. (And originally published in Nature at this link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46846-z )

What is actually happening is that there are two main sources of circular expanding wavefronts on the solar surface coming from the initial coronal ejection (s) starting at a central point one above the other on the left hand side of the satelitte images.  These are essentially convex wavefronts in the “liquid/plasma” surface of the sun. (Analogous to two waves in water propagating outwards from two stones dropped into the water simultaneously and adjacent to each other.) As the two wavefronts propagate outwards and horizontally towards the right hand side of the images, they NEVER flip from convex to concave. What actually happens is the two main convex waves intersect and interfere with each other as they propagate rightwards in the images across the plane of the suns surface and create an ILLUSION of a single concave wave propagating to the right of the satelitte images. 

This is a simple effect seen in water waves in ripple tanks or for that matter, in any liquid. In the illustration below the two sets of concentric rings indicate the two wavefronts travelling out across the solar surface after the initial event. The time lapse is shown by colouring the sets of 2 expanding wavefront circles with different  colours as follows. 

Time (t) elapsed is denoted as: t1 green circles, t2 black, t3 red and t4 blue.

Reversal of quantized Hall drift at non interacting and interacting topological boundaries.

 The following paper seems to misunderstand basic physics. And attributes what is essentially classical Newtonian physics to imaginary pseudoscientific quantum effects.

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-reveals-topological-reversal-quantum.html

This misunderstanding is based on the fact that QT theorists have assumed light is a particle *and* a wave. This is a false assumption. Light is wave only. And all imaginary magical “ quantum” effects are actually just theorists misunderstanding the wave based nature of light and pretending it’s also a particle. Any imaginary quantum effects can be just as well described by classical waves and classical polarisation. As the following links explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

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

Take for instance the polarisation of EMR after reflection. Notice the handedness of the incident circular polarised wave changes handedness. But only in its direction of propagation!

Because from the observers point of view the incident wave has the same handedness as the reflected wave. 

This is because polarisation of light is dictated by the angle of the magnetic field of the incident light wave. And thus the handedness of the polarisation of the reflected light will be the same as the angle of the incident light waves. 

In case this doesn’t make sense to any student of physics indoctrinated into the nonsense of ridiculous quantum theory then look at how polarisation of a reflected wave depends on the polarisation of the incident wave.

If for an observer looking at the reflection plane at t_0 the incident circular polarised wave is polarised vertically relative to the observer at 12:00 o’clock. Then its reflected wave will also be polarised vertically. In other words the polarisation angle of the light beam moving towards and hitting the mirror will be vertical,relative to the observer.

Then it follows that at t_1 the incident circularly polarised wave has rotated slightly clockwise to 1:00 o’clock and that the reflected wave now moving towards the observer will also be polarised to the angle of 1:00 o’clock. BUT...relative to the observer.

This is referred to in physics as a flipping of handedness for polarisation at reflection. But what the reference fails to mention is that yes although the handedness flips at reflection. That is only true in the direction of propagation. Whereas from an observer point of view the handedness does not flip at reflection. 

This phenomena also can explain the observations in the experiment cited above. Because the handedness of the magnetic fields of the atoms upon reflection at the barrier is dependent on the angle of the atoms magnetic field before it reflects. And notice in the experiment the  handedness of the magnetic field of the atom after reflection is the same as before it is reflected. As with EMR at reflection.

No quantum effects needed. Just a simple following of the classical physics rule of magnetism on reflection. 

Which is: From an external observers point of view looking at the mirror, if a magnetic field is reflected its angle of polarisation must be preserved. And, for the external observer, be the same for the reflected atom or light wave as the angle of polarisation of the incident atom or lightwave.

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.

Delayed Choice Classical Eraser Experiment

The main illustration above is a schematic of the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. (Kim et al 1999)

The coincidence rates compiled from the 5 detectors can be explained by a classical model. By assuming the following: The light arriving at D0, D3, and D4 is vertically and horizontally polarized. Alternating between the two states once per frequency cycle of the light beam. (Circular polarization is one possibility). Each polarized state has its own associated interference pattern. The image on the movable detector plane of D0 is of two, overlapping, out of phase interference patterns rapidly oscillating between each other. Once per frequency cycle of the light. The overall superimposed image of the two overlapping patterns, over time, is of no overall interference pattern. 

