Constant Light Speed The Greatest Misconception of Modern Science. Copyright Joseph A. Rybczyk

Transcription

1 Constant Light Speed The Greatest Misconception of Modern Science Copyright 2015 Joseph A. Rybczyk Abstract With no valid evidence to support it, the speed of light is claimed to be constant in empty space at meters per second regardless of the speed of its source or detector. This claim is based on the false principles of Einstein s Special Theory of Relativity and various wellknown highly quoted experiments and other observational evidence that are said to support both, the claim and the theory. Yet, when such evidence is examined in minute detail it always turns out to be faulty and inconclusive, or downright invalid in its findings. And, even worse, as in the case of the Michelson and Morley interferometer experiment, new scientific principles are invented to explain the failure of the experiment to produce the predicted results it was designed to detect. When all of the evidence is evaluated over a sufficient period of time, that can be a decade or more, it becomes impossible to imbue it with any credibility at all. The task then becomes to seek out the truth regarding the real nature of light propagation. And, contrary to current theory, it is subsequently found that the speed of light does appear to take on the speed of the light source and, or, detector. 1

2 Constant Light Speed The Greatest Misconception of Modern Science Copyright 2015 Joseph A. Rybczyk 1. Introduction When all of the conceived possibilities that may or may not effect the propagation of light through empty space are taken into consideration it is clear that the process can be very confusing. First we must take into consideration if light does, or does not require a so-called ether medium in which to travel through in otherwise empty space. If so, then we must consider if such a medium is of the form of a single absolute frame of reference that all motion in the universe is referenced to. Or, does it exist in the form of a separate medium in the moving frame of each and every object in the universe? Conversely, we must consider if light does not require a medium at all to travel through empty space. And, if so, does empty space still take on the form of an absolute reference frame that all motion in the universe is referenced to? Or, does light travel at the speed of emission relative to its source in the inertial frame of its source, expanding away from it at a constant speed in all directions as its source moves through empty space at some other speed? In the process of examining all of these possibilities we must revert to the theoretical evidence obtained from microscopic experimental processes and observations involving such things as photons and light waves to that obtained from macroscopic experimental processes and observations involving the light received from light emitting objects such as stars and galaxies that make up the known universe. When all of these factors are taken into consideration it becomes very apparent that even though the true nature of light propagation might be simple in concept, the process of discovering exactly what it is can be dauntingly complicated. Having spent many years examining all of these possibilities, the author has concluded that light does not require a propagation medium and therefore travels though empty space at a speed that includes the speed at which it was emitted by its source and the speed and direction of its source relative to the point of detection or observation. The author is also aware of the fact that some individuals have a negative conception of the term, observation. It should be understood that the term is simply meant to specify the point in space that the light under discussion has reached with regard to its predicted or detected behavior. To preclude this practice from discussion serves only to make any conclusions meaningless as they cannot be validated through experiments. In the following sections the author will re-examine some of the previously mentioned experiments and observations that his conclusions are based on and explain why the original conclusions that led to Einstein s Special Theory of Relativity 1 are invalid. In so doing, the author will do his best to keep the explanations as simple and direct as feasibly possible. 2. The Michelson and Morley Interferometer Debacle The Michelson and Morley interferometer experiment 2 of 1887 was highly influenced by the nature in which sound waves travel through air. It was believed at the time that light travels through an ether medium in a similar manner to that in which sound waves travel through the atmosphere. If such a medium existed and the Earth was moving through it, then an instrument fixed to the Earth s surface that split a beam of light and sent half of the beam in a back and forth 2

3 direction that was perpendicular to the back and forth direction of the other half, it would produce a fringe pattern when the beams were recombined at the end of the trip. Such fringe pattern would then give proof that the otherwise invisible ether medium did, in fact, exist. The failure of the experiment to produce the expected results led to one of the greatest departures from scientific principles in history. The practice soon became one in which reasons were invented to explain the failure of the experiment to produce the preconceived results that it designed to detect. In the end, Einstein s explanation via the special theory of relativity was accepted, and the science of physics was never the same again. The failure of the scientific method that took place back then can be summed up as follows: When the expected results of an experiment or observation are null, we must first determine if the methods or procedures used were capable of distinguishing what was being search for. If the answer is no; we must then find a better way to proceed. If the answer is yes; we must then consider other possibilities, even those that may have been brushed aside originally because they didn t conform to our current beliefs. But, most important of all, we must look for the simplest solution practical. This is not what was done in the aftermath of the Michelson and Morley experiment. New principles such as distance contraction in the direction of motion and time dilation in the moving frame were devised to make the results agree with what was believed to be true at the time. The scientific discovery process was replaced by the scientific invention process. In a sense, Einstein s theory qualifies for a patent. 3. The Invalidity of de Sitter s Binary Star Observations In 1913 the Dutch mathematician, physicist and astronomer, Willem de Sitter, publicized the results of his binary star observations 3 that he claimed supported the constancy of light speed in empty space principle as given in Einstein s 1905 theory of relativity. According to de Sitter if light takes on the speed of the source as illustrated in Figure 1, then the faster light emitted in the direction of the observer ½ orbit after the slower light was emitted in that same direction will eventually catch up with the slower light and the star will be observed in the two positions at the same time. To determine the credibility of this claim, we need to first calculate the distance between the observer and binary star system at which this double image would occur. To Observer at c - v c Secondary Star v Primary Star To Observer at c + v (1/2 orbit later) c v Figure 1 Observed Light from Secondary Binary Star The author performed such an analysis on January 19, 2013 and posted the results on the visitor forum of his Millennium Relativity website 4 on January 23, 2013 under the heading, Visual 3

4 Binary Star Model in the Thread: Binary Stars, de Sitter, the Hubble Telescope and Newton s Gravity. A copy of the analysis is included as an appendix at the end of this paper. The results of the analysis showed that for an average binary star system, the distance to the star system would have to be so great that it would be far outside the range of even the Hubble Space Telescope, the world s top telescope of today. It is also well known that de Sitter s claim was later changed to mean that the anomalous behavior detected at the vastly smaller distances observable with the telescope used back then, would be apparent through spectrographic analysis. This claim is also lacking in credibility according to the current author. When all of the variables are considered, including the number of stars involved *, the eccentricity of the orbits, the orientation of the orbital plane relative to the observer, etc., none of which are directly observable at the distances involved, it is virtually impossible to decipher the true meaning of the spectrographic data obtained. (* many so-called visual binary star systems were later found to have a third and even a fourth star that initially escaped detection due to the apparent limitations of the telescopes used) It should also be noted, that larger orbits means slower orbital speeds and conversely, faster orbital speeds means smaller orbits, which obviously counter any supposed advantages of such considerations with regard to the ability to directly detect the behavior quoted by de Sitter. 4. The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment Paradox The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment 5 uses a laser on Earth to measure the distance between the Earth and Moon. It uses retro-reflectors that were placed on the Moon during the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 missions beginning with the Apollo 11 mission in July The experiments were ongoing for 35 years and are claimed to have measured the ever changing Earth-Moon distance with an accuracy equivalent to measuring the distance between Los Angeles and New York to within 0.25 mm. This claim is paradoxically valid and invalid at the same time as will be discussed next. When it comes to measuring large distances, even on Earth, there is no perfect way to do it. A case in point is the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey 6 conducted over a 2 year period beginning in 1922 to accurately measure the baseline distance between Mount Wilson Observatory and Lookout Mountain, some 22 miles apart. This was accomplished in order to permit the back and forth measurement of the speed of light by an experiment conducted by the American physicist Albert A. Michelson. The experiment 7, conducted over a 2 year period beginning in 1924 was beset by problems, including a shift in the baseline measurement caused by the Santa Barbara earthquake of June 29, 1925, and yielded a published value for the speed of light of 299,796 ± 4 km/s. In view of our inability to physically measure short distances on Earth with a high degree of accuracy, how then are we to measure distances in space? The only methods available are those using a beam of light or some other type of electromagnetic signal. It should be noted that even using the principles of geometric triangulation we have to physically measure the base between two points on the surface of the Earth. And, that brings us back to the Mount Wilson Observatory and Lookout Mountain problem. When it comes to space, there is also the skinny triangle problem. The triangle becomes skinny very quickly when extended out into the deep reaches of space and quickly reaches its limit. In summary, we are stuck with a paradox. We use the known speed of light to measure distances in space, such as the distance to the Moon, and then use that obtained distance to determine the speed of light. In pondering this paradox it should be understood that the speed of light in a vacuum is now a universal constant 8 important 4

5 in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly meters per second, as the length of the meter is defined by this constant and the international standard for time. With all of these considerations in mind, let us now conduct an analysis of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. Assume that a Laser located on the surface of the Earth in the Northern Hemisphere fires a pulse to a retro-reflector on the Moon as the Earth location rotates about the Earth axis in the direction of the moon as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. To Sun N θ = ϕ = 5.14 Side View Earth to Moon Distance is 384,400 km Moon Dia. 3,474 km S Orbital Axis Earth Equatorial Diameter 12,755 km Earth Equatorial Circumference 40,070 km Figure 2 Earth to Moon Relationships In Figure 2 the Earth to Moon relationships are shown as viewed from the edges of their orbital planes to emphasize the fact that the Earth s Northern rotational axis is tilted in the direction of the Moon in addition to the fact that the Moon s orbital plane about the Earth is tilted slightly in relation to the Earth s orbital plane about the Sun as shown. It should also be noted that for purposes of enhanced understanding, the illustrations were drawn to scale. Proceeding now to Figure 3 the same orbital relationships are shown as viewed from above their orbital planes. Here we see the relationship of Earth s rotational motion about its axis and the forward and return trip of the laser pulse to the moon and back. Earth Rotation Earth Top View Back and Forth Laser Pulse Moon Figure 3 Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment For the example to be covered we will use the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico where such Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments were actually carried out. To begin the analysis we need to first determine the Earth s rotational speed for the Apache Point Observatory where the laser is located. Since the Earth s rotational speed for a given location on the Earth s surface varies from 0 m/s at the poles to its maximum amount at the equator and since the formula we will be using makes use of the equatorial speed, we need to first determine the speed at the equator. Using a solar day, the formula for the speed at the equator is 5

6 1 where ve is Earth s rotational speed in m/s at the equator, Ec is Earth s circumference in m, and ssd is the number of seconds in a solar day. This gives where the Earth s rotational speed ve at the equator is m/s. In order to determine the rotational speed at another location on Earth, we need to know the latitude of that location in degrees. The northern latitude for the Apache Point Observatory is 32 46ʹ 49ʺ. This gives where L is the northern latitude of the Apache Point Observatory in degrees. Then using the formula cos we obtain v = m/s for Earth s rotational speed at the location of the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico. Lost in the fray at this point in the analysis is how we accurately determined all of these distance related dimensions on Earth independent of knowing the precise speed of light? Ignoring this fact for the moment, we will now move on to the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. A. The Case Where Light Takes on the Source Speed Referring to Figure 4 the conditions associated with light taking on the speed of its source are illustrated. In this case distance D1 represents the distance the laser pulse traveled from the Apache Point Observatory to the retro-reflector on the Moon and distance D2 represents the corresponding distance the Apache Point Observatory, from which the laser pulse was fired, traveled in the direction of the Moon during the same time interval T1. For the return trip of the pulse, D3 represents the distance the pulse traveled back to the Apache Point Observatory and D4 represents the corresponding distance the Observatory traveled in the direction of the Moon during the same time interval T2. Earth D 1 = (c + v)t 1 Moon D 2 = vt 1 D 4 = vt 2 D 3 = (c + v)t 2 Figure 4 Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment (Light Takes On Source Speed) 6

7 Since our main objective is to compare the total round trip times for the pulse to travel to the moon and back based on light taking on the speed of the source vs light having a constant speed c, we can use the international standard value for c given earlier, along with the observatory speed previously derived and the average distance to the Moon to solve for time T1 as given for D1 in Figure 4. Thus, for c = m/s, v = m/s (Ref. Eq. (4)), and the average distance to the Moon given by where the two numbers in the numerator are the shortest distance and longest distance in m/s, we have Dm = x 10 8 m/s for the average distance between the Earth and Moon. Using these values in equation (6) 6 derived from Figure 4, we obtain for the time interval T1 in seconds that the laser pulse took to reach the Moon. To obtain an equation for time interval T2 that the pulse took to return to Earth we proceed as follows: From Figure 4 we next derive the equation 8 and by the process of substitution obtain 9 that when solved for T2 gives ending with

8 for time interval T2 that it took the pulse to return to Earth. Substituting the previously determined values for T1, c and v gives for the T2 return time in seconds. In finishing, we have 15 where T is the total trip time, giving for the total round trip time in seconds in which the pulse travels to the Moon and back. Now let us do a similar analysis for the opposing case where light is claimed to have a constant speed c in empty space regardless of the speed of the source or detector. B. The Case Where the Speed of Light is Constant Referring now to Figure 5 we have the conditions where light does not take on the speed of the source and therefore travels through empty space at the constant speed c defined earlier for the international light speed standard. Since light does not take on the speed of the source, the formula for the forward trip time T1 in which the laser pulse travels from the Apache Point Observatory to the retro-reflector on the Moon has the simpler form 17 where D1 and c have the same values previously used. This gives for the value of time interval T1 in seconds that it took the laser pulse to reach the Moon. Earth D 1 = ct 1 Moon D 2 = vt 1 D 4 = vt 2 D 3 = ct 2 Figure 5 Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment (Light Speed is Constant) At this point we use equation (19), the same equation previously derived as equation (8), but this time to equate the distances given in Figure 5. 8

