According to Yangton and Yington Theory, photon is a free Wu’s Pair, a super fine Yangton and Yington circulating Antimatter particle pair, traveling in the normal direction of the Yangton and Yington circulation orbit in space at light speed. Therefore the mass of a photon is the same as that of a Wu’s Pair (myy).
Because of the similarity between the inter-attractive Force of Creation between Yangton and Yington Pairs (Wu’s Pairs) and the electrical force between electron and positron, it is assumed that a Yangton carries one positive electric unit charge and a Yington carries one negative electric unit charge. Together they form an electric dipole. These electric unit charges are the basic units of the normal electric charges that are carried by electrons, positrons and protons, except in a much smaller scale. According to Yangton and Yington Theory, once Wu’s Pairs are released from a substance, they become photons. Because of the circulation of the Yangton and Yington Pair (the rotation of the electric dipole) on the vertical plane of photon traveling direction, electromagnetic wave can be generated and carried by the photon to a far distance in space at light speed.
Photon Formation
A photon can be emitted from the parent object through a two stage process: separation stage and ejection stage.
A. Separation Stage
To unlock a photon from the surface of an object, it requires thermal energy (kinetic energy) to overcome the string energy caused by the string force between two adjacent Wu’s Pairs.
According to Whirlpool Theory, a spinning particle separated from its parent spinning system should have a kinetic energy E that is proportional to the particle mass m and the spin frequency ν.
E = κmν
Therefore for a photon,
E = κmyyν
Where κ is whirlpool constant and myy is the mass of photon (or Wu’s Pair).
B. Ejection Stage
After separation from the parent object, photon is ejected toward the normal (axial) direction of Yangton and Yington circulation orbit by a repulsive forces generated between the two Yangton particles and also two Yington particles where one from the emitting photon and the other one from Wu’s Pair on the surface of the parent object.
Absolute Light Speed
In the photon Ejection Stage, because of the constant ejection force, regardless of the frequency, a photon escaped from its parent object should always have a constant speed 3 x 108 m/s on earth (at a constant gravitational field and aging of the universe) known as “Absolute Light Speed” in the ejection direction observed at the parent object (light source). In fact, Absolute Light Speed is a function of gravitational field and aging of the universe but the temperature, because it can be affected by subatomic structures (Wu’s Unit Length and Wu’s Unit Time) but the micro and macro structures.
Photon Inertia Transformation
In the Separation Stage, photon also carries the inertia of the parent object (light source). Therefore, photon travels not only at the “Absolute Light Speed” (3 x 108 m/s) in the trajectory direction from the light source, but also with a speed and direction as that of the light source observed at a reference point which is called “Inertia Speed”. This phenomenon is named “Photon Inertia Transformation” .
Edward, your Yangton/Yington theory is very interesting. Using some of the concepts developed by quantum mechanics has put you at a disadvantage, however. Quantum mechanics is based on an incomplete foundation and an incomplete quantum formula.
It is necessary to first correct the foundations of quantum mechanics, before you can make progress in physics. If you do not start from a complete foundation and a complete quantum formula, you end up in a dead end, just like modern physics. We must back up, establish a complete foundation, and then move forward again.
Planck's quantum formula, E = hv, is incomplete. He left out a measurement time variable. His original relationship was dU ≈ a ν dt. The change in energy "dU", is proportional to the product of an unknown constant "a", the frequency "v" of the light, and the change in time "dt".
Planck was using the newly discovered field of electromagnetic radiation - light - and trying to use it to prove the irreversibility of an increase in entropy. Planck was a shy quiet man, yet had the ambitious goal of creating a second law of thermodynamics (the irreversibility of an increase in entropy), to accompany Helmholtz's first law of thermodynamics on transformation of energy. When Planck presented his initial work at a conference, Boltzman pointed out that with time, an increase in entropy could be reversed. Planck had to admit he had not proven the irreversibility of an increase in entropy, and he was very embarassed. Planck decided to keep trying to find a way to prove the irreversibility of an increase in entropy, and decided to use the black-body radiation question to do it.
Therefore, when Planck made his derivation of the black body radiation equation, he liked the idea of getting rid of time. If he could get rid of time, he could get rid of Boltzmann's objection, and perhaps achieve his goal of proving a second law of thermodynamics. Of course he couldn't REALLY get rid of time, because we live in a space/time universe. And all the experimental black-body radiation measurements he used were one second measurements. But his derivation made it LOOK like he had gotten rid of time.
In his black-body law derivation, Planck used a mathematical method of Wien's and divided energy per cm2 per second by the speed of light in cm per second. The seconds cancelled out in both numerators, and it appeared that Planck had gotten rid of time and converted the measurements into energy per cm3 per temperature4.
Rather than derive his quantum formula (which would have forced Planck to deal with time), Planck simply assumed his quantum formula E = hv.
Planck's quantum formula in his black-body papers should have been based on
dE = a v dt. The change in energy "dE", is equal to "a" (the energy per cycle, wave, oscillation of light), times "v" the frequency (cycles per second), times "dt" the change in time. Cycles and time cancel, and one obtains a change in, or an amount of energy. Planck's original constant "a" was the amount of energy in a single cycle (i.e. wave or oscillation) of light. We can call this constant amount of energy in a light cycle, "h~". The "h" in honor of Planck's original calculation of the numerical value, and "~" to recognize we are talking about light's constant energy per cycle, and not Planck's old action constant, "h". This would have resulted in a quantum formula of E = h~ v t. Planck's black-body radiation formula would still have been correct and we would have had a much better appreciation of light based phenomena.
Without this crucial mathematical understanding, early quantum pioneers were stumbling in the dark. When they used the incomplete quantum formula everyone came up with the right numbers ... the units in their calculations did not balance mathematically, but the numerical values were right. Eventually they got rid of "cycles" in the quantum formula and in their calculations, so their equations would balance mathematically. They came up with the idea that E = hv provided the amount of energy in a light particle, a "quantum". No one was making sub-photonic pulses of light at the time, and so it all seemed to work. Problem was, even if it did seem to work, it sent the early quantum pioneers down a blind alley, creating unnecessary uncertainties, paradoxes, and crazy interpretations. No wonder there were such great debates between them!
What the incomplete formula E = hv really provided was the amount of energy added up in one second, depending on the frequency of the light. If the frequency was 1 Hz, then E = 6.626 X 10-34 J. If the frequency was 20 Hz, then E = 13.252 X 10-34 J. For the last 120 years, we have been counting up the number of light cycles in a second and multiplying that number of cycles, by the constant energy of a single cycle. So the fixed counting time and variable frequency, made it appear that light has an infinite number of elementary particles, called photons.
The universe is not so cruel as to play this trick on us! Just as there is an elementary unit of charge for the electron, there is an elementary unit of energy for light ... h~ = 6.626 X 10-34 J/cycle.
The elementary quantum of light is not the photon. The elementary quantum of light is the single oscillation or cycle. That single cycle/oscillation is invariant over time and space. No matter what the frequency or wavelength, the energy per cycle/oscillation/wave is the same.
So in answer to your question, the photon is composed of individual light cycles (EM oscillations/waves) and is simply an arbitrary collection of an arbitrary number of elementary light cycles, based on an arbitrary time measurement. It is not an elementary particle, and is not universal or constant.
You can find more papers on this issue at www.forgottenphysics.com
Sorry, error:
"In his black-body law derivation, Planck used a mathematical method of Wien's and divided energy per cm2 per second by the speed of light in cm per second. The seconds cancelled out in both numerators denominators, and it appeared that Planck had gotten rid of time and converted the measurements into energy per cm3 per temperature4."
Edward Wu
A photon is made up of ordered daons. Its energy comes from h=mc\lambda, while its velocity comes from the interaction between the photon's ordered daons and the surrounding dis-ordered daons. The rotational velocity of the daons is sqrt(2) c, which gives a radial and azimuthal velocity of c.
JES
Juliana Mortenson
Dear Juliana:
Thank you for your detailed explanation.
According to Yangton and Yington Theory, Wu's Pair, a pair of Yangton and Yington circulating antimatter particles (either solid or energy particles) is the building block of the whole universe. Photon is a free Wu's Pair traveling in vacuum space. When the universe gets old (trillions of years from now), Wu's Pair (also photon) starts shrinking and the circulation orbit becoming smaller. However, the total energy of Wu's Pair (also photon) remains unchanged due to the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy.
Dear Edward Wu
Your “Yangton and Yington Theory” nicely explains the property of photons to keep their spatial shape during its travel through vacuum. However, your theory leads to difficulties explaining the missing photon/photon interaction.
If there is an interaction between a Yangton and a Yington within a single photon, as intense as keeping the photon together, then there must be an interaction between Yangtons and Yingtons of different photons. But this is not the case. Even most intense beams of photons cross each other in the vacuum without the faintest interaction.
Wolfgang Konle
Dear Wolfgang:
It is a good question. This is exactly what happened in a Double Slit Experiment.
As a coherent light beam travels in one direction 100% in phase, it looks just like a marching band parade, everybody is doing exactly the same moves at the same time. The motion that all flags swing from right to left in the parade at the same time can be used to simulate Yangton's (or Yington's) motions, where Yangtons from adjacent photons can never come head-to-head to hit each other, therefore no repulsion can ever been produced. On the other hand, for two coherent light beams travel together in one direction at 180o phase angle, then Yangtons from different light beams will hit each other head-to-head, such that repulsion can happen. This is the mechanism to cause interference in Double Slit Experiment. (see attachment)
Best,
Edward Wu
Dear Edward Wu
The problem I mentioned is the generally missing interaction of photons in vacuum. A double slit device is not vacuum, it is a solid state object, and the missing interaction is not restricted to coherent light beams it also holds for all kinds of non coherent light beams. A certain phase relation between Yangton and Yington particles of neighboured photons cannot be used as an argument in this general case.
Your arguments (double slit properties and coherency) obviously are specious in the case of photon/photon interaction and you should know this.
Edward Wu
"If it doesn't happen in the coherent light beam, then for sure, it won't happen to the non coherent (or random) light beam."
You claimed that Yington and Yangton components of neighboured photons do not interact because of their absolute correlation in coherent beams.
However, two crossing light beams are not coherent. Mentioning coherence therefor is an inappropriate argument.
"As far as if it is in real vacuum is not really a issue here."
Does this mean that you are not considering the vacuum case?
Photon/photon interaction does not happen at all. But if individal photons contain separate but interacting components, photon/photon interaction would be unavoidable. Ergo photons do not contain separate interacting components.
General Yington and Yangton components of photons are phantasms. You only could halluzinate about extremely individual Yington and Yangton components with special interaction restricted to their individual photon. But this even would be a greater nonsense.
Dear Juliana Mortenson "the energy per cycle/oscillation/wave is the same"
What do you think this energy is?
Dear Wolfgang:
The double slit experiment already proved that light beams do interfere to each other. Coherent light is used in the experiment is only because that we can know exactly the spatial difference such as phase angle caused by distance. This proves your original claim "missing interaction of photons in vacuum" is false. As to vacuum, it is relevant due to the superfine particle nature of Wu's Pair (or photon). I am using Yangton and Yington Theory in my paper to explain the mystery so called "complementarity" in quantum physics which has nothing to do with your question.
Best,
Edward
Dear Edward, you answered:
"The double slit experiment already proved that light beams do interfere to each other."
Again, a double slit device is not vacuum. This device is a solid state object. Of course, in combination with matter, photons interact. The problem with your theory is that Yangton/Yington interaction would lead to strong vacuum interaction of photons, which we do not observe.
Dear Wolfgang:
Double Slit Experiment is about the interference caused by two light beams. It is nothing to do with any other materials. The screen (material) is used to record the result of the interference, but it doesn't participate in the process of the interference. When a strong light beam travels in vacuum with photons of random phase angels (non-coherent), there will be no (or at least minimal) interference or interaction between the photons. This is very obvious to me. I don't understand why you are so much concerned. Especially according to what you have claimed the experiments support the same results "There is no interaction" .
