Physics became… unnecessarily complicated in 1905. This was the year when the physics community decided mathematics could replace hard evidence in proving theories. It was also the year Einstein supported both the model of light being transported as electromagnetic waves through the aether (per his Special Theory of Relativity) and the concept of photons (particles traveling in a straight line through the vacuum of space). The schism that developed is called the wave-particle duality problem, and has resulted in an academic preference for teaching physicists mathematics over understanding. The shift from an electromagnetic field model to a photon model may also be restricting the development of new technologies.
The problem actually began in 1814, when the physics community chose to accept Augustin Fresnel’s novel interpretation of light functioning as transverse waves. (And understand that, once a physics concept has been accepted, it becomes quite difficult to change people’s opinions. Faith is involved.) Modern observations of Cherenkov and Synchrotron radiation (more about those later) suggest Fresnel’s interpretation was a significant error. Transverse waves are up and down undulations, and are often associated with waves traveling through solid matter. Vibrations traveling through a guitar string are transverse waves. Waves traveling along a cracking whip, or the surface waves of water, with the up-down undulations passing through an up-down slit, are common analogies for Fresnels experiments. (Transverse waves have a two-dimensional aspect.)
Fresnel’s conclusion light waves are transverse in nature is based primarily on mathematics and some primitive diffraction experiments. The aether model that developed from his conclusions was an invisible, jello-like material, which is distributed uniformly through both matter and empty space and which matter moves through, with no detectable resistance. This eventually evolved into the “luminiferous aether,” which Einstein used in his Special Theory of Relativity. (It should be noted that, to accept Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, one must accept the speed of time as a variable, and the speed of light as a constant. The speed of light has been shown to be a variable, which travels more slowly through the atmosphere, and through glass, than through a vacuum.)
Photons
Einstein is generally given credit for developing the concept of the photon, and to a large degree, the credit is deserved. The concept of photons is based on the discovery of quanta, by Maxwell Planck.
Quanta are units of kinetic energy moving through the electromagnetic field (which is supported by the aether). In 1900, Planck devised an experiment which used a black box in measuring the amounts of infrared light within its interior. The walls of the black box absorbed and reemitted the infrared light. Planck then developed a mathematical formula that could predict the number of quanta, on average, being radiated by any object, using only its temperature and surface area. Planck theorized that light, as bits o’ energy, were being absorbed and released as they passed through multiple “oscillators” in the space between the box’s walls. Planck’s experiments also showed the oscillators had a statistically constant value.
At that time, there were significant mathematical problems with the model of light as electromagnetic “transverse” waves. (Consider the problems of working with an erroneous model, during a time when all higher mathematics was done by hand.) In 1905, Einstein took the concept of quanta, dropped Planck’s oscillators, and promoted a model describing light as massless, chargeless particles flying through empty space, “in a straight line.” (When traveling through the atmosphere, or through glass, photons are said to move through the empty space between molecules.) His new simplified model also dropped all aspects of the electromagnetic field, and received great applause, particularly from the academic mathematicians working with light. Straight line mathematics was much easier than transverse electromagnetic wave equations, that didn’t actually work. (As a side note, Planck was completely furious with Einstein for translating his experiments into a particle theory model.)
Additionally, by translating Maxwell Planck’s concept of quanta into particles (later called photons), Einstein claimed the aether “was no longer necessary.” (Think about that.) What is very rarely mentioned, is that Einstein, in his General Relativity equations, replaced the concept of ‘aether’ with the concept of ‘space-time’. In this model, Einstein did not eliminate the aether, but changed the name, and, as with quanta, dropped any electromagnetic properties. In Einstein’s model, gravity is the only form of resistance to movement, and light loses all of its electromagnetic characteristics.
Recent diffraction experiments, however, show individual photons ‘do not’ follow a straight line, but instead, tend to meander, moving only in the general direction of their assumed path. This behavior is called Single Photon Interference, and portrays the photon as interfering with itself in some strange mystical way. If the word “particle” is eliminated from the photon’s description, and this new behavior is added, individual photons suddenly sound much more like bits o’ kinetic energy traveling through a medium of oscillators, and taking the path of least resistance.
Planck’s model of light, with quanta, seems to offer a more authentic description of reality than Einstein’s model of straight line photons. Quanta, as bits o’ kinetic energy moving through the electromagnetic field, have no obligation to adhere to a straight line path as they move from one oscillator to another. The underlying medium transporting these bits o’ kinetic energy “was” called the aether, and is the foundation supporting the electromagnetic field.
The Aether
Since Einstein’s dismissal of the electromagnetic field, physicists have become less and less involved with the development of technology. Consider smart phones, which are basically beefed-up walkie-talkies. Engineers have refined and developed the technology of smart phones, not physicists. This is primarily because physicists don’t believe in radio waves (or more precisely, electromagnetic waves) as a model. They believe in photons, and (according to my research) there are no photon-based technologies currently on the market. Engineers are goal-driven and are not bound by the same cultural convictions or loyalties to Einstein. Physicists are, more and more, being hired only for academic positions.
Cherenkov and Synchrotron radiation provide hard supporting evidence of an underlying medium (an aether that supports the electromagnetic field). These two related phenomenon provide evidence that moving electrons travel through a medium capable of transporting “longitudinal” electromagnetic waves (as opposed to transverse). When a sonic boom is created by a jet traveling faster-than-the-speed-of-sound, the sound waves are emitted in a cone shape. (Sound waves are longitudinal waves, and expand outward in a three dimensional fashion.) When a ‘charged’ subatomic energy field (electron, positron, proton) is traveling faster-than-light, the energy field radiates a cone of electromagnetic waves behind it. This kind of light is called Cherenkov radiation. The analogy of a sonic boom is often used in describing Cherenkov radiation. (It should be noted, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity states, and “requires,” that nothing can move faster-than-light.) Cherenkov radiation switches to Synchrotron radiation as the electron slows to speed-of-light and below the speed-of-light, with the light waves gradually moving to the front, and becoming normal light.
Dark Matter
The psychological blockage of being unable to translate reality into a field/wave theory model has severely stunted the physics community. Dark matter, for example, presents tremendous philosophical problems. Essentially, dark matter is an invisible gravity field that exists in the emptiness of space. The existence of a gravity field suggests something is there. But according to Einstein, and the Standard model, there is nothing there. Modern physicists are psychologically blocked from even considering an aether theory model as an explanation.
The evidence supporting the existence of dark matter is based on how star systems orbiting the edges of galaxies behave. The gravity of dark matter effects the outer stars orbiting galaxies. Theoretically, these galaxies simply don’t have enough mass, or gravity, to attract star systems from so far away, into a stable orbit. Those outer star systems should be traveling on a significantly more independent path, or at least moving much more slowly. (There are unvalidated claims (UVCs) on the internet, of dark matter observations, and they provide an excellent opportunity to develop and practice your “bullshit screening skills.” We could all use more practice.)
The real problem is that dark matter is believed to make up the majority of the total mass in the universe “and” it’s invisible. No one in the world of established physics can explain it. While there is no direct, hard supporting evidence the aether supports a gravity field, the idea should not be ignored, simply because of an extreme prejudice by physicists who worship at the alter of Einstein.
A Lack of Understanding
Einstein dismissed the aether as unnecessary, and in the most psychologically simplistic fashion possible, the physics community reduced his statement to mean the aether does not exist. This was primarily a political decision made by mathematical academics within the physics community. They were exhausted and frustrated with the model of light and electromagnetic transverse waves, and thrilled with a model that could be explained simply and easily. If it wasn’t a perfect fit, well, that could be worked out, later, and in the mean time, we will ignore evidence that does not fit the model. The acceptance of an “understanding-it-later” philosophy has had a devastating effect on curiosity and the desire to ask questions. Mathematics, as a reductionistic philosophy, does not promote big picture questions.
When a fact is understood, it is bound to other facts by a web of memories and logic. The difference between understanding and memorization is a sense of completion. When information is memorized, it is arbitrary and unrelated to other memories and experiences. Memorizing a mathematical equation may be useful for solving a problem (or passing a test), but it does not promote a deep understanding. And, unfortunately, the physics community has chosen to promote mathematics over understanding.
The Higgs boson experiments provide a recent example of mathematics versus hard supporting evidence. The Higgs boson is an extension of pure mathematics and the experiments provide interpretations of their observations, but no true no hard supporting evidence. The Higgs boson is essentially a remarkably twisted effort to explain resistance to movement at the subatomic level “that is not gravity based.” Conservative members of the physics community can’t use an explanation for resistance resembling the aether, because that would require photons travel through something other than empty space, and as particles, there would also be “drag,” or resistance on the photons.
Gravity has been offered as a source of resistance to electrons for the last 120 years (?), though there is no evidence electrons are gravitationally attracted to anything. But, they did meet with resistance while moving through a vacuum, so Einstein assigned them a gravity field, and that was that. (Remember, Einstein dropped the electromagnetic field from almost everything he worked on.)
The bulk of our modern communications technology uses an EM field theory model (radio waves, microwaves). The foundations of this technology (as in use of the radio) were developed shortly before the photon model became popular. While there are a few claims of photon-based technologies, it seems to be more of a renaming process, with no changes in the underlying technologies, or models. (Solar panels would be the exception, though EM wave models can be used to explain the process.) If the photon model had come about prior to radio technology, would we have ever created the radio, or smart phones?
From an educational perspective, the rigidity of the Standard Model, and the physicists supporting it, combined with an inability to apply their lessons to technology, has promoted confusion, and a general distrust of science, by many. At the university level, students are taught about physics models that can’t actually be used for anything.
Efforts within the physics community to keep physicists in line, include shunning. Shunning, in turn, leads to articles not being published, a loss of grant money, and possibly the loss of employment at a university. As a general rule, academics within the physics community do not want to change their curriculum. While freedom of speech does exist in our general culture, the same cannot be said of the physics community. Are they limiting our understanding of the universe with a perfectionistic philosophy that supports an erroneous model, and blocks the evolution of physics? (And don’t even get me started on the Big Bang model, which claims Terra is the center of the universe.)
See the Ultra-Space Field Theory…
Keith's Portfolio 