9 19 Then, similar to before, by the process of substitution we derive 20 that when solved for time interval T2 gives from which we then derive 23 for the formula that gives time interval T2 for the return of the pulse from the retro-reflector on the Moon back to the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico. Then, by substituting the value for T1 derived in Eq. (18) along with the same values used for c and v in the previous analysis, we obtain for the T2 return time in seconds. And, as before, we use Eq. (15) re-labeled (25) 25 to determine the total time for the pulse to complete the round trip to the Moon and back. Substituting the values just obtained for T1 and T2 gives for the total trip time T in seconds for the case where light travels at a constant speed c in empty space and is unaffected by the speed of the source or detector. C. Comparison of Trip Times To compare trip times between the two opposing theories we need to first make a distinction between the time variables used. This is most easily accomplished by simply adding a c subscript to all of the variables used for constant light speed. Thus we have

10 where, as in all of the other examples, all of the values are given to the 8 th decimal place. In reviewing equations (33) and (34) it can be seen that the difference in time for each part of the trip is on the order of approximately 1.7 microseconds. This then equates to approximately 3.3 microseconds for the difference in time required for the complete trip with regard to the laser pulse taking on the speed of the source or traveling at a constant speed c as indicated by equation (35). The point being that the difference in time is insignificant. We must keep in mind here that in reality we don t get the different results from two competing experiments, one conducted with the pulse taking on the speed of the source, and one conducted with the pulse traveling at a constant speed c. We get only one result and are expected to use it as proof that light does, or does not take on the speed of the source. But, it s even worse than that. Light was originally sent to the Moon and back to determine the distance to the Moon and then that same distance is later used to measure the speed of light. This is a paradox of the highest order. It is also important to understand that there are many different factors involved in the actual lunar laser experiment that were not used in the analysis given in this paper. For example, because of the tilts in both the Earth s rotational axis and the Moon s orbital plane, as shown in Figure 2, a chosen location on Earth s surface does not actually travel directly in the direction of a point on the Moon s surface. Also, the analysis could be duplicated using sidereal time instead of solar time as was accomplished here. But, none of these considerations would have any significant effect on the overall results of the experiment. In fact, they would produce a net result that was even closer for the two different cases then the results given here. 5. Conclusion Contrary to what the reader might expect, the author must commend the scientific establishment for the manner in which scientific evidence was used to correlate physically measurable distances on Earth with non-physically measurable distances in space. There is not now, and most likely never will be a way to directly measure distances in space, or even large distances on Earth, without the use of light or other electromagnetic signals. Thus, in the author s opinion, it was a correct decision to establish the emission value c of light speed as an international standard in which case it can be used to measure distances beyond our physical means. But, the scientific authorities should make it clear that distances measured in that manner, like the distance to the Moon, will subsequently verify the assigned value for the speed of light that was used to determine the distance in the first place. But, even more importantly, the scientific authorities should not claim that the evidence supports the proposition that the speed of light is constant in empty space and does not take on the speed of the source or detector. There is absolutely no evidence at all to support such claim. Conversely, from the stand point of the principles of theoretical physics, there is an overwhelming amount of theoretical evidence in support of the principle that light does take on the speed of the source. 10

11 Appendix: Visual Binary Star Observation-Distance Related Effects REFERENCES 1 Albert Einstein, the Special Theory of Relativity, originally published under the title, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Annalen der Physik, 17, (1905) 2 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, (1887 experiment to detect ether), as presented in Physics for Scientists and Engineers, second edition, (Ginn Press, MA, 1990) and Exploration of the Universe, third edition, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1975) 3 Willem de Sitter, (1913 observation of visual binary stars) Observed light from twenty-seven visual binary star systems and concluded that light does not take on the speed of the source. 4 Millennium Relativity, 5 Lunar Laser Ranging experiment, Speed of light, Mount Wilson and Lookout Mountain 7 Speed of light, Mount Wilson and Lookout Mountain 8 Speed of Light, Constant Light Speed The Greatest Misconception of Modern Science Copyright 2015 Joseph A. Rybczyk All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form without permission. 11

12 Appendix- Visual Binary Star Observation-Distance Related Effects 12