Best,
Edward
Wolfgang,
The energy quantum is 6.626 X 10-34 Joules per oscillation. Ostensibly a single oscillation of light is composed of rotating electric and magnetic fields. If we take Planck and Einstein at face value, our space-time plane behaves like a vibrating membrane of electric and magnetic fields.
Dear Juliana Mortenson "The energy quantum is 6.626 X 10-34 Joules per oscillation." Where did you get this information?
Your definition of an energy quant with the value “h divided by one second”, which shall be transported by every oscillation of a photonic wave, is quite remarkable and has funny consequences for atomic processes. An elementary process transfers the energy E=hf from the electronic shell or an atomic nucleus to a photon. The funny consequence is, that every transfer then lasts exactly one second. This is an extremely long time for such processes.
Edward Wu
"Double Slit Experiment is about the interference caused by two light beams."
This is a remarkable redefinition of double slit experiments, which simply demonstrate the wave property of light. Beams are not subject of this demonstration.
Light interference has nothing to do with photon/photon scattering in the vacuum.
Your Yington/Youngton model would lead to photon/photon scattering. Interference is a different process.
Dear Wolfgang,
The energy quantum of 6.626 X 10-34 Joules per oscillation is from work done about 12 years ago. I was friends with Hans-Peter Duerr, who was Heisenberg's protege and Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astronomy. After running across a physics mathematical anomaly, I spent 3 years digging into the literature to understand it better. Once I had a grasp on the mathematical issue I wrote it up in a paper and sent it to Hans-Peter. We got together a few months later when he came to the US, and went through all the mathematics for a few hours. At the end of our discussion he said, "Well your mathematics are correct. The question now is the interpretation!"
The mathematics that we discussed was the finding that Planck had actually calculated an Energy constant for light, not an action constant as presented in his black-body papers. The corrected mathematics we discussed was later presented at the 2009, SPIE Optics and Photonics special session, The Nature of Light: What are Photons? That SPIE paper is the first paper listed at www.forgottenphysics.com, or can be directly downloaded at:
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/e266e5e7-739c-437c-89c3-eed60d3a9f3f/downloads/1cfqec4a8_58871.pdf
The corrected mathematics has also been presented at meetings of the American Physical Society, at
Materials Science and Technology conferences, as an invited paper by the Japan Physical Society, and at the
International Conference on Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations-6.
The light quanta is not simply "h divided by one second". The light quanta is the amount of energy in a single oscillation of light, i.e. EM energy. Planck's original relationship for the energy of light was E = a v t, where a was an unknown variable, v was frequency in oscillations per second, and t was measurement time (seconds). Planck used a mathematical procedure in his black-body derivation that allowed him to shorten his original relationship to E = (at) v, and then E = hv. The product of the unknown variable "a" and the measurement time (one second in the black-body experiments) became his action constant "h" (energy times one second, and v was frequency (osc/sec). This let him assume his quantum relationship of E = h v as a given (he did not derive it). E became the energy of the measured light, h was energy times one second, and v was frequency (osc/sec). The formula did not balance and as Planck noted in his paper, some of his derivation was arbitrary and he did not pay attention to some of the details (such as a mathematically balanced quantum formula). Decades later oscillations were removed altogether to force the formula to balance.
So Planck actually calculated 6.626 X 10-34 J/osc, and mislabeled it to as 6.626 X 10-34 J s. The mathematically corrected quantum relationship is E = h~ v t, where E is the total energy of the light, h~ is the energy of a single oscillation of light, v is frequency (osc/time), and t is a time variable for the amount of time during which the light is measured.
You are quite right that this is quite remarkable and has funny consequences for atomic processes! You and Hans-Peter both agree that the question is the interpretation.
One second is an extremely long time for light processes in the visible and infrared ranges where the oscillations last only billionths of a second! A one second measurement time is actually quite arbitrary, when you think about it. If we measured light in half second or 0.1 second increments of time, the "photon" would have much less energy!
Another funny consequence is that it means an elementary process transfers electromagnetic energy,
E=h~ f t, from the electronic shell or atomic nucleus, that travels away from the shell or nucleus as oscillating electromagnetic energy. The funny consequence is that just as each electron carries one unit of charge, each electromagnetic oscillation carries one unit of energy.
Regards,
Juliana Mortenson
www.forgottenphysics.com
If you develop E=hf you find E= mc², IMO this is the correct interpretation. Energy is mass, as Einstein correctly deduced.
JES
Agreed Stellan!
With the complete quantum formula one can calculate the constant mass of a single oscillation of light, as well as its constant momentum, and variable force.
Regards,
Juliana Mortenson
Juliana Mortenson
I just had a look at your paper, I found it very interesting. But, I have some doubts about the validity of your approach. I'll think about it.
JES
Dear Juliana Mortenson
The problem with a fix energy unit per oscillation is not only the extremely long interaction time, but also the resulting size of a photon. A single photon would have a length of about the distance earth moon.
If we consider the gamma quants, which play a role in the Mossbauer effect, it is not imagable that the resulting large volume of a photon is related to a state transition inside an atomic nucleus.
It is much more likely that the energy density of a single photon and with it the energy of a single oscillation depends on its generation process.
Wolfgang Konle
If I understand correctly what Juliana means is rather a constant energy per oscillation. Which IMO is a somewhat strange way to develop things.
JES
Edward Wu
I simply suppose that the Louis de Broglie equation is valid also for the photon.
JES
Wolfgang Konle
Photon is a free Wu's Pair, a pair of superfine Yangton and Yington circulating antimatter particles. Any force generated from Yangton will be cancelled by Yington except those forces that are generated by an adjacent coherent Wu's Pair (or photon) in extremely close neighborhood. This is why photon can't be scattered, especially in a random environment, but, photon can be interfered at a highly coherent condition.
Edward
Dear Stellan,
I thought about it all for 10 years before I broached the topic with Hans-Peter. Once we have learned to think a certain way, it is difficult to change.
And yes you are correct that what I mean is that the energy of a single oscillation is constant. We do not end up with theoretical giant photons.
Eventually one realizes that the photon is actually an ensemble of individual oscillations, with a frequency and time based definition. A definition based on an arbitrary period of time.
It feels like one must learn to think upside down and inside out at times!
What De Broglie actually wanted was an energy constant, not an action constant. It made no sense to him that action, rather than energy was important. He would be very happy to learn it was energy afterall.
Regards,
Juliana
Dear Wolfgang,
Following the logic of a complete quantum formula, I would think that the interaction time for light would be related to the period of a single oscillation. Visible light is in nanometers wavelength, THz frequency, and trillionth of a second time period. So wouldnt the interaction period for visible light be on the order of trillionsths of a second?
And the physical size of a visible light oscillation would be a small volume in space on the order of its wavelength? Nanometers?
From my analysis of the mathematics, it looks like what we defined as a photon in the past, is actually an ensemble of oscillations, based on frequency and an arbitrary measurement time.
So for visible light wouldn't the interaction time and size both be very small, instead of very large?
You bring up a good point in regard to gamma quanta and energy density. If we follow through with the logic of an individual oscillation being the elementary particle of light, then the higher the frequency of the EM oscillations, the smaller the wavelength and 3D volume of that energy packet. The energy of gamma quanta would be much more dense than the energy of visible light or microwaves. Each oscillation would have the same amount of energy, but the energy of the gamma quanta would be contained in a much smaller volume, and therefore be much more dense.
I think you are really on to something with your suggestion that the energy density of an oscillation depends somehow on its generation process. It makes sense that the nucleus ... which is so small compared to the electron shell ... would generate much smaller wavelength EM oscillations, with higher energy densities.
Regards,
Juliana
Dear Juliana, our understanding of what a photon is, seems to converge. But there is another point about photon oscillation, derived from special relativity. We consider the reference system of a photon. In this reference system, time passes extremely slowly or even stands still. This means whatever shape a photon has, it keeps it. Only a field detector staying within our reference system can observe oscillations, during a photon passes. Therefore, even the term ‘oscillation’ is misleading if we consider a single photon in its own reference system.
