The Local-Ether Model & Quantum Electromagnetics theories of Prf. Ching-Chuan Su

  • The Local-Ether Model & Quantum Electromagnetics theories of Prf. Ching-Chuan Su

     John-Erik updated 2 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Members · 16 Posts
  • James

    Member
    June 6, 2021 at 12:46 am

    If you are open to the concept that a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves might exist as a real substance, I invite you to consider the Local-Ether Model and Quantum Electromagnetics theories of the late Prof. Ching Chuan Su.

    Prof. Su postulates an ether concept he calls the local-ether model. It is based on the classic principles of absolute time and Euclidean space. It is different from almost all other ether concepts in that it is not a universal model: it does not form an absolute reference frame at rest with all of space and is not universally isotropic or homogeneous.

    Instead, it is analogous to the gravitational potential field.

    I think we can all agree that the gravitational potential field exists throughout space with a magnitude that varies with respect to the distance, r, from a celestial body:

    φ(r) = GM/r

    This implies:

    • The gravitational potential field of a celestial body, φ₁, envelops the body in a roughly spherical halo. The field magnitude decreases inversely proportional to the distance (r) from the center of the body.

    • The gravitational potential field/halo of a celestial body, φ₁, (e.g. the Earth’s) is embedded in the field/halo of another (usually larger) celestial body, φ₂ (e.g. the Sun’s). The radius of φ₁ is roughly equal to the location where the gradients of the fields go to zero: ∇φ₁ = ∇φ₂ = 0.

    • The gravitational potential field accompanies its celestial body as it travels within the field that it is embedded in (e.g. the planets in orbit around the Sun). In other words, the field is entrained by the celestial body.

    • The gravitational potential field/halo does not rotate in space (why should it?). For the Earth, this is equivalent to the Earth Centered Inertial reference frame (the ECI).

    • A crucial point is that a celestial body rotates freely within its gravitational potential field/halo. There is no force to cause the field to rotate with the celestial body.

    These are also the properties of Prof. Su’s local-ether except that it has a real but extremely minute mass density proportional to φ(r) and propagates electromagnetic waves as classical waves in a medium at the characteristic wave velocity of the medium, √(1/μ₀ε₀) ≝ c.

    So what’s to prevent the local-ether from having properties like the gravitational potential field? Is it really such a radical concept? I presume the reason the universal ether model (e.g. the Lorentz ether) is so universally assumed is that it is simple to imagine. Even Einstein based his rejection of the ether concept on the assumption that it conformed to the universal ether model.

    The local-ether model even accounts for the apparent null results of Michelson-Morley type experiments. It implies that the motion of a location on the Earth’s surface with respect to the Earth’s local-ether is only due to the Earth’s rotation (~350 meters/second at 40 degrees latitude). This can be clearly detected by ring lasