The foundations of quantum mechanics are shaking
The interpretation of the Compton effect in terms of particles is one of the two keys that quantum mechanics has used to introduce its own particular world view in the construction of physics. The other is the photoelectric effect.
In the Compton effect, a single photon strikes an electron, is deviated by it and loses a quantity of energy equal to the amount transferred to the electron.
The classical Wave Theory of light proved unable to describe the discontinuities in the transfers of light energy that emerged in the Compton effect in terms of the continuities characteristic of it.
For quantum mechanics, the Compton effect provided clear and inevitable proof that Classical Wave Theory was inadequate. The old Wave Theory could not describe the phenomenon of interactions between radiation and matter adequately in which only and exclusively laws governing discrete corpuscles were involved.
The experiment made use of concepts of discontinuity that indicated discrete energy transfers from the radiation to the matter, which could not be described in terms of continuity.
The phenomenon could be compared to an interaction between two billiard balls that strike one another. The striking ball transfers a discreet and precise portion of its energy to the ball that is struck.
This version was subsequently refined. People of quantum mechanics spoke of “diffusion” in the function of the mathematical wave of the corpuscle-photon’s wave train by the electron or its field. But the corpuscular laws were still presented as clear proof that the phenomenon could not be described in terms of waves.
Using the new Principle of Relative Symmetry, we are now in a position to demonstrate that quantum mechanics’ claims are not true.
The new Wave Theory of the Field is able to describe the Compton effect on the basis of exclusively wave laws.
It can reveal all the events of a wave-like interaction in strictly causal and also discrete terms.
Picture 16. The classic laws governing impact appear to regulate the Compton interaction between photons and electrons just as they regulate the interaction of billiard balls as they strike one another.
The new theory will allow us to link the Compton effect to other known phenomena.
And we will be able to derive much more information from the phenomenon than quantum mechanics has been able to draw out.
To achieve this, we must first back up a bit and view the Compton effect in the context of a series of three phenomena that appear to differ from each other. We will discover, however, that they are united in a new model.
In this model, light interacts with matter and its fields at varying levels of emphasis.
The new model will allow us to perceive a new pattern in nature.
It will show us how phenomena that have been considered up to now to be completely separate from one another are in fact closely linked in a common causal connection and constitute parts of a common wave framework.
The first of these three phenomena involves General Relativity and Einstein’s dreams.
According to Einstein, light from a star should be deviated from its straight-line path by the sun’s gravitational field as it passes close to the surface of the sun.
Einstein saw in this phenomenon an experimental method to test his theory, which many considered rather abstruse and difficult to verify experimentally.
A ray of light from a star was supposed to describe a slightly concave trajectory corresponding to it passage close to the surface of the Sun.
During an eclipse that hid the solar disk, an observer on earth would assign to the star a position that corresponded to the ray’s perceived direction. The star would thus appear to have shifted slightly to one side with respect to its true position.
The proper conditions and right men to test the theory were lacking for many years.
Sir Arthur Eddington, a great admirer of Einstein, took great care to organize the observation of an eclipse and, although he failed to complete his observations as quickly as Einstein anxiously wished, communicated to an amazed world that the stars did appear to have shifted from their positions just as Einstein had predicted.
The observation was finally made in Brazil on the occasion of the eclipse of 1919, and, by one of those mysteries that hover around the mechanisms of mass communication, caused a decisive turn in Einstein’s popularity. Newspaper headlines of the day praised the rationalism of the great scientist “who guided the light of the stars in the sky”.
(By a curious fate, Einstein had miscalculated the angle at which the sun would deviate the ray of light from the star by half and the delay allowed him to correct his error and avoid looking foolish!)
General Relativity explained the deviation of light in terms of its hypothesis of the non-Euclidean character of space in the vicinity of the sun and this hypothesis was confirmed. The gravitational field of every great material mass present in space creates a distortion in the geometry of the surrounding space that deviates the photon’s trajectory.
We can now also use the Wave Theory of the Field to explain the phenomenon without appealing to the presence of a gravitational field. It simply describes the situation of the waves surrounding the sun in terms of the presence of spherical elementary waves.
Picture 17. Deviation of the light of a star as it passes close to the surface of the sun, observed on the occasion of an eclipse.
According to the hypothesis supported by the theory, the sun, like any macroscopic body possessing mass, emits waves at an extremely high frequency equal to the sum of the individual frequencies emitted by all the elementary particles that make it up.