If something in an atomic or nuclear shell happens, or if elsewhere a charge becomes moved, electric, or magnetic oscillating fields are generated in the reference system of the charge. According to the energy content of the fields, the charges lose kinetic energy. The fields move away with the speed of light. Because of their extremely high speed they keep their shape and their size.
We know the size of most photons, at least theoretically. The line width we observe of a stream of photons, corresponds to the thermal situation of the photon generation and to the duration of the process, which leads to individual photons. Signal theory relates the line width and the duration of a wave pattern. It has something to do with Nyquist’s theorem.
Edward Wu
The idea that a photon contains whatever components, which encircle each other on the photon's travel through empty space is in direct contradiction to special relativity. Special relativity does not allow any movement faster than the speed of light. If the centre of gravity of a photon moves with the speed of light, this means that all components of a photon have the relative speed zero.
Wolfgang Konle
I don't agree with SR. Actually, I think it is totally wrong because of the following reasons:
1. Light speed is not constant, it changes with the relative speed and direction between light source and observer.
2. Twin Paradox - Speed is relative. Whatever one twin brother observed can be applied to the other brother except in opposite directions. There is no way to say which one will be younger when they meet again.
Also, GR is only partially correct. Both "Dimensions" and "Period" of an object or event can only change with gravitational field but not acceleration, unless the acceleration is caused by gravity. Simply because that acceleration is also relative.
In addition, there is no limit of speed. When star (light source) moves toward the center of black hole, once it passes Event Horizon, the speed of star is faster than light speed emitted from the star, photon will have zero or negative speed observed on earth. In other words, light is trapped in black hole and that is why it is called "Black Hole".
When photon moves, Yangton and Yington are circulating with each other on the orbit. The speed of photon is defined by the center of the orbit, or the center of Wu's Pair.
Dear Edward Wu you are conscious that with "I don't agree with SR" you are disqualifying yourself as a serious member of the physicist society? With such a statement you get the status of a preacher in the desert.
Telling why you disagree to SR also is not helpful because all arguments against SR are specious. You should better accept SR as correct, up to an extremely high degree of accuracy.
Dear Wolfgang Konle
I suggest that you read a paper demonstrating that SR is wrong: you can find it in my profile or at "daontheory.com"; It's called "Evidence of a neutral potential surrounding the Earth" or something similar.
Maybe I'm a preacher in the desert, but if you can find any logical error in the mentioned paper, I would like to know.
JES
Wolfgang Konle , Stellan Gustafsson
Thank you Stellan, I totally agree with you.
Wolfgang, we are scientists not politicians. We are open for any opinions and theories, only through discussion, truth can be revealed.
Just at this moment, there are more than 16,000 reads and 2,000 replies in a forum on this site under the topic " What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity? Question Asked December 6, 2019.". Check it out.
Dear Stellan Gustafsson
I already had read your paper nearly a year ago. Indeed, I did not find any logical error in your paper. But I also did not find any proof of your basic assumptions about the existence of daon particles.
Dear Wolfgang Konle
I'm not sure what paper you read one year ago. Because the paper intended I wrote about I year ago. I say this because there are no daons in the suggested paper.
About the existence of daons; how do you prove the existence of strings or the existence of quarks....
JES
Dear Edward,
Just a quick note to address your statement,
"1. Light speed is not constant, it changes with the relative speed and direction between light source and observer."
When I looked at Special Relativity and constant energy for a light oscillation, it seemed to me that whatever the wavelength or frequency of light, the advancing wavefront travels at the constant speed of light. Using a single EM oscillation of light, rather than a photon ensemble provided an additional perspective. While the wavefront itself travels at a constant speed, the energy of single oscillations are absorbed in a detector at infinitely many different speeds.
Think of 2 oscillations with different wavelengths. Osc. A is 1.0 unit long and Osc. B is 10.0 units long. The leading edges of both oscillations reach a detector at the same time. Each oscillation carries the same amount of energy. Osc. A moves from the edge of the detector its full wavelength forward into the detector, depositing all of its energy into the detector. At this point Osc. B will barely have entered the detector. It will take 10 times longer for Osc. B to deposit all of its energy in the detector, than for Osc. A.
