The Pioneer anomaly

[Viv Pope]

I believe you’ve made an algebra or typing error.

[math]sqrt{s^2+t^2} = frac{1}{sqrt{1 - frac{s^2}{t^2}}}[/math]

fails for any real values of [math]s[/math] and [math]t[/math] greater than zero. Example, [math]s=1[/math], [math]t=2[/math]:

[math]sqrt{1^2+2^2} not= frac{1}{sqrt{1 - frac{1^2}{2^2}}}[/math]

[math]sqrt{5} not= frac{2}{sqrt{3}}[/math]

 

Viv, how did you derive

[math]t_R = sqrt{s^2+t^2}[/math]

from

[math]t_R = frac{1}{sqrt{1 - frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

,

[math]v = frac{s}{t}[/math]

and

[math]c = 1[/math]

?

 

IViv Pope replies:

Perhaps this piece (below) may help. Note, in particular, the text I have coloured blue.

 

This piece was selected and posted in a hurry as something I found conveniently available. I'll get back to you on your other points as soon as possible. (Apologies for not being able to render the formulae, here, with superscripts, subscripts, etc, in the way you have, the way they appear in our book and our free POAMS publications. There's no bar to your studying those formulae there. Indeed, my mathematics colleague, Dr. Osborne in particular, would be as interested, as I would, in any feedback on those published formulae.

 

Relativity Without Einstein

 

Einstein was a mathematical genius and what he did for physical science was truly amazing. The value of that contribution can never be underestimated. This is especially so, since he distilled out the essence of a natural truth from the utter confusion in the science of the time.

 

However, that mathematician’s route is not for everyone. For most people it is still notoriously complex and arcane. Fortunately, the fact is that to take that route to relativity is not logically necessary. Take, for example, the phenomenon of a travelling body. All we need to do is to take the observational distance s travelled by the body in conventional metres and kilometres, and express it, instead, in terms of units of light-seconds (analogous to the way in which astronomers customarily measure distances in ‘light-years’), Then we take the travelling-time t registered by the body itself also measured in seconds, both measures as seen by the observer, in a telescope, say. Those two dimensions are then projected orthogonally (i.e., at right-angles to each other). By ordinary Pythagoras, the length of the observational resultant, tR, in seconds, is the diagonal (the hypotenuse) between those two rectangular measures. Why rectangular? Because, like all geometrical dimensions – i.e., measures in the same units – they have to be projected like that, since it is the only way of extending those two commensurate measures (both in seconds) without encroaching opon each other’s domains. Thus, we have

 

tR = √(s2 + t2) Pythagoras

 

This Pythagorean time-equation and the customary Einsteinian one, are inter-transformable. For instance, if it were necessary to express this same time-resultant, tR, in Einsteinian terms, then, since the relative velocity of the motion is the distance s travelled in the time tR (i.e., v = s/tR ), all we have to do is to substitute for s, in the Pythagorean equation, the equivalent vtR and then simplify, which produces the familiar (to physicists) equation:

 

tR = t/√√(1 – v2/c2). Einstein

 

Einstein realised this connection with Pythagoras but he failed to comprehend its commonsense significance. Why did he fail? Because he was inhibited, as were all his contemporaries, by the notion of light as ‘travelling at a constant speed c in the vacuum’. No-one questioned how it was possible to measure the ‘velocity of light’ in a vacuum, which had launched the whole esotery of speculative ‘waves’, ‘wave-particles’, ‘photons’, the ‘luminiferous ether’, ‘electromagnetic propagation’ and so on, which Einstein inherited. The contributions of some of these theories to the physics of that era, was, like Einstein’s, invaluable, but the downside was that these theories all but completely confounded commonsense. For instance, the notion of light as ‘travelling in space raised the question of how it was mediated. Was it by ripples in an invisible ‘ether’? No, because all attempts to detect that medium spectacularly failed. Was that because, as was suggested, anything used to measure the earth’s motion through this ‘ether’ contracted by just the amount necessary to conceal the motion. The search for answers to these questions is what launched practically the whole of nineteenth to twentieth century theoretical physics and cosmology.

 

All this theoretical circumlocution was, of course, perfectly understandable. No-one can be ‘blamed’ for it. It is just the way it happened at the time. It is only in hindsight that the simple logical thread of it all can be discerned. This is that the extant interpretation of c as a ‘velocity’ needs to abandoned and regarded instead as no more than a scale constant, like 39.37 inches to the metre or 2.2 pounds to the kilogram. Needless to say, these constants are the same for all observers regardless of how they move relatively to one another’. For commonsense, this is unremarkable, whereas in the context of Einsteinian Relativity, this simple fact of for the constant c was made intensely puzzling.

 

What, then, is the next progressive phase in the development of physics – if physics is allowed to progress, that is. One’s experience with these forums is that any suggestion, however honest and conscientious, is met with a veritable wall of resistance from those whose egos are plainly offended by any suggestion of their having to upgrade their treasured precepts. Thus, they react, almost by reflex, with petulant and insolent responses which. surely, are completely incongruous in these supposedly ‘progressive’ forums.

 

Viv Pope

[Boerseun]

I have received no appology for being put 'offline' for your summary assumption that my aim in joining this forum was purely 'commercial'. I guess that in the present climate of cynicism and gereral loss of integrity, apologies, like so much else that is honourable, have gone out of fashion.

Hey, Viv - sorry for only coming back to you now. I've been a bit busy avoiding a civil war in my country the last few weeks. I apologize for that.

 

So - let's get to it:

 

Ten Proofs that the Constant c cannot be a Velocity

 

1. The undeniable fact that c has the dimensions of distance divided by time explains all that is known about the times taken for communications over distance. But the fact that all velocities are distances divided by time by no means entails that all distances divided by time are velocities, which would be as absurd as saying that because all bachelors are men, all men are bachelors.

Not entirely sure what you mean by this. If I shine a light at a static (static to me, of course) mirror, which is 300,000kms away from me, it will take two seconds before I see a reflection. Whatever properties you want to ascribe to light, or how it propagates, is meaningless - the fact of the matter is that the light I shone at the mirror, took two seconds to get there and back. If I accellerate to .9c, and the mirror stays in the same frame of reference, i.e. it accellerates in the same direction to the same speed, the results of the experiment would be exactly, to the digit, the same. How it happens is another matter, the mere fact that it takes exactly 2 seconds to traverse 300,000kms (in my frame of reference) points to a set velocity relative to my frame of reference.

2. Herman Bondi says: ‘Any attempt to measure the velocity of light is…not an attempt at measuring the velocity of light but an attempt at ascertaining the length of the standard metre in Paris in terms of time-units.’ Also, it has been proved that all the practical consequences of Einstein’s Theory, both Special and General, can be deduced much more simply by adopting Bondi’s interpretation of c as a pure ‘conversion factor’ for interconverting measures in metres into time-measures in seconds.

 

These two above arguments were aimed to prove that c need not necessarily be a ‘velocity’. The following eight arguments contend that c cannot, logically, be a velocity.

However you measure it, and whether you like the results or not, light clocks in at 300,000km/s. I don't fully understand your problem. Is your gripe with lightspeed not being a "velocity", or a "speed"? Velocity is a vector, including a direction, speed is simply, well, distance divided by time, regardless of direction. And that seems appliccable to light, because direction is meaningless - the results are the same. So, yes - lightspeed isn't a velocity - it's a speed. But what's the problem with that?

3. For light to be seen, photographed or detected in any possible way, it has to shine on something. In a vacuum there is, by definition, nothing on which it can shine. So, logically, light cannot be seen, photographed or in any other way be detected in the vacuum of space, which signifies a reduction to absurdity of experiments claiming to have photographed ‘light travelling in vacuo’.

You cannot, by definition, photograph photons. Whether in vacuo or not. Besides, light only travels in vacuo - if it travels through air or glass, it travels in the vacuum between particles. It slows down when travelling through matter, though, 'cause it's continuously absorbed and re-emmitted. But the actual travelling is done in vacuum.

 

Can you maybe link to articles claiming experiments of photons being photographed?

 

If you put a camera at one end of a pipe, put a lightbulb in the other end, and suck out all the air, then you have caught photons after they have travelled through a vacuum. If you detect photons in any way, your detecting instruments have absorbed them. You can't photograph them "in flight", so to speak. If there are any claims towards that, I'd like to see it.

4. To be seen or otherwise detected travelling in a vacuum, light would have to give off light. And that secondary light would have to give off light; and that tertiary light would also have to give off light … and so on, ad infinitum, in a logical regress to absurdity.

Who made that particular claim?

5. If c is interpreted as a ‘velocity in the vacuum of space’ (as Einstein’s Second Postulate states), then in a vacuum to what can that ’velocity’ possibly be referred, constant or otherwise? So the concept of light as having a ‘velocity in space’ is just another absurdity.

That vacuum is existing in a frame of reference relevant to the observer. If you're moving away from me at one hell of a speed and I shine light towards you, the light will leave me at 300,000km/s. You'll receive the light, at exactly 300,000km/s. The speed difference is accounted for by a frequency drop. The light you'll receive will be redshifted. But the speed relative to any observer in any frame of reference will be a constant (and perfectly measurable) 300,000km/s. Whether you want to attach a subjective quality like "absurdness" to it is immaterial - it's simply how it is.

6. Light is quantised in units of Planck’s constant h. These quanta have been interpreted as ‘flying photons’, claimed to have been photographed ‘in flight’ by Nils Abramson. However, since the ‘photon’ is defined as a single, irreducible light-quantum, it has no energy to spare in manifesting itself anywhere between its point of emission and point of absorption. A quantum interaction between a pair of atoms therefore has to be instantly consummated, with there being no sensible question either as to where it is or what it does between its source and sink. There are simply no parameters to describe that ‘motion’. Any attempt to photograph or otherwise detect it absorbs its whole packet of energy at that point, so that there can be no question of how it exists or travels when undetected, that is, in vacuo.

Point A is the transmitter, point B the receiver. A can be a star, B can be your eyeball. In between the star and your eyeball is a lot of space. A big, black, empty vacuum. The photon stream whacking your eyeball is ample proof that the photon did, somehow, traverse the vacuum. I don't completely understand this particular point.

7. In order to conform to the law of conservation of energy, the alleged ‘photon’ cannot just hang around unconsummated in limbo, waiting to be absorbed. As Tom Phipps (Jr.) put it, ‘the ‘photon’ sure don’t have a holding pattern!’ So, what is a ‘photon’ when it is supposed to be travelling, say, between galaxies or, as it might be, en route to nowhere? The whole concept is meaningless.

You're sitting on a riverbank. A motorboat cruises down the river at speed, generating quite a bow wave. A minute later, the bow wave breaks against the riverbank, right in front of you. What was the wave between the boat and the riverbank? It was simply a wave in the river. But nothing was there to break against, there wasn't an observer, so it went by unnoticed. It was there, however. The photons emitted by a star is busy travelling between it and your eyeball, and any observer between you and it will absorb those photons, relative to the size of the observer, the star, and your eyeball. It happens every time the moon moves between you and the sun. You can see the moon as one helluva big observer, absorbing the photon stream between the sun and your eyeballs. Once again, I fail to see your gripe.

8. Can light be scattered by light, as some experimenters have claimed? If a powerful laser-beam is shone across the path of another, do their ‘photons’ collide or their ‘waves’ interfere? In a simple experiment devised and carried out at Brunel university, in 1980, two powerful lasers were beamed across each other’s paths and also shone head-on at each other. No blocking or interference whatever was detected. If any such interference were to take place, then that light would suffer dispersion. Considering the amount of light that is allegedly ‘criss-crossing’ around, it would be amazing if visual acuity were possible over the length of a single metre. All the light that is allegedly shooting around in all directions would be as much a barrier to vision as the densest fog that can be imagined. The fact, then, that there are photographs of the farthest galaxies that display awesome clarity militates against the validity of any such experimentalist claim.

Light can, in fact, be interfered with by more light. Not only do interference patterns show it, which alluded to the wave nature of light in the first place, but common everyday articles like holograms are produced using this particular property. The fact that you can see the furthest galaxies is because there is nothing between your eyeball and those galaxies to scatter the light. Photons are massles, they're not particles in the sense that they can absorb other photons and re-remit them in a different direction. They have properties of particles, to be sure, and properties of waves. But they are neither. They are photons, and they act like photons. It sounds like a cop-out, but it's not.

9. All velocities, properly so called, obey the rule of the composition of velocities, according to which the velocity of an object is different relative to differently moving observers. But c is, eminently, the same for all relatively moving observers, as Einstein’s Relativity requires and as experiment confirms. Therefore, logically, c cannot be a velocity.

Once again, the velocity "drop" or "addition" that you'd expect between two different observers moving at different speeds shining torches at each other, is made up for in the fact that the frequencies change.

 

Also, you seem to not consider time dilation. If I move at .9c relative to you, and I shine a light in my direction of movement, you would see that light as travelling away from me at a mere .1c relative to me. I, however, would measure that lightbeam as travelling at a perfectly normal 300,000km/s - because time would be so dilated (relative) that it would look like it, to me. And time dilation, however counterintuitive, is also a proven facet of nature at high speeds.

10. For a velocity to be a velocity it has to be the velocity of something that is physically identifiable. In physics both ancient and modern, there is nothing that can be physically identified as light travelling in vacuo, especially in view of Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle, which makes the ‘track’ of an alleged ‘photon’ absolutely indeterminate.

So, how did the light reach your eye from that distant star, then? If a space telescope takes a picture of a distant star, it's intercepting photons travelling in vacuo. I fail to understand your gripe, again.

If we think of what ‘travels in vacuo’ as ‘waves’, then what can possibly ‘wave’ in a vacuum? And if we think of what ‘travels’ as ‘photons’, then if those ‘photons’ travel at the ‘speed of light’, then their mass has to be relativistically infinite at that ‘speed’. The mass of a single photon would be as great as that of the whole universe.

Photons are massless. Photons are attributed with wavelike properties, because they interfere with each other. Photons have properties of particles, because they are quantised, and knock electrons out of their orbits. But they are neither - they are not particles, and they are not waves. We try to shoehorn their properties into our everyday understanding of the world, and our tiny minds grasp waves and particles. This is the foundation of the entire field of quantum physics.

To escape this consequence by assuming that the ‘stationary mass’ of the 'photon' is zero – as some physicists have claimed – then how can that ‘zero mass’ be conceived as a ‘particle’? And, anyway, when is a photon ever regarded as stationary, since its alleged ‘velocity’ is c in all observational frames, bar none?

There is no such thing as a "stationary" photon. And they don't have mass. They do, however, have momentum. A photon is a quantised packet of energy. It's not a particle, nor a wave. It's clean, naked energy, and it acts exactly like it does because its the fundamental unit of energy. Instead of trying to understand photons in terms of other, more everyday things that we can grasp like particles and waves, we should rather try and understand the everyday things in terms of photons.

[Viv Pope]

Dear CraigD,

I have now had time to deal wth yuur mathamatical question of how to get from the Einstein time equation to the Pythagorean one. I can see how it would have puzzled you. It was a typo, and I apolgise for that. The typo was that the '1' (one) in the Einsteinian equation should have been 't'. On my laptop these two characters look almost the same, especially with my septuagenarian eyesight. I had to use a magnifing glass to tell the difference,

 

Anyway, if you make that correction in the Einstein equation, subtitute for v the observational equivalent s/t-subscriptR and then simplify (I won't insult your intelligence by showing how to do that), you obtain the Pythagorian time-equation.

 

Sorry if I led you a dance. It makes your point, though, about exactness.

 

Viv Pope

[modest]

tR = √(s2 + t2) Pythagoras

This Pythagorean time-equation and the customary Einsteinian one, are inter-transformable. For instance, if it were necessary to express this same time-resultant, tR, in Einsteinian terms, then, since the relative velocity of the motion is the distance s travelled in the time tR (i.e., v = s/tR ), all we have to do is to substitute for s, in the Pythagorean equation, the equivalent vtR and then simplify, which produces the familiar (to physicists) equation:

tR = t/√√(1 – v2/c2). Einstein

 

This does work. If we observe someone from earth who is in a rocket. They are traveling half a light-year per year from our perspective then after five of our earth years...

 

By the lorentz transformations their clock has advanced 4.33 years as we observe it. They have traveled 2.5 light-years as we see it. We therefore have observed them:

 

[math]\sqrt{2.5^2 + 4.33^2} = 5 \: \mbox{years}[/math]

 

It's basically the inverse of a normal Lorentz transformation rearranged a bit (you have to multiply time by velocity to get distance in light-distance) I'll show the math if anybody asks. I don't think this is significant except to say:

 

The Lorenz transformations can be derived from "Pythagorean" geometry. The constraints are that all axes are at right angles and light as a vector must follow the Pythagorean relationship to two of those axes. That is the consistent thing that makes the transformation possible. None of this was beyond Einstein. Nor do I think you can call it "relativity without Einstein" as the relationship relies on the consistent speed of light.

 

~modest

 

EDIT:

I will show the math as it's incredibly easier than I was picturing in my head:

Normal Transformation:

[math]T = T'(1+ \frac{v^2}{c^2})[/math]

Multiply T' by the binomial and square:

[math]T^2 = T'^2 + (T' \frac{v^2}{c^2})^2[/math]

So, yeah, not too much past Einstein's abilities I'd wager :)

Second edit: (I seem to have lost the ability to do basic algebra):

 

Starting with the more accurate transformation:

[math] T = \frac{T'}{ \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

squaring both sides:

[math] T^2 = \frac{T'^2}{ ( 1-v^2/c^2)} [/math]

Rearrange:

[math]T'^2 = T^2 ( 1 - (v^2/c^2))[/math]

Multiply by the binomial and rearange:

[math]T^2 = T'^2 + T^2( \frac{v^2}{c^2})[/math]

and you get:

[math]T^2 = T'^2 + \left( \frac{Tv}{c} \right)^2 \Longrightarrow a^2 + b^2 = c^2 [/math]

Ok, I think that's right.

[Viv Pope]

In order to confirm that I understand the point Viv intended to make with these statements, let me restate my read of it:

“The concept of the speed of light in vacuum © is logically incoherent, because the speed of light cannot be measured in a system consisting only of light in vacuum.”

 

However, I’ve not previously encountered a definition of the c as “the speed of light measured with only vacuum”, and am practically certain this is not the definition intended to be used in the Second Postulate of Special Relativity:

The Principle of Invariant Light Speed - Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

(source: wikipedia article “special relativity”)

 

The usual definition of the speed of light in any medium is the same as that of the average speed of anything: [math]v = frac{Delta d}{Delta t}[/math], where [math]Delta d[/math] and [math]Delta t[/math] are changes in distance and time. Although direct measurement of [math]Delta t[/math] for practical values of [math]Delta d[/math] were experimentally impractical 100 years ago, they are no longer (eg: see “A small tabletop experiment for a direct measurement of the speed of light”, Aoki and Mitsui, 2008).

 

Although, to a person subscribing to a corpuscular theory of light (eg: Isaac Newton and many other 18th century natural philosophers), the idea that a direct measurement of the speed of light results in a constant value regardless of the motion of the emitter or receiver of the light is counterintuitive and unexpected, such results are reproduced literally many times a second worldwide, in particular by the GPS. The precision of the clocks and signal shapes of the GPS and other systems performing long-distance speed of light measurements is sufficient that a violations of the second postulate would be easily detected. No such violations are detected.

 

Therefore, rather than being nonsensical, as Viv claims, the second postulate seems to me superbly supported by experiments.

 

Viv, do I appear to understand your claims? If not, how have I erred?

 

If so, what is your experimental evidence for violations of the second postulate, or explanation for why violations are not experimentally detectable?

 

[Viv Pope replies

 

Dear Craig D,

As you will surely know, physics doesn't advance entirely by adding more and more 'experimental evidence' in a continuous series.Some of the biggest. most revlutionary advances are made by different interpretations of the same evidence. A famous example of this was supplied by Copernicus. Before he came on the scene it was 'evident' that the sun. moon and planets orbited the earth. Copernicus offered no experimental 'evidence' for his revolutionary shift in thinking towards seeing our earth and the other planets orbiting the sun, yet it turned out, in the end analysis. that this latter interpretation of the 'evidence' was far more acceptable than the former

 

This is the sort of conceptual 'flipover' that I have offered to this group for serious and intelligent consideration. In philosophy of physics, these different interpretations of physical evidence are judged by the criterion of conceptual economy called 'Ockham's Razor', whose use is to shave off logically unnecessary, or redundant, assumptions. It is this 'Ockham's Razor' that I have applied to Einstein's Second Axiom, showing that both it and its entourage of conceptual puzzles can be removed without affecting the practical consequences of Relativity in the least. In the equations, the value and dimensions of c are the exactly same, whether c is interpreted as a 'velocity' or a pure dimensional constant, in the way Herman Bondi and I have concurred. Both he and I have agreed that Relativity is much simpler to understand and to teach without c being interpreted n Einstein's way as a 'velocity'. You may see this if you search for POAMS on Google.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Viv Pope

[Viv Pope]

In order to confirm that I understand the point Viv intended to make with these statements, let me restate my read of it:

“The concept of the speed of light in vacuum © is logically incoherent, because the speed of light cannot be measured in a system consisting only of light in vacuum.”

 

…. Therefore, rather than being nonsensical, as Viv claims, the second postulate seems to me superbly supported by experiments.

 

Viv, do I appear to understand your claims? If not, how have I erred?

 

If so, what is your experimental evidence for violations of the second postulate, or explanation for why violations are not experimentally detectable?

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Viv Pope replies

 

I'm sorry, Craig D, to have been so long in replying to this. It is because, among other things, my details for entering this site were lost and I had great difficulty in reconnecting. Anyway, here is my belated reply.

 

You say:

Viv, do I appear to understand your claims? If not, how have I erred?

 

Fair enough. Craig-D. Here is my answer to your question.

 

First, this is not a matter of ‘experimental evidence’. It is a matter of pure meticulous logic.

 

Your ‘error’, if I may say, respectfully, is a very common one. It lies in misconstruing a rather fine point of logic. This is not – repeat NOT as you say:

 

“The concept of the speed of light in vacuum © is logically incoherent because the speed of light cannot be measured in a system consisting only of light in vacuum.”

 

So, cancel that. The correct interpretation is that there exists a logical alternative to the conventional notion of the constant c as ‘the velocity of light in vacuo’. This stems from the fact that there is a logical fallacy in that assumption. This is that just because all velocities are measures of distance divided by time, it doesn’t mean that all measures of distance divided by time – such as c – are velocities. That is logically irrefutable.

 

This is what leaves room for that alternative interpretation of c in the way that Herman Bondi and I have done, as a pure constant relating conventional measures in metres to conventional measures in seconds and vice-versa – similar to the way in which conventional pounds can be converted into conventional kilograms and conventional inches into conventional metres. Bondi calls c a distance-time ‘conversion factor’ and I have named it a ‘dimensional constant’. Bondi and I agreed on this as far back as the 1970’s. (All this is freely available to anyone wishing to research the relevant history.)

[Viv Pope]

Hi, there, CraigD,

You say:

'Viv, do I appear to understand your claims? If not, how have I erred?

 

If so, what is your experimental evidence for violations of the second postulate, or explanation for why violations are not experimentally detectable?

 

Viv replies.

 

Ten Proofs that c is Not a Velocity

This is an extract from talk and ensuing discussion of a paper presented at ANPA (the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association) Wesley House, Cambridge. The talk was entitled ‘A Truly Alternative Natural Philosophy’ and was communicated to the Association by Viv Pope, on Saturday, August 5th, 2006.

The Ten Proofs:

1. The undeniable fact that c has the dimensions of distance divided by time explains all that is known about the times taken for communications over distance. However , by the most elementary logic, the fact that all velocities are distances divided by time by no means entails that all distances divided by time are velocities, which would be as absurd as saying that because dogs have four legs, anything with four legs is a dog. What this entails is that c need not necessarily be a ‘velocity’. The following arguments prove that c cannot possibly be a ‘velocity.

2. For light to be seen, photographed or detected in any possible way, it has to shine on something. In a vacuum there is, by definition, nothing on which it can shine. So, logically, light cannot be seen, photographed or in any other way be detected in the vacuum of space. This signifies a reduction to absurdity of Nils Abramson’s claim to have photographed ‘light travelling in vacuo’. Whatever Nils photographed couldn’t possibly have been light in vacuo. I had to be a reflection off something, and a vacuum can reflect nothing

3. To be seen or otherwise detected travelling in a vacuum, light would have to give off light. And for that secondary light to be seen in vacuo it would also have to give off light; and in order for that tertiary light to be detected it, too, would have to give off light … and so on, ad infinitum, in a logical regress to absurdity.

4. If c is interpreted as a ‘velocity in the vacuum of space’ (pace Einstein’s Second Postulate), then in a vacuum to what can that ’velocity’ possibly be referred, constant or otherwise? So the concept of light as having a ‘velocity in space’ is just another absurdity.

5. Light is quantised in units of Planck’s constant h. These quanta have been interpreted as ‘flying photons’, claimed to have been photographed ‘in flight’ by Abramson, a claim which has been vigorously supported by some members of ANPA who have strenuously argued that seeking to refute Abramson’s claim showed a culpable ‘lack of respect’! However, since the ‘photon’ is defined as a single, irreducible light-quantum, it has no energy to spare in manifesting itself anywhere between its point of emission and point of absorption. A quantum interaction between a pair of atoms, therefore, has to be instantly consummated, with there being no sensible question either as to where it is or what it does between the source and sink. There are simply no parameters to describe that ‘motion’. Any attempt to detect it absorbs its whole packet of energy at that point, so that there can be no question of how it exists or travels when undetected.

6. In order to conform to the law of conservation of energy, the alleged ‘photon’ cannot just hang around unconsummated in limbo, waiting to be absorbed. As Tom Phipps (Jr.) neatly put it, “the ‘photon’ sure don’t have a holding pattern!” So, what is a ‘photon’ when it is supposed to be travelling, say, between galaxies or, as it might be, en route to nowhere? So, again, the concept is meaningless.

7. Can light be scattered by light, as some experimenters have claimed? If one powerful laser-beam is shone across the path of another, do their ‘photons’ collide or their ‘waves’ interfere? In a simple experiment devised and carried out at Brunel university, in 1980, by myself and Peter Louwerse, plus some laboratory assistants, two powerful lasers were beamed across each other’s paths and also shone head-on at each other. No blocking, interference or any other kind of disturbance whatsoever was detected. If any such interference were to take place, then that light would suffer dispersion. Considering the amount of light that is allegedly ‘criss-crossing’ around in general, it would be amazing if visual acuity was possible over the length of a single metre. All the light that is allegedly shooting about in all directions would be as much a barrier to vision as the densest fog that can be imagined. The fact, then, that there are photographs of the farthest galaxies that display awesome clarity militates against the validity of any claim to have detected photons travelling in vacuo.

8. All velocities, properly so called, obey the rule of the composition of velocities, according to which the velocity of an object is different relative to differently moving observers. But c is, eminently, the same for all relatively moving observers which means that, logically, it cannot be a velocity.

9. For a velocity to be a velocity it has to be the velocity of something that is physically identifiable. In physics both ancient and modern, there is nothing that can be physically identified as a light particle travelling in vacuo, especially in view of Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle, which makes the ‘track’ of an alleged ‘photon’ absolutely indeterminate. And if we think of what ‘travels in vacuo’ as ‘waves’, then what can possibly ‘wave’ in a vacuum?

10. To measure the ‘velocity’ of light in space one would have to know the distance over which the light would be set to travel, and how else can that distance be measured other than by the light itself? For instance, the unit of space-measure is the ‘light-year’, which is defined as the distance that light travels in one year. But this definition is plainly circular, since it simply states, in effect, that the distance the light travels in one year is the distance that light travels in that one year. So there can be no objective meaning to that definition, which is a complete tautology.

In sum, then, all we can definitely know about light is, first of all, that it is the directly perceived informational basis of all physical phenomena. Second, we learn from observation (Römer) and experiment (Michelson et al. ) that all three dimensions of observational perspective, measured in metres, are times in seconds, in the ratio of units c. Anything further than that can be nothing more than just sheer speculation.

 

 

Fair enough.