The sun appears to emit the sum of all these waves as a spherical elementary wave at a very high frequency, the center of which is the center of the sun itself.
The surfaces of these spherical waves thus propagate in the surrounding space at the speed of light and constitute the wave agents of the sun’s field of mass.
To justify the deviation of the luminous wave trains originating in the star, we must suppose that the sun’s spherical waves in some way deviate and guide the flat waves of the photon coming from the star.
In fact, this is not a supposition but the adjustment to the idea that the geometry of space surrounding the solar mass is influenced by the sun’s waves of mass.
The value of this effect must be based on the radius of the sun’s spherical waves that come into contact with the light’s flat waves in addition to the value of the frequency of the waves the sun emits. In turns out in fact that light coming from stars that appear more distant from the sun’s surface are subjected to a smaller deviation and that the deviation diminishes the farther the light passes from the sun’s surface.
Picture 18. Deviation of light by a wave field. As predicted by General Relativity, the light of the stars that passes further from the surface of the Sun is deflected less by its wave field as a function of the size of the radius of the Sun’s waves.
We must therefore understand the wave trains of light as being deviated from their straight-line trajectories by an interaction with spherical waves originating in the sun’s mass.
The flat wave surfaces of the light coming from distant stars enter the field of influence of the sun’s wave surfaces that possess a precise curvature of their own.
The spherical waves originating in the sun that propagate in the space surrounding the sun can have a minimum radius equal to the material surface of the sun itself.
There is thus a minimum geometric curvature defined in terms of the radius of its wave in the immediate surroundings of the sun’s surface.
Relativity defines a body’s ability to influence the trajectory of light in terms of its mass and the value of its radius.
To restate this in terms of waves, — the wave source-sun’s ability to influence the trajectory of wave trains of light — depends on the frequency of its waves of mass at rest and the radius of its spherical waves as they come into contact with the light, and thus, at a minimum, the radius of the sun’s material mass.
We can conclude that, at the same frequency, the spherical waves’ ability to curve the trajectory of the flat waves of light from the star diminishes as their radius becomes larger.
Up to here, we have said nothing that was not included in General Relativity’s interpretation, but the new Wave Theory must point out that a piece of data is missing from General Relativity’s description to provide a complete picture of the phenomenon.
This piece of data was “probably” omitted from the original theory because it was considered irrelevant to the purposes of calculating the angle at which the beam of light would be deviated.
A banal but unexpected modification of General Relativity
The essential indication that the photon’s “low energy” flat waves are influenced by the sun’s system of high energy spherical waves is lacking in the description of the phenomenon of the deviation of light from a star by the mass of the sun.
Into the General Relativity’s formula describing the beam of star light’s angle of deviation it is “not” in fact mentioned the energy of the photon that is deviated.
It may be that Einstein considered it completely useless to introduce the photon’s energy into the formula as it is so small to influence in appreciable way the deviation’s angle in comparison with the energy of the sun’s mass.
The photon’s energy was irrelevant at that time, but it is the keystone of the new Wave Theory of the Field’s construction that leads to the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
The new theory must now modify General Relativity’s formula providing the value of the angle of the deviation of light to add the ratio between the the square wavelength of the Sun over the wavelength the incoming light that is deviated x the radius of the deviating generic mass λ² 0 / λi . r .
Picture 19. The formula of the Sun’s wave mass: ms = h /c λs is derived from Einstein’s formula of the deviation of light. Where rs is the radius of the Sun and G the gravitational constant.
We add λ² 0 / λi . r which is the ratio ratio between the square wavelength of the masse over the wavelength of the incoming light that is deviated x the radius of the deviating generic mass of the Sun to complete the description of the phenomenon.
The additional ratio becomes predominant in the case of extremely small masses such as that of the electron.
In the relativistic formula of the Sun’s deviation of light, the smallest value of the added ratio did not play a determining role in establishing the angle of deviation by the sun. In the sequence of phenomena we will now investigate using the same formula, however, this added factor will become increasingly important to the point of influencing the new physics as a whole.
We now have a lock on the second key phenomenon in the same series.
The diffraction of a luminous beam by the thin edge of an obstacle constitutes a clear analogy with the first phenomenon, but there are some quantitative differences that suggest a pronounced effect that is similar to the earlier one.
A beam of light brushes against the thin edge of the obstacle and then proceeds to strike a screen placed behind it. Some of the photons that make up the beam are deviated by diffraction from the straight-line trajectory they would have maintained if the obstacle had not been there and, rotating around the thin edge of the obstacle, strike the screen in the obstacle’s geometric shadow.
To describe this phenomenon in terms of classical optics, we must apply Huygens’ Principle, which was formulated during the seventeenth century to describe the propagation of light as a wave. It was designed to express the behavior of light using the idea that a material ether exists and the behavior of waves observed in a material medium.
According to this principle, “in a medium traversed by waves, each mathematical point on a wave front at a particular instant can be considered to be a new source of spherical waves. We can obtain the subsequent position of the wave front by constructing the envelope of waves emitted by all the punctiform wave sources that make up the wave front during the preceding instant.”
Classical optics starting point does not seem very satisfactory from a purely causal perspective. It is difficult to admit that an explanation based on the hypothesis of the existence of an ether “understood as being a material medium” can survive the disappearance of mechanical ether decreed by the Theory of Relativity and the experimental proofs put forward by Michelson and Morley.
Picture 20. Diffraction of light by a straight edge a) into visible light, b) into x-rays and c) using a micro photometer.
The new wave theory refutes Huygens’ Principle and derives the luminous waves’ behavior from the behavior of perturbations in Schild’s space-time that can propagate from one event point to another in space-time.
We understand the wave fronts to follow a trajectory by moving in the direction that is normal for each discrete section of the wave front as they are conditioned exclusively by the local geometrical properties of the lattice in which they are moving.
The wave phenomenon that we wish to identify with waves emitted by any particular portion of the matter must be understood to be in control “exclusively” in the context of the most elementary geometry.
The wave surfaces must therefore be understood to be ideal bi-dimensional surfaces being translated in space at the speed of light “c”.
This type of wave has no connection to the waves we already know and we must not expect to be able to describe it in terms of continuous sinusoidal functions.
We can describe in with a discontinuous and discrete periodic function that expresses the geometrical existence of a bi-dimensional structure in space-time. This structure is made up of surfaces of perturbation in motion at velocity “c” in the Schild’s discrete lattice.
When it diffracts the luminous waves, the wave hypothesis of the field states that the obstacle emits a wave in a form similar to its profile. This wave is the sum of the spherical waves emitted by all the elementary particles that make up the obstacle at the subatomic level.
In this particular case in which the edge of the obstacle is assumed to be very thin, it emits a wave with a semi-cylindrical form.
Seen in cross-section in the immediate vicinity of the edge, the experimental wave situation proves essentially similar to the one found in the deviation of light by the solar mass. But there are still some quantitative differences that reveal interactions among the waves. The angle of deviation imposed on light by the phenomenon of diffraction proves to be much more accentuated than that in the preceding phenomenon.
Picture 21. Wave diffraction by an edge that emits waves that are the sum of the waves emitted by the individual elementary particles that make it up.
Essentially, two of the data change:
- the frequency emitted by the edge of the obstacle causing the deviation is much smaller than that emitted by the sun and this means that its wavelength is much greater;
- the radius of the waves emitted by the edge which come in contact with the light during its passage in the near vicinity is much smaller than the radius of the spherical waves emitted by the sun in the vicinity of its surface.
This justifies our first conclusion that:
even though the size of the angle of deviation depends on the value of the frequency of the waves emitted by the obstacle, the “smallness of the radius” of the waves emitted by the obstacle has a much greater influence on the possibility of deviating the light’s trajectory.
We must therefore assume that the formulas in General Relativity that define the importance of the deviating mass and the distance at which the light passes from the mass to be no more than a first approximation of the true law.
In both phenomena, the spherical or semi-cylindrical waves emitted by the obstacles – the sun or the thin edge – clearly act on the flat waves of the light’s wave trains.
But even this phenomenon of diffraction does not provide sufficient data for a quantitative analysis. It merely provides us with general indications that support the initial hypothesis, but are unable to specify the means by which the spherical waves act on the flat waves.
We must therefore find other phenomena in which the most important variable, the small size of the deviating waves’ radius, is more prominent as well as clearly the determining factor.
We take the third phenomenon, which will prove decisive, from the very center of our opponents’ camp: the Compton effect.
Donation for the antigravity research
Please, Donate for the antigravity research
$2.00