While the wavefronts of the oscillations may advance at the constant speed of light, the speed with which their energy is transferred to the detector varies. The speed of Oscillation A is 10 times faster, relative to the speed of Oscillation B. The higher the frequency and smaller the wavelength of an oscillation, the faster the speed of its energy.
So we may be dealing with a situation in which the constant speed of light applies to all oscillations, while the speed of light's energy absorption or emission is infinitely variable.
This could account for certain findings suggesting superluminal phenomena.
More later, but here is an article on that concept.
Regards,
Juliana
Stellan, may be, I had read the wrong paper, or my memory is not complete. But I am sure that your paper did not convince me. But nevertheless, you could give me a link to the right paper.
It is not necessary to prove the existence of strings, because strings are a mathematical concept. The existence of quarks has not been proven. But it seems probable that they exist, because their existence (according to QCD) exactly explains the energy levels measured with the Mössbauer effect.
Juliana Mortenson
When dealing with light speed, it is very important to know where the reference point (or the observer's position) is. Also, the speed of light is defined by the trace of the photon (vision of light) divided by traveling time (it is fixed, no matter where it is observed) at the fixed reference point. The reference point can be any position as long as it is a fixed point and trace of the photon is the view of the motion path of the photon (observed by the observer - is a phase of no meaning) at the fixed reference point. (This is called vision of light, please see my publication)
Based on the right concept of "Vision of Light", I have developed "Wu's Equation of Light Speed" as follows:
C' = C + V
Where C' is the vector of light speed at the reference point,
C is the vector of light speed at the light source, and
V is the vector of light source speed at the reference point.
As a result, light speed is not constant, it changes with the relative speed and direction between light source and observer.
Also, according to Wu's Theory "Photon Inertia Transformation" and "Mechanism of Photon Formation" (see attachment). The Absolute Light Speed C observed at light source is always constant at a constant gravitational field (3x108 m/s on earth) , no matter of frequency and light source.
Now let me try to answer your question. Because both the oscillators in your example are the radiation sources, also they are in the same inertia system as the observer (reference point), therefore they have the same signal speeds. If one oscillator is on moon and the other one is on earth and the reference point is on a
moving car, then you have a totally different story, but my Equation of Light Speed is always true.
Dear Wolfgang Konle ,
Ok! This is the first time I put a paper like this in RG.
SO, this contains a short demonstration that the STR is wrong and also what is right!
JES
Dear Edward Wu
Renaming the Galilean velocity addition as "Wu's Equation of Light Speed" is, putting it mildly, displaced. Among scientists, however the relativistic velocity addition mostly is accepted. But the field of velocity addition theorems nowadays is too grazed to get a chance to become famous with a new one.
Dear Stellan, in your paper you explicitly consider non-relativistic cases. From those cases you conclude that relativity theory must be wrong! This is not comprehensible. De Broglie’s wave properties of free electrons are basically independent from special relativity. But velocity addition in de Broglie situations, requires relativistic velocity addition.
Dear Wolfgang, There are two basic hypotheses in the SRT:
- The velocity of light is locally constant
- All laws must be valid in any reference frame
What I show in the paper is that the second hypothesis is wrong!
You are confused because this is not the usual discussion of the constant of the light speed (which has never brought anything).
You should also notice that the SRT can be used as before but for the privilege reference frame, which in our case is the surface of the Earth (i.e. the laboratory).
JES
Wolfgang Konle
This is not the conventional Galilean velocity addition which is a math of two vector summation based on the same reference point. Wu's "Equation of Light Speed" is a law of physics, also it is based on two observation points. Light speed C' is observed at the reference point and light speed C is observed at light source. Also C is constant at constant gravitational field and aging of the universe (3x108 m/s on earth). This is a physical law just like Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. As far as name is concern, I don't really mind, I just used it to distinguish the differences.
- Badges
- Science topic