Archive for category Light, photons
Many optical phenomena have poor or no explanations at the level of individual photon particles. Examples are the processes of photon emission, photon absorption, phase change at reflection, and laser emissions. These are adequately described by the classical electromagnetic wave theory of light, but that applies to waves and is difficult to extend to individual particles. Quantum mechanics (QM) better represents the behaviour of individual particles, but its power of explanation is weak, i.e. it can put numbers to phenomena but its explanations cannot be grounded in physical realism. QM is unable to explain how the 0D point of the photon is absorbed into the 0D point of the electron, or how a 0D photon separates into an electron and antielectron (pair production), or how matter and antimatter annihilate back to photons.
In the paper http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.710094 we show how to solve this explanatory problem. We show that it is possible to explain many optical phenomena involving energy conversion. The solution involves a new physics at the sub-particle level, in the form of a non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) solution.
It has long been known that the bonding commitments of the electron affect its energy behaviour but the mechanisms for this have been elusive. We show how the degree of bonding constraint on the electron determines how it processes excess energy, see figure. A key concept is that the span and frequency of the electron are inversely proportional. This explains why energy changes cause positional distress for the electron.
Natural explanations are given for multiple emission phenomena: Absorbance; Saturation; Beer-Lambert law; Colour; Quantum energy states; Directional emission; Photoelectric effect; Emission of polarised photons from crystals; Refraction effects; Reflection; Transparency; Birefringence; Cherenkov radiation; Bremsstrahlung and Synchrotron radiation; Phase change at reflection; Force impulse at reflection and radiation pressure; Simulated emission (Laser).
The originality of this work is the elucidation of a mechanism for how the electron responds to combinations of bonding constraint and pumped energy. The crucial insight is that the electron size and position(s) are coupled attributes of its frequency and energy, where the coupling is achieved via physical substructures. The theory is able to provide a logically coherent explanation for a wide variety of energy conversion phenomena.
Christchurch, New Zealand
15 June 2016
More information – The full paper (gold open access) is available at:
Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., (2016), Energy conversion mechanics for photon emission per non-local hidden-variable theory. Journal of Modern Physics, 7(10), 1049-1067. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.710094
Why is the speed of light constant in the vacuum?
The constancy of the speed of light c in the vacuum was the key insight in Einstein’s work on relativity. However this was an assumption, rather than a proof. It is an assumption that has worked well, in that the resulting theory has shown good agreement with many observations. The Michelson-Morley experiment directly tested the idea of Earth moving through a stationary ether, by looking for differences in the speed of light in different directions, and found no evidence to support such a theory. There is no empirical evidence that convincingly shows the speed of light to be variable in-vacuo in the vicinity of Earth. However it is possible that the speed of light is merely locally constant, and different elsewhere in the universe. In our latest paper we show why this might be so.
Fundamental questions about light
There are several perplexing questions about light:
- What is the underlying mechanism that makes the speed of light constant in the vacuum?
- What properties of the universe cause the speed of light to have the value it has?
- If the speed of light is not constant throughout the universe, what would be the mechanisms?
- How does light move through the vacuum?
- The vacuum has properties: electric and magnetic constants. Why, and what causes these?
- How does light behave as both a wave and particle? (Wave-particle duality)
- How does a photon physically take two different paths? (Superposition in interferometers)
- How does entanglement work at the level of the individual photon?
These are questions of fundamental physics, and of cosmology. Consequently there is on-going interest in the speed of light at the foundational level. The difficulty is that neither general relativity nor quantum mechanics can explain why c should be constant, or why it should have the value it does. Neither for that matter does string/M theory. Gaining a better understanding of this has the potential to bridge the particle and cosmology scales of physics.
Is the speed of light really constant? Everywhere? At all times?
There has been ongoing interest in developing theories where c is not constant. These are called variable speed of light (VSL) theories [see paper for more details]. The primary purpose of these is to explore for new physics at deeper levels, with a particular interest in quantum-gravity. For example, it may be that the invariance of c breaks down at very small scales, or for photons of different energy, though such searches have been unsuccessful to date. Another approach is cosmological. If the speed of light was to be variable, it could solve certain problems. Specifically, the horizon, inflation and flatness problems might be resolved if there were a faster c in the early universe, i.e. a time-varying speed of light. There are several other possible applications for a variable speed of light theory in cosmology.
However there is one big problem:
In all existing VSL theories the difficulty is providing reasons for why c should vary with time or geometric scale.
The theories require the speed of light to be different at genesis, and then somehow change slowly or suddenly switch over at some time or event, for reasons unknown. None of the existing VSL theories describe why this should be, nor do they propose underlying mechanics. This is problematic, and contributes to existing VSL theories not being widely accepted.
Cordus theory predicts the speed of light is variable, and attributes it to fabric density
In our paper [apr.v8n3p111] we apply the non-local hidden-variable (Cordus) theory to this problem. It turns out that it is a logical necessity of the theory that the speed of light be variable. The theory also predicts a specific underlying mechanism for this. Our findings are that the speed of light is inversely proportional to fabric density. This is because the discrete fields of the photon interact dynamically with the fabric and therefore consume frequency cycles of the photon. The fabric arises from aggregation of discrete force emissions (fields) from massy particles, which in turn depends on the proximity and spatial distribution of matter.
This theory offers a conceptually simply way to reconcile the refraction of light in both gravitational situations and optical materials: the density of matter affects the fabric density, and hence affects the speed of light. So when light enters a denser medium, say a glass prism, then it encounters an abrupt increase in fabric density, which slows its speed. Likewise light that grazes past a star is subject to a small gradient in the fabric, hence resulting in gravitational bending of the light-path. Furthermore, the theory accommodates the constant speed of light of general relativity, as a special case of a locally constant fabric density. In other words, the fabric density is homogeneous in the vicinity of Earth, so the speed of light is also constant in this locality. However, in a different part of the universe where matter is more sparse, the speed of light is predicted to be faster. Similarly, at earlier time epochs when the universe was more dense, the speed of light would have been slower. This also means that the results disfavour the universal applicability of the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy of the universe.
The originality in this paper is in proposing underlying mechanisms for the speed of light. Uniquely, this theory identifies fabric density as the dependent variable. In contrast, other VSL models propose that c varies with time or some geometric-like scale, but struggle to provide plausible reasons for that dependency.
This theory predicts that the speed of light is inversely proportional to the fabric density, which in turn is related to the proximity of matter. The fabric fills even the vacuum of space, and the density of this fabric is what gives the electric and magnetic constants their values, and sets the speed of light. The speed of light is constant in the vicinity of Earth, because the local fabric density is relatively isotropic. This explanation also accommodates relativistic time dilation, gravitational time dilation, gravitational bending of light, and refraction of light. So the speed of light is a variable that depends on fabric density, hence is an emergent property of the fabric.
The paper is available open access: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v8n3p111
The fabric density concept is covered at http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874381101306010077.
The corresponding theory of time, which predicts that time speeds up in situations of lower fabric density, is at http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n6p23.
Citation for published paper:
Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., & Pons, A. J. (2016). Speed of light as an emergent property of the fabric. Applied Physics Research, 8(3): 111-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v8n3p111
Original work on physics archive (2013) : http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0148
Fine structure constant α
This is a dimensionless constant, represented with the symbol α (alpha), and it relates together the electric charge, the vacuum permittivity, and the speed of light.
The equation is as follows:
The impedance of free space is Zo = 1/(εoc) = 2αh/e2, with electric constant εo (also called vacuum permittivity), the speed of light in the vacuum c, and the fine structure constant α = e2/(2εohc), with elementary charge e [coulombs], Planck constant h, and c as before. All these are generally considered physical constants, i.e. are fixed values for the universe.
One example of how this relationship may be used is as follows. Given the electric charge, and the vacuum permittivity, then the alpha equation may be used to explain why the speed of light has the value it does. The equation may be rearranged into other equivalent forms.
What is the physical meaning of the fine structure constant?
This is a more difficult question, especially when coupled with the question, Why does alpha take the value it does? This is something of a mystery.
We believe we can answer some parts of this question. In a recent paper of the Cordus theory it has been proposed that both the vacuum permittivity and the speed of light are dependent variables, and situationally specific. It is proposed that εo represents the density of the discrete forces in the fabric, and thus depends on the spatial distribution of mass within the universe. Thus the electric constant is recast as an emergent property of the fabric, and hence of matter.
From this perspective α is a measure of the transmission efficacy of the fabric, i.e. it determines the relationship between the electric constant of the vacuum fabric, and the speed of propagation c through the fabric.
This is consistent with the observation that α appears wherever electrical forces and propagation of fields occur, and this includes cases such as electron bonding.
The reason the speed of light is limited to a certain finite value is explained by this theory as a consequence of the fabric density creating a temporal impedance. Thus denser fabric results in a slower speed of light, and this is consistent with time dilation, and optical refraction generally. In the Cordus theory the speed of light in turn is determined by the density of the fabric discrete forces and is therefore locally consistent and relativistic, but ultimately dependent on the past history of matter density in the locally available universe. Thus the vacuum (fabric) has a finite speed of light, despite an instantaneous communication across the fibril of the particule. This Cordus theory is consistent with the known impedance of free space though comes at it from a novel direction.
The implications are the electric constant of free space is not actually constant, but rather depends on the fabric density, hence on the spatial distribution of matter. The fabric density also determines the speed of light in the situation, and α is the factor that relates the two for this universe. It would appear to be a factor set at genesis of the universe.
Pons, D. J. (2015). Inner process of Photon emission and absorption. Applied Physics Research, 7(4 ), 14-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n4p24
In the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect an enclosed magnet, one from which magnetic field cannot escape, changes the motion of an electron even though the electron passes through a magnetic-free region. The experiment involves a coherent source of electrons: one beam passes through the centre of a toroidal magnet and the other bypasses it; the electrons thereafter interfere to produce fringes at a biprism (wire with a positive charge); the fringes differ depending on whether or not the magnetic flux is confined to the magnet (as opposed to leaking into the hole). The conventional explanation involves use of vector electromagnetic potentials (in place of electromagnetic fields).
The significance of this effect is that the electron is affected by a condition (magnetic field) that is some distance away from it, and to which it does not have access. Thus the principle of locality seems to be compromised, as in the case of entanglement. The results are usually interpreted as evidence that QM’s mathematical representations of electromagnetic potentials are not simply mathematical, but are real effects. We beg to differ.
The Cordus explanation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect is as follows:
- The electron has two reactive ends a short distance apart (hence a Cordus ‘particule’).
- (This is important) One reactive-end of the electron goes through the toroidal magnet, and the other goes past it.
- The reactive-end itself does not get into the toroid but its discrete forces (fields) do.
- (This is important) The discrete forces penetrate the thin outer layer of the solenoid, and therefore are able to probe that space despite the electromagnetic barriers preventing the electron as a whole from entering.
- The discrete forces interact with the magnetic field and this causes a displacement force on the reactive-end.
- The wire of the biprism provides the edge-effect for the formation of fringes.
Thus the AB effect, from the Cordus perspective, is another application of the Cordus Principle of Wider Locality: that particules are affected by the conditions around them, not merely at the 0-D point. This wider sensitivity to their surroundings occurs because particules are held to have two reactive ends and discrete fields. It also shows that non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) solutions have great explanatory power if one can find the right design.
This explanation first appeared in:
Pons, D. J., Pons, Arion. D., Pons, Ariel. M., & Pons, Aiden. J. Matter particuloids. (Cordus matter Part 3.2) viXra, 2011. 1104.0023, 1-12 DOI: http://vixra.org/abs/1104.0023.
Pons, D. J., Pons, Arion. D., Pons, Ariel. M., & Pons, Aiden. J. Wider Locality. (Cordus matter Part 3.1). viXra, 2011. 1104.0022, 1-7 DOI: http://vixra.org/abs/1104.0022.
 The quantum mechanics concept of a ‘coherent’ source of light or electrons is not accepted by the Cordus theory, at least not as QM describes it. Instead the Cordus theory explains this as reactive ends from the same particule that have been split to go down two paths.
 The fact that fringes in this case are associated with electromagnetic effects at the edges of objects, is consistent with the explanation for photon fringes (explained in the Cordus conjecture), which are also edge effects.
The holographic principle is that the information content of all the matter that has fallen into a black hole can be represented by fluctuations in the surface of the event horizon. Extending this to the universe as a whole, the principle suggests that the two-dimensional (2-D) information on the outside surface of the universe, the cosmological boundary, encodes for the whole three-dimensional (3-D) content of the universe within.
However that is all a bit spooky and weird. Nor is it clear how such a mechanism might work physically. If it were true, it would mean we were all just puppets being controlled from the outside layer of the universe.
In this paper we provide a physical interpretation of the holographic principle. We start by developing an explanation for the vacuum, which is also not all that well understood. In turn that gives us some clues about the composition of void into which the universe expands. Interestingly, this theory predicts that the outside void is without time, and explains why. Of course it helps that we have separately developed a theory for how time works, which covers the whole range from subatomic particles, to atomic clocks, to mechanical clocks, to macroscopic bodies, and even to living creatures.
From this perspective the cosmological boundary is therefore the expanding surface where the fabric of the vacuum colonises the void beyond the universe. Thus the cosmological boundary is proposed to contain the discrete field elements of all the primal particules within the universe, and therefore contains information about the attributes of those particules at genesis. Inner shells then code for the changed locations of those particules and any new, or annihilated, particules.
So this theory supports the idea of an outer boundary or frontier for the expanding universe, and even predicts what is on either side of that boundary.
However it also predicts there is no practical way that anyone could sit at that frontier and control the whole universe. So the theory rejects the notion of holographic control of inner contents of the universe from the outer surface. (The details about this are in the paper, but basically concern the the infeasibility of placing a physical Agent at the boundary of the universe, and the useless of doing so in the first place). It also rejects the more fanciful holographic notions, e.g. that the boundary contains information about the future and past, or about all possible universes. The Cordus model suggests that there is no causality (control) from the boundary of the universe to its inner contents. The boundary is merely a historical snap-shot of what the universe was like at genesis.
So you can rest easy: the real you is not merely a flat 2D shape on the outer edge of the universe. According to this theory, there is no-one at the edge of the universe pulling the strings and making you dance.
Pons, D.J. and A.D. Pons (2013) Outer boundary of the expanding cosmos: Discrete fields and implications for the holographic principle vixra (1303.0017), p. 1-26, DOI: http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0017. Available from: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0017v1.pdf.
Perhaps surprisingly, this is a continuation of the previous topic of time. It concerns how events are ordered in time.
Special relativity (SR) is based on the relativity of simultaneity, that the order in time of two spatially separate events cannot be determined absolutely, but instead depends on the motion of the observer. Thus it is impossible to order two events in time if they occur in different places (hence difference frames of reference). There is no preferred inertial frame in SR. Taken to its limits this suggests that people live in different states of the universe depending on their relative velocity, hence the Rietdijk–Putnam argument and Penrose’s Andromeda paradox.
Here is how the paadox is expressed:
“people pass each other on the street; and according to one of the two people, an Andromedean space fleet has already set off on its journey, while to the other, the decision as to whether or not the journey will actually take place has not yet been made. How can there still be some uncertainty as to the outcome of that decision? If to either person the decision has already been made, then surely there cannot be any uncertainty. The launching of the space fleet is an inevitability. In fact neither of the people can yet know of the launching of the space fleet. They can know only later, when telescopic observations from earth reveal that the fleet is indeed on its way. Then they can hark back to that chance encounter, and come to the conclusion that at that time, according to one of them, the decision lay in the uncertain future, while to the other, it lay in the certain past. Was there then any uncertainty about that future? Or was the future of both people already ‘fixed’?” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument
The Cordus theory of time, offers a way to interpret the situation. In doing so it dissolves the paradox, as will be shown. Here is how the explanation works.
First, whether this is even a paradox is doubtful, because the two people, A and B, in Penrose’s Andromeda thought experiment cannot know, at the time of their meeting, what events are transpiring far away in their difference versions of the universe. So what happens in Andromeda is unknowable to the people at the time, and any difference in perception of remote events (whether or not the aliens have decided to invade Earth) is likewise unknowable.
Therefore there is no contradiction in world-lines at the time of the meeting, and hence no paradox. It only appears to be a paradox to us because in a thought experiment we can ‘know’ what our subjects themselves do not, which is what the aliens are up to.
Penrose ponders whether, at the time his subjects were meeting, there was any real uncertainty about that future, i.e. a predetermination type of question. But that assumes that A was already in a version of the universe that was more temporally advanced than B, which is not the case. He was only in version of the universe that would differ in simultaneity from B, if he had continued with his motion relative to B. But at the ppoint in time and space where A and B meet, they are in the same frame. Any subsequent velocity would distance A from B, and any communication from A to B would then be limited by light-speed. But that limitation did not apply at the moment of their meeting. Thus we suggest that the act of meeting is key to the paradox, and much of the paradox arises simply from an ambiguity in Penrose’s defintion of meeting.
Or to look at it the other way, person A had not at the time of meeting B been able to realise the potential advantage of foreknowledge that his temporal advancement might seem to promise. He only experiencees accelerated passage of time after he leaves the meeting, by which time it is too late to tell B. Also, he does not actual have information about the aliens at the time of meeting, but only potentially in the future. Nor would he ever be able to have that information early, since the information on which that knowledge was based (i.e. what decision the aliens had made) could only reach him at light-speed, by which time both he and his acquaintance B would both have moved forward in time (moved on the Minkowski diagram).
Nor does B have any ability to change the unfolding decisions of the aliens, because to do so would require sending a signal back to Andromeda which would also take too long (it would only be received by the aliens after they had already made their decision).
So while A might appear to have the benefit of advanced information about the alien’s plans, that advantage cannot be realised, and therefore that information cannot be transferred to B either, and B has no real ability to communicate that information into her retarded version of the universe, and therefore has no ability to cause her retarded universe to diverse from that inhabited by A. Therefore she cannot tamper with her retarded version of the universe to change the future. There is only one world-line for the universe as a whole.
Therefore what is decided by the aliens stays decided, and to answer Penrose, there is no uncertainty about the future. The future of both people is not already ‘fixed’. That’s quite the wrong way to think about it. instead it is simply indeterminate. The situation only looks like a paradox to an omniscient external observer (i.e. ourselves) who knows what A and B might know in the future.
Thus another way to dismiss the paradox is to point out it employs circular logic: it requires its observer to be in a highly preferred reference frame, free of the relativity of simultaneity, which of course is not-permitted by special relativity.
The bottom line is that the Cordus time theory suggests that there is only one reality for the universe, and that what happens stays happened, though observers in different situations (frames of reference) might get to know of it at different times. But since they are in different situations they cannot communicate that knowledge to the other. So there is no advantage (and no paradox) in the relativity of simultaneity.
For more on the Cordus theory of time, and the proposed fabric mechanisms whereby what happens to person A is reconciled with the experience of person B, see our time paper here. Or read one of the other thought-provoking links provided below.