The lightbeams arriving at D1 and D2 have been additionally plane polarized. One vertical one horizontally. This also puts the horizontal out of phase by half a cycle, temporaly, from the vertical.Thus essentially, the detectors D1 and D2 each only recieve half of the light pulse that leaves the beam splitter. Either vertical or horizontally polarized. This allows detectors D1 and D2 to only trigger light detections coincident with a light detection from only one of the two rapidly oscillating interference patterns at D0. 

Detectors D3 and D4 on the other hand, receive both vertical and horizontal plarized light. And thus detectors D3 and D4 have coincident detections with both overlapping oscllating interference patterns at D0.

This is what is observed in the Kim et al experimental setup.

There is no need for a counterintuitive "quantum erasure". The observed coincidence rates are explained simply by polarization states of light incident on the 5 detectors.

(Sept2021 postscript: Ive noticed from some comments that a more detailed explanation is needed. Here is additional information: This experiment is as easily explained using classical wave only theory and polarised states. Light leaves the double slit/BBO/Glan Thompson prism with alternating polarity between vertical and horizontal.

(This is essentially circular polarised light. Because if the two beams going to detector zero werent alternating between horizontal and vertical polarised light each cycle and instead were just two same plane polarised beams as some pretend, then the two phase shifted interference patterns and diffraction patterns observed at detector 0 would not be possible) 

Detectors 1 and 2 get two light beams each. One beam reflected twice which means the light incident on each detector is a combination of left and right hand circular polarised light beams. Which can only result in plane polarised light hitting each detector 1&2.  (Note that if one combines a left handed circular polarised beam with a right handed circular polarised beam the combined result is a beam that alternates between two opposing polarised states and plane polarisation each cycle. That is effectively plane polarised light.

Because the D1 beams undergo opposite reflections at the mirrors and beam splitters from the D2 beams...the two detectors 1&2 thus also each receive polarised light that is phase shifted by half cycle from the other. Ie..vertical and horizontal respectively.

Detectors 3 and 4 only get one beam reflected once, each.(The one reflection restores the polarity of the beams from orthogonally polarised circular light leaving the BBO/G-T prism setup back to identically circular polarisation. Which means they get the same phase light as that arriving at detector zero. 

The resulting polarised states mean D1&2 each only “observe at Detector Zero” via the coincidence counter two seperate phase shifted interference patterns from the other .And detectors 3 & 4, having the same incident polarised light as detector zero , observe diffraction patterns via the coincidence counter. 

No spooky quantum mumbo jumbo  maths needed to explain this experiment.

And finally to address claims that the Glan Thompson prism used in the experiment cannot send circular polarised light beams to the rest of the experimental setup. Critics cite evidence showing that similar birefringement mediums such as calcite crystals split the beam into two orthogonally plane polarised beams. And using plane polarisation filters they show how the two exiting light beams must be only plane polarised. As a plane polarised filter put over the two images only allows through one of the two images coming through the calcite filter. 

However this ignores the fact that a vertically plane polarising filter allows through not just vertical polarised light...but all angles except horizontal. So for instance around 45% of the light polarised at 45 degrees to vertical is let through a vertically polarised filter. The more the polarisation angle of the light deviates from vertical the less light is let through etc.

In other words a circular polarised beam will be split into two polarised beams by the crystal one beam preserving majority vertical, one majority horizontal. But still containing elements of all other angles of polarisation. And thus the circular polarisation of the beam is preserved.

Proof of this is available at any demonstration showing unpolarised light going through two plane polarised filters. Position both filters at vertical and all vertically polarised light from a source goes through, and blocking all horizontal polarised light. Turn one filter slowly to horizontal and the light coming through decreases to zero as both vertical and horizontal light from the source are now blocked. Light coming through doesn’t immediately decrease to zero as soon as the two polarised filters angle starts to diverge. It is an incremental decrease. Proving a plane or linear polarising filter still lets through almost all angles of polarisation. But at different amplitudes. 

This is how one can explain how two circular polarised light beams can appear as two plane polarised beams exiting the Glan Thompson prism.

For further description of how this can be modelled as a classical effect only, watch the following...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KekfbrzO74