🚀 go-pugleaf

Subject: Omitted Reference Frame and Atomic Transponders
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 02:16:18 GMT
Keywords: theory, observation, methods, techniques


Summary: Using Quantum Optics and Boltzmann's concepts, a photoatomic
model of light transmission is given. Reasoning errors in theoretical
and experimental paradigms for the light paradox are explained, as based
upon this paradigm.  Further, a skeptic's argument presents key points.

Note:  This manuscript is for viewing and not discussional purposes in
this usenet group or via email to this author since the responses may
create a large demand of work for both parties; but, if a Q&A web site
was created by some "edu," then Q&A could be addressed. This manuscript
was designed for ASCII viewing; terminal fonts should be used to view.

Note: Copy/Pasted into Outlook Express from ascii test file.  May have
distorted.


  Omitted Reference Frame and Atomic Transponders


   Introduction and Historical Overview


When the light paradox was created around 1913 by astronomical

research, science then could be described more as a philosophers club

since little was known. This paradox was based upon and analyzed

from a perceived notion of an expected means of light transmission, but

previous and present paradigms have omitted one crucial reference frame

in conjunction with atomic transponders, a generic term denoting another

means of photon propulsion.  These relevant aspects are discussed in a

generalized format  and includes a brief discussion of  potential

experiments, and errors in past experiments, as based upon this model.




Around 1913, all light models (Newton, Ritz, and Wave) were based upon

a continuous motion of transmission. Further, all assumed one emission

source, the initial source of emission, was the propelling mechanism.

Today, research suggests light travels in discontinuous motions, and in

terms of this paradigm within earth's atmosphere, this means molecules

are "molecular transponders" which are receiving and propelling photons.




An outline of these differences between light propulsion models are:


1.  Continuous Motion Model (Pre 1913 ideation)

 A.  Emission Source (c)
 B.  Emission Source's Velocity (v)

2.  Discontinuous Motion Model (Based upon this paradigm)

 A.  Emission Source (c)
 B.  Emission Source's Velocity (v)
 C.  Molecular Transponder's or Atomic Transponder's Velocity (v)



The first two items (A&B) in both are identical; but today's research

supports discontinuous motions (e.g., blue sky, QED), and the atomic

transponder's velocity has never been evaluated.  Yet, it explains why

inappropriate  v  terms were used in the classical mechanics equation

and why past experimental techniques are flawed since this could not be

evaluated.  When the light paradox came about, it was based upon two

assumptions:


1.  Continuous Motion

2.  Single Emission Source


But, a model based upon discontinuous motions and atomic transponders

nullifies their assumptions.  Assumption one is in error since research

indicates discontinuous motions.  Assumption two, which is derived from

assumption one, is nullified (as noted later) since discontinuous

motions represent a means of photon propulsion by atomic transponders.

They assumed only one source of emission, emission source, but they

never considered a model based upon discontinuous motions and atomic

media propelling photons.  As such, this represents an omission in their

reasoning, and omits later discovered events (via research) in nature.



For instance, say a phosphorescence substance is exposed to sunlight and

taken indoors to luminesce.  This shows that this substance's atomic

elements are emitting photons, and this represents a discontinuous means

of photon transmission since the photons came originally from the sun,

but were absorbed by this substance and then emitted.  This is analogous

to this atomic transponder concept, whereby within earth's atmosphere,

molecular transponders are doing this in a much faster time interval but

essentially passing mostly the same frequency onward towards earth. As

such, this phosphorescence example explains a discontinuous means of

motion and shows that this phosphorescence substance is now an emitter.

Atomic transponders like this phosphorescence substance or molecular

transponders represent a concept which was not considered experimentally

or theoretically in terms of another means of  photon propulsion.



This example, which is the essence of Quantum Optics, represents the

essential arguments; that atomic transponders are propelling photons and

that photons are transmitted in discontinuous motions. Their two

implicit assumptions for the light paradox were that light traveled in

continuous motions and light was propelled only by a single emission

source.  But this example shows an atomic substance capable of receiving

photons from an emission source (sun), and then later emit these

photons, which means a discontinuous photon motion and that more than

one source of emission exists.  Thus, their two assumptions for the

light paradox are in error, as based upon this example and QED.



