Relativity's amusing Curved Light Theory
Relativity's ball-on-canvas theory
The Rope Hypothesis - An alternative to waves, particles and wave-packets
(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment go to Rational Scientific Method.)
Is space curved? Can a beam of light be bent? We discover that the proposals of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are founded on a play of words. The electromagnetic rope model of light and gravity reconciles bending with straightness.
QM contradicts GR
The Mathematical Establishment – people who have usurped the title of ‘physicist' – assert that the ‘theories’ of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been proven. Einstein decreed General Relativity to be ‘correct’ in 1919 and Bohr certified that Quantum is a complete theory in 1935. The evidence is all in. The jury has already reached a verdict. There is nothing more to argue. Try publishing a paper in Nature or Science against Relativity or Quantum if you believe otherwise.
But what does General Relativity actually say? What is this ‘theory’ about? What is it that is alleged to be true and proved and settled?
There are two conflicting proposals, one, the quantitative mathematical description, the other, the qualitative physical interpretation. The mathematician points to an equation and tells you that the formula describes the orbit of Mercury, i.e., how this rock moves around the Sun. That’s Einstein’s contribution to ‘physics’. That’s why he’s so famous today. That’s his legacy. The mathematician now tugs at the straps of his pants with his thumbs and boasts that he knows ‘WHY’. The reason, he tells you, is that space is warped. The equation, which initially was supposed to be a description of the orbit of Mercury – an itinerary – has now morphed into the shape of the bowl Mercury rolls around! Einstein converted the trajectory of the ball into the topology of the roulette!
Of course, if you attack this qualitative physical interpretation on grounds that it violates logic, the entire Math Club instantly explodes in laughter. The reply has to slap any rational drunkard into stunning sobriety: “We already know that you can’t make sense of warped space. We cannot even imagine it. General Relativity is not about warped space. We use that analogy to impress ignorant peasants such as you. General Relativity is about Einstein’s mathematical elegance.”
How curved light was established
How did we reach such a sad state of affairs in ‘physics’? What induced the entire mathematical establishment to go bonkers? At what point did the leadership of ‘science’ abandon rationality and begin to regard common sense as a handicap? I mean, think about it. The fellow goes through 10 years of college punishment to distance himself from religion and superstition and winds up with 0D particles and warped space. It has to send goose bumps up anyone’s sleeve.
The first milestone was placed on the highway of Math in 1919. Arthur Eddington, a British subject, confirmed right after the war that a German citizen’s theory was correct. Eddington took photographs of a star eclipsed by the Sun. The evidence was conclusive to the mathematical world: Light from the star obviously curved around the Sun – a phenomenon Einstein had anticipated three years earlier. The Constitution of General Relativity was ratified and the mathematical apostles scoured the world convincing people wherever they went that space is warped.
Curved or deflected?
The first problem with Eddington's assertion is that in Science we don't prove. Proof means that you convinced someone of something. Proof means that someone accepted your theory. Fundamentalist Christians argue that they have proven God. Has God been proven to everyone in the world?
The second problem is that both Einstein and Eddington ASSUMED that light consists of particles. An ASSUMPTION is not a proof. If there is another physical interpretation to the same phenomenon, then the alleged 'proof' meant in retrospect that the enthusiasts were just trying to shove their theory down your throat.
The third problem is language. If light consists of a stream of particles, then light did not 'bend' or 'warp'. Light is not 'curved'. We either talk about the particles or about the beam or ray. If a ray of light is treated as a single, undifferentiated entity -- made of a single piece -- then we can talk about bending and curving. We can warp a hammock and a banana IS curved. If we are going to talk about the particles that comprise the beam, we can at best say that they swerved or were deflected. We are referring not to the structure of the beam, but to the itinerary of each particle. Relativists can argue that space or spacetime is curved or warped. They cannot argue that 'light' is bent.
In Optics, light always extends straight
Today, the dogma everyone in college must learn by rote or else kiss his career goodbye is that photons consist of discrete packets of energy (the Quantum part) which slide along warped space created when massive celestial objects weigh down the canvas of spacetime (the Relativity part). Just about everyone who has opened a ‘scientific’ magazine has seen the ludicrous fishnet of space being curved like a hammock by a bowling ball placed in its center and the little photon marbles rolling down the resulting depression. The caption clarifies that light is curved or bent by gravity, which in relativity is synonymous with the geometry of space.
At the Quantum Class, however, the professor teaches that light consists of a string of particles that travel rectilinearly. The Optics Class teacher shows the class how light balls bounce perfectly straight from mirrors during reflection and refraction. Indeed, Both Hero and Fermat's Principles demand that light travel in straight lines. So does the Principle of Ray Reversibility. If we place a mirror on the Moon and shine a laser at it, will the alleged particles travel back and forth rectilinearly or will they swerve?
So? Which is it? Does light travel rectilinearly or curvilinearly? Is a ray of light curved or do discrete little balls that comprise the beam swerve and deflect? Are we talking about structure or motion?
Relativists ignore and live with contradictions
One question that certainly has to intrigue the rational thinker is language. Again, are we talking about ‘bending’ a beam of light or about ‘deflecting’ the itinerary of a stream of discrete particles? Bend, you can bend a plastic stick and make it look like a banana. Deflect, you can deflect a series of baseballs thrown down a slide. Are we talking about the shape of an object or about the trajectory of the rolling stones along that object’s surface?
Relativity will have it BOTH ways. A beam of light IS curved and a beam of light is comprised of discrete photon balls that TRAVEL curvilinearly. In the religion of Mathematical Physics light is both curved and deflected! That’s when you realize that it is very difficult to argue against a theory that covers all the bases.
Again, the mathematician loses no sleep over the fact that this explanation is irrational. He simply points to the equation. The physical interpretation – warped space, bent light – that’s Philosophy. Those are just analogies, physical representations to help YOU visualize more or less what THEIR equations insinuate. “We will never know for sure because there is no way to run an experiment that tells us WHAT light is or WHAT space is. Those questions – why, causes, explanations – are beyond the purview of science. So said Bohr and Heisenberg.”
So? Why doesn’t Mercury or the Moon drift out of the Solar System? What physical object compels each planet and satellite to maintain its course if not the warped wall of space?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.
More by this Author
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is not about force. The gravity equation depicts a static scenario. Newton's equation has to do with weight and tension, both of which are conceptually static. Nevertheless, unlike...
General Relativity sweeps the troublesome Mach's Principle under the rug and has no explanation for the complex units of the gravitational constant G. On the other hand, the rope hypothesis justifies Mach's Principle...
The Mathemagicians do their juggling with 0D 'particles' at the Quantum Circus. It's a bundle of laughs. They go through the motions of throwing and colliding inexistent balls and pins.