- Pons, D.J. (2013) What really is time? A multiple-level ontological theory for time as a property of matter. vixra, 1-40 DOI: http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0074.
- Penrose, R., The emperor’s new mind. 1989: Oxford University Press.
- Read more about the remarkable Roger Penrose here: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/penrose/
- Photos: Andromeda’s Colorful Rings (abcnews.go.com)
Special relativity (SR) is based on the relativity of simultaneity, that the order in time of two spatially separate events cannot be determined absolutely, but instead depends on the motion of the observer. Thus it is impossible to order two events in time if they occur in different places (hence difference frames of reference). There is no preferred inertial frame in SR.
The Cordus theories of time and the fabric affirm SR’s principle of the relativity of simultaneity, that time can flow at different speeds for people in different situations. However there are some deeper implications from the Cordus perspective.
The first is that time is not an inherent property of space. Cordus rejects the General relativity (GR) idea of spacetime having a substantial dimensional status comparable to the three geometric axes, and instead sees the fabric as being the relationships between bodies. Complementary to this is another implication, that time is a property of matter rather than space. Recall that the Cordus theory is that the fundamental level of time is the frequency oscillation of the particule, and the assembly of multiple particules.
This has a further implication that each assembly of matter has its own time (SR: frame of reference) which via the fabric blends discretely into that of other neighbouring matter. Hence the connectedness of the cordus fabric, which provides a mechanism whereby spatially separated bodies appraise each other about their position and state. This corresponds loosely to the GR concept of a smooth spacetime, except that the Cordus fabric is made up of discrete field elements that only appear to be smooth at the macroscopic level. A further implication is that spatially separate bodies have their own time, and Cordus provides a mechanism whereby that fundamental time aggregates into the physical behaviour of a clock. So the question of how time, as measured by say an atomic clock or mechanical timepiece connects to the underlying time, is answered.
This leads to another implication of the Cordus theory, which is that all the separate bodies in the universe, hence also clocks and frames of reference, were once synchronised in the past. The primary synchronisation was at the genesis of matter, when matter was formed from photons. There is a Cordus explanation for this asymmetrical baryogenesis too. As this matter separated in the formation of the universe, so it carried its clocks with it. Thus there is a branching of times (SR: frames of reference), and this also means they can all be traced back in a family tree. Therefore Cordus only conditionally supports the SP principle of relativity of simultaneity. Cordus suggests that there is a temporal relationship between different frames of reference, that the time for each body (collection of particules) represents its cumulative journey through past space and time (i.e. world-line) and that all frames can therefore be referenced back to the primal genesis event. Not that mere inspection of the matter in any one frame reveals that journey, only the sum thereof. So Cordus suggests that the temporal relationships between inertial frames of reference are not really arbitrary, but rather unapparent. Thus the relationship between two inertial clocks is not simply a convention, though it can be for convenience if the observer is willing to accept the differences as a calibration offset. While the two separate inertial clocks may each have their own time, it is generally not possible to see what this is, so the simultaneity can in practice be set by the observer’s choice. So Cordus rejects the conventionality of simultaneity in principle, but allows it in practice.
What does this mean? Well, it shows that it is possible to connect relativity (both special and general) with particle physics. We achieve this through a specific non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) solution called the cordus conjecture.
This integrates the apparently conflicting nature of the different times suggested by quantum mechanics, electromagnetic theory, and relativity. Surprisingly, it is not so much that one of these theories is correct and the others wrong, but instead it is shown that they all have a piece of truth. The Cordus theory shows that time is all of particle-based vs. spacetime, relative vs. absolute, local vs. universal. However it is not simultaneously all of those, but rather depends on the level of assembly being considered. We therefore suggest that none of the existing physical theories have got time quite right, even if they are all right in part. Instead Cordus suggests that there is a deeper common causality.