If the presented concepts and mathematics are flawed, then this model is

without relevance.  But, if these concepts are integrated into classical

mechanics framework, and address relevant points, then experiments could

be designed to test this model, if needed.  Their two assumptions today

are no longer are valid, and in effect, this nullifies their scientific

reasoning and experiments. This model sketchs out relevant aspects in a

generalized format, and its focus is to illustrate a template overview

of photon transmission with respect to reasoning errors in the light

paradox's assumptions and astronomical experimental techniques.


     Presentation


R. S. Shankland [1] noted the original proofs for validating the light

paradox were derived from earthly observations of binary stars, some 83

years ago.   As indicated, there are two terms and an assumed result:


     c   +/-  v =   c


c   299,792,458m/s

+/- v  Binary star's velocities (2 suns), and assumed  result of  c.



Aside - The experimental result above (c) does not account for

transmission through media, like earth's, interstellar's, or a binary

star's orbital gaseous media.  It was assumed that light's path did not

cross media, but since it does the actual experimental result would be

< c.  A fine point, but from here on the symbol c will represent a < c

result in this equation,   c   +/-   v  = c,   unless a vacuum exist.



They had expected (a prediction based upon Ritz's Emission Theory) to

observe the following results, as based upon The Addition of Velocities

for Classical Mechanics equation; via observations of binary stars,

which were analyzed by the following two methods:


(1) Telescope-Interferometry method by Tomaschek, and

(2) Telescope viewing for irregular movement patterns by W. de Sitter.



 The Addition of Velocities for Classical Mechanics Equation


     c   +/-  v = c   +/-  v


But their limited thought, in part due to the defunct Machian era of

influence, caused them to not consider or rule out a different model

based upon these two briefly defined and now accepted concepts below.

These concepts existed then, but the physical association of them did

not. Newton's corpuscular model was extinct and the wave  theorist view

dominated then.  Ritz's particle model and Newton's did not account for

these two explained concepts below and both assumed light particles did

not interact with media in this manner to be explained.  Differences

exist between Newton's and Ritz's models, but both suggest  that light

particles move analogous to a traveling bullet through media.



Atomic Transponder - A generic term denoting a photon collision and

ejection from atomic media;  terms like molecular transponder, ionic

transponder, etc., could also be used.  Concepts like phosphorescence,

absorption, scattering, reflection, or methods using Laser Doppler

Velocimeter suggest atomic transponder events exist.  How or why an

atomic transponder processes a photon is beyond this article's scope.



Molecular Randomness -  With respect to millions of photomolecular

collisions, randomness, by definition, denotes a net velocity of zero.

With respect to "linear" transmissions, molecules travel in all

directions at various velocities at standard conditions but when all of

their velocities are summated, their net velocity will be zero (v = 0).

Molecules represent an omitted  v  term in the light paradox equation.




The Addition of Velocities for Classical Mechanics Equation is valid

when molecular transponders in conjunction with molecular randomness are

considered in the Classical Mechanics Equation in earth's atmosphere:


     c   +/-  0  =   c


The  +/-  v terms represent  zero since these earthly molecular

transponders' directional linear-speed vectors summate to zero.

Molecules are receiving and ejecting photons, which means their

molecular linear-directional vectors must be considered;  if

the "linear" path of a single photon was followed  at standard

conditions, then two Classical Mechanics Equations are written:


1.  c   +/-  0  =   c  Total Path: Millions of Collisions


2.   c   +/-  v  =   c   +/-  v  Molecule to Molecule Path


The total path's result (c) is what has been observed in laboratory

since molecular vectors summate to zero. The Addition of Velocities for

Classical Mechanics Equation is valid for both equations above since all

of the individual molecule to molecule results (say six million results)

when summated are identical to the total path result found since

molecular randomness denotes a net velocity of zero at standard

conditions. Hence, when traveling from molecule to molecule, photons

will travel relativistically, but the measured total path's velocity

appears to be a constant value, but this is an experimental illusion.



The Addition of Velocities for Classical Mechanics equation is valid

since this omitted reference frame in conjunction with these two terms

do account for their earthly results.  Their use of the stellar-earth

reference frame as compared to this omitted  reference frame means

different calculations are required for this theorem, as shown. For

instance, equation two denotes that between collisions,  photons travel

faster, slower, and at the same speed of light;  when these values are

summated (v = 0),  equation one's value is derived. Molecular randomness

within earth's atmosphere explains why these transponders' velocities

are "resetting" or "neutralizing" a photon's linear speed to near c.



Note - Above assumes no force effects, just pure molecules and photons,

and omits atomic transponder's transient time concept, discussed later.

Again, this discussion is related to events within earth's atmosphere,

just plain linear-path light transmissions.



Aside - Ritz's model did not represent Nature to begin with, so leaping

to the light paradox conclusion is false reasoning.  Your assumption

would be that all potential possibilities (e.g., Newton's, Ritz's) were

considered; but how would they know this to be true in 1913?  Their

reasoning of a perceived rifle-bullet analogy as the only light particle

transmission model prevented them from considering a photon propulsion

model via discontinuous motions  and atomic transponders after leaving

the initial emission source.  Their wave model was based upon continuous

light motion, but today, research supports discontinuous light motion,

which is a modified model of Newton's (Greek's) Corpuscular Theory.



     Basic Mechanics


By discussing Jean Foucault's 1850 speed of light experiment, which was

reported to be the experiment disproving Newton's corpuscular theory,

the mechanics of particle transmission and experimental flaws can be

explained in basic terms.  Newton's density-speed relationship, in

summary, means that increased density denotes increased photon speed.



Note - This author knows not if Newton postulated that light's speed

would be affected by a density-speed relationship, or if this era of

scientists were making a derived assumption.



Two Concepts Briefly Defined:



Atomic Transponder's Transient Time(s) - The actual time duration

required for a specific photoatomic event. For instance, absorption

denotes that incoming photons collide with atomic components and are

ejected for retransmission, and this requires a specific time interval.

Or in luminescence, this is a longer time interval.  All photoatomic

collisions and photon transmissions require some time interval, which is

dependent upon the specific photoatomic event.  These timing differences

within this model account for the varying linear path trajectory speeds

for a given frequency or frequencies of light propagation for a given

set of conditions (e.g., temperature, electric-magnetic fields, etc.).




f ( x ) =  c  - Denotes that atomic transponders (nuclear or free)

receive photons at various incoming speeds (x), but all  are ejecting

photons at c, with respect to the collision site (atomic coordinates).

Do note, this value is roughly 299,792,458m/s, but deviations may exist

in output velocity for specific photoatomic conditions (environment).



Using a numbered line as a reference tool, if the numbers on this line

represent fixed molecules (points), then a photon emitted at the origin

would travel at  c  until colliding with the first numbered point.  It

would then be "stopped" for an instant, say one femtosecond, and then be

emitted again at c since atomic transponders eject photons at c.  These

molecular transponders' transient time events, an instantaneous stop and

go events, are repetitive throughout all points on this numbered line.

Between all points, a photon travels at c on this fixed numbered line,

and these transponders are emitting photons at c.



If this numbered line now represents kinetic molecules, at standard

conditions, that all are in the path of a moving photon, then a photon

emitted at the origin would travel at c until colliding with the first

numbered point.  It would then be stopped for an instant, one

femtosecond, and then be emitted again and travel at a summated value of


c   +/-  v


in which v represents the molecule's linear-speed vector and is measured

with respect to the reference line. In the next collision, the incoming

speed after this collision is lost (gone), and then this next molecule

emits it at a different summated value of


c  +/-  v


and this pattern repeats and these molecular velocities (+/- v) are all

different and cancel out to zero in the final summation (v = 0).




Hence, f ( x ) =  c  with respect to the collision site, means the

incoming speed has no relationship to the next outgoing speed, none!

f ( x ) =  c is a mathematical function statement, and these molecules

receive photons at various incoming velocities (x), but will always

eject them at c. These molecular transponders' transient time events

will be repetitive throughout this numbered line, and this is why

photons are slowing down in a medium (index of refraction); but,

molecular randomness means that the value of c  +/-  v between each

collision will vary (relative), but when all of these molecular

velocities or their vectors are summated via millions of collisions,

then their net velocity or vector is zero, c  +/-  0 =  c.  Molecular

randomness definition means molecular transponders will not impart any

observable linear speed (+/-) in a photon's flight (earth's atmosphere).




If a photon left the origin at 1.5c in both the static and kinetic

models, then once these photons collide with the first numbered point,

then that 1.5c is irrelevant since

f ( x ) =  c

means the incoming speed has no relationship to the outgoing speed in

both models.



When different colors (single frequencies) are said to have different

velocities in a medium, this means that one color has a different time

duration in transient time .  For instance, one color may have one

femtosecond, and the other 15 femtoseconds of atomic transponder's

transient time for each collision on this ideal numbered reference line.



When different mediums give different timing-passage results for a

specific frequency, then atomic components within these different

mediums are processing this single frequency differently in terms of

actual amount of transient time. For a specific frequency, for instance,

medium A could require 12 femtoseconds per transient time, and

medium B could require 78 femtoseconds per transient time. Hence, the

longer the transient time duration, the slower photons travel (medium).



Note - Femtosecond is being used for discussion only.  It is an

instantaneous second, and a very small one.  Further, in light

transmissions, force factors will be affecting the transient time;

there are undefined physical reasons why photons involved in absorption,

phosphorescence, scattering,  spontaneous emission, etc., all have

different time-visitation intervals but undefined force effects are

affecting a photon's time duration.




Jean Foucault's 1850 speed of light experiment concerning Newton's

density-speed relationship is unproved.  Foucault did not consider this

reference frame or its concepts, nor could he perform such an experiment

testing this premise in 1850 since molecular transponders' transient

times affects directly a photon's linear speed within a medium. There

are two different concepts that affects photon speed through a medium:


1. Density-speed as a function of gravity

2. Molecular transponder's transient time


Evaluating item one could only be done in different gravitational

environments, but item two is not a constant value but will change in

different environments (e.g., space).  Then, it was not perceived that

photons were interacting with molecules, transponder's transient time.

As such, this nullifies his reasoning, assumptions, and findings.



     Past Experiments



W. de Sitter's and Tomaschek's experiments, which were the validation

experiments for the light paradox, do not account for this reference

frame, discontinuous photon motions, or the concept of atomic

transponders.  Their equations, which were based upon continuous motion

and a single source of emission are opposed to current research

findings. Interstellar media, a binary star's gaseous media (orbital),

and discontinuous motions were omitted experimental considerations.



Other experiments (except one noted later) since do not account for or

consider these concepts presented, and therefore, are not relevant.

Contrary to popular misconception today, the Michelson-Morly experiment

did not validate the light paradox but rather to check for the aether

drift, which was thought to be about one-sixth the orbital velocity of

Earth.  Unless  mathematics is mocked, the +/- v terms with respect to

the Addition of  Velocities for Classical Mechanics Equation can be

determined via one method, and only one reference frame.



In Pound's and Snider's article, "Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation,"

they stated [2] that  "It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic

concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an 'apparent

weight' of photons is suggestive.  The velocity difference predicted is

identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for

a time equal to the time of flight."



   Future Hypothetical Experiments


At the onset, it must be stated "assume nothing."  Specific examples:

Equipment - Can it perform the task and can its timing parameters be

verified; assume theoretical equipment specifications are invalid until

verified.

Force Effects - Electromagnetic or magnetic fields exist and photons

have electric-magnetic properties, but within vacuum, how do these

forces interact and affect in any manner a photon's speed and

trajectory?



A Pound and Snider Like Experiment - If a vertical-horizontal tube was

evacuated and low intensity photon beams used, a time measurement based

upon two points could be evaluated if equipment is within design

parameters.  But, if a thin plate of glass was inserted into the path,

could this instrument detect differences in speed, assume nothing!



Orbiting Spacecraft -  Going to and from a single geosynchronous

satellite and using two widely separated antennae outside the craft and

placed at some distance away from the craft, another two point timing

measurement is possible.  But, could an analogous "thin plate of glass"

be inserted between these antennae to test equipment.



Compton Scattering - With a synchrotron producing polarized gamma rays,

then perhaps backscattered gamma be measured via 2 point timing method,

if it is possible to make this measurement.


Voitenko Compressor - An extreme gust of wind used in wind tunnels, but

if some frequency emitted via these molecules could be used, then...but

this would have to be done in a vacuum which could be a delicate task.

Or before explosion, if wide laser beam was present, then measuring

frequency shift might be interesting; but a direct speed measurement may

be an impossible task.



It should be noted that making direct measurements via two sensing

points separated over a distance is a difficult task. Indirect means

could represent  hidden assumptions, and potential false conclusions.

Assumption designed experiments, for one reason or another, has been the

problem with the light paradox's related experiments. But, Pound's and

Snider's opinion suggests Newton's (Greeks) idea was flawed, but right!



      Discussion


Do molecules exist, have velocities, and have a net velocity? If

Boltzmann's concepts are accepted, which many scientists did not during

the creation era (1913) of the light paradox, then question one is true.

When Boltzmann's concepts were finally taught, they were taught in books

with no physical relationship to photons or light, separate subjects.



Phosphorescence, as described with photon travel in discontinuous

motions and atomic transponder terms, represents a paradigm that existed

but was never expressed. It is in the transponder concept of it being an

"emitter" that explains why the light paradox exists today but is false

reasoning.  Discontinuous motions exist, but visualizing atomic

transponders which receive and emit photons is the omission in their

reasoning. Light passing through earth's atmosphere is analogous to

phosphorescence, but our human sensory organs do not allow us to see

this event since it is occurring in a much faster time scale. How atomic

transponders process incoming photons is not this article's scope, but

it is well known that incoming frequencies can remain the same or be

changed when emitted; as such, this represents photoatomic events. Thus,

atomic transponders represents an unexamined means of photon propulsion.



Recently, a localization of light experiment demonstrated that light

waves within a  diffused medium would bounce around in a standing wave

pattern, but they would not be absorbed.  Absorption has a specific

definition, which may be a term that needs to be revised to say a

Newton-Plank-Boltzmann's transient time effect, in honor of all three

scientists.  Chiefly because when a photon is interacting with atomic

media, this interaction requires some interval of time. For instance,

this localization experiment, if the term "waves" is substituted with

the term photons, then it would read that "photons in a diffused medium

are being bounced around by molecules," and the real question is, how

did these experimenters determine that photomolecular collisions in

terms of transient time are not occurring?  When absorption is defined

in Newton-Plank-Boltzmann's transient time concept, then the concept of

something is "not absorbed" would not exist.  When photons are bouncing

off molecules via reflection, scattering, or say localization, then

these events demonstrate photomolecular events, in which these require

some specific interval of time for each; but the key concept between

these events is their trajectories are different. These molecular

transponders are  processing these photons, which requires an interval

of time, but their transmission trajectories are different. It is in the

concepts used which blinds thinking; emission source blinds physicists

from seeing the molecular transponder term, and absorption or not

absorbed blinds them from the Newton-Plank-Boltzmann transient time

concept.  Denotation of terms can prevent further reasoning; they

represent "mind barriers" that may be hazardous to reasoning.



    One Skeptic's Argument



A typical response is that the Light Paradox is true since assumed

experimental evidence supports it, an assumption is not a proof.



     A Skeptic's Response



The implicit assumption is that these experiments are valid, but we

have no experimental evidence to support this viewpoint since this

requires a different paradigm in order to evaluate and test their

paradigm then in 1913.  Tomaschek's and De Sitter's experiments are

mental constructs, and may or may not represent reality. If two models

predict the same result (c) on these two equations,

(1913) c +/- v = c

(1998) c +/- 0 = c

then further considerations are required to evaluate which model is

valid.  Stated differently, if this 1998 model was presented in 1913,

then these experiments could not decide which equation is valid. So,

then the details of each model must be accessed for further details.



For instance, Quantum Optics did not exist in 1913, but these light

paradox experiments were based upon these implicit assumptions:

(1) Continuous Motion of Light, and

(2) A Single Emission Source.

But, Quantum Optics indicates both of these concepts are false.  For

instance, earth's blue sky indicates photon interactions with molecules,

which means a discontinuous photon motion and multiple emission sources.

Their assumptions and paradigm do not account for these events, and

these events must be evaluated.  Thus, their assumptions were in error.



Further, the main points with respect to earth's atmosphere were:


1.  Photons interact with molecules (Quantum Optics agrees)

2.  Molecules emit (propel) photons (Agreed, but not considered)


Since photons interact with molecules, then other emission sources

exist.  Today's accepted view and this view are that photons are ejected

from emission sources at c.  But, where are Boltzmann's concepts?  These

molecules that photons are interacting with, do they exist with kinetic

motions, velocities, and a net velocity?  Multiple emission sources vs.

single emission source and discontinuous motions (molecule to molecule)

vs. continuous motion (sun to earth) explains why their reasoning is in

error and does not account for today's accepted concepts for photon

transmission; as such, this nullifies their precepts and experiments.


In equation form, the following two equations:



     Emission Source       Binary Star      =  Light Paradox

(A)   c          +/-        v           =  c




   Discontinuous           Net Velocity
   Quantum Optics      Boltzmann Concepts =  No Light Paradox

(B)      c  +/-        0      =        c


Since all molecular emitters within earth's atmosphere are emitting

photons at c, then earthly experiments will always see c; by Quantum

Optics definition, emitters will emit at c, so one would expect these

experimenters' result as based upon today's knowledge (This would not be

a surprise.  Why?  Single source of emission as compared to mulitple

sources of emissions explains why the value of c would be expected.

Photons are always being ejected at c from molecular emitters, so why

would one expect in earth's atmospere, where measurments were performed,

anything faster or slower than c?  All molecular emitters are ejecting

photons at c, and this atomic reference frame has nothing to do with the

stellar reference frame.  Hence, they had false expectations since they

assumed only one emission source).  Consequently, both equations have

the same result, but equation (A) does not account for today's view of

light transmission, and does not account for these physical concepts:


(1) molecular emitters' velocities (+/- v), and

(2) discontinuous photon motion (molecule to molecule ejected at c).


As such, both equations predict the same result, but these experiments

were irrelevant to deciding this issue in 1913, due to their omissions.



The question always comes back to whose experiment is valid. Theories

like experiments must be examined, and after many years, the final

verdict may exist. If a model can not be evaluated, then what is the

function of a newer model?  Boltzmann's model was rejected by Machians,

but these Machians' ideas were rejected later.  Using Boltzmann's and

Quantum Optics concepts, this model, as based upon physical concepts,

explains how omission errors existed at the time of these experiments.



Each reader may have their own special experiment which "proves" their

experiment supersedes these experiments, but unless a person can find an

error in a model, then citing experiments which can not be certified to

be true proves nothing.  Experimental errors have existed since they are

mental constructs, and science's history shows cleary that future

experiments have casted doubt upon previous theories and experiments.

For instance, experiments supporting Huygen's wave theory are in error

today, but back then, they were proof. All experiments do not represent

reality, but represent "opinions" that may or may not be true.  For

instance, Pound and Snider stated the "velocity difference predicted is

identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for

a time equal to the time of flight,"  but some readers may have their

own experiment which they think is true.  History has shown, on many

occasions, that experiments do not represent the truth and that

certifying experiments in terms of them being the "truth," is a rather

foolish idea.  Consequently, if this skeptic's response does not

illustrate how newer data and findings have superseded their assumptions

and false experiments, then future experimentation can evaluate and test

this model. Using past experiments as some litmus test to refute could

represent speculation, especially if this litmus test is not related to

normal photoatomic events.  Photoatomic events was this topic's subject.



						References



1.  R. S. Shankland,  Amer. J. Phys., 31, 47, (1963).

2.  R. V. Pound and J. S. Snider, Phys. Rev. 144, B788 (1965).



----------------------------------------------------------------------
				Copyright 1998 by A. B. Jordan
					abjordan@pobox.com
					All Rights Reserved
----------------------------------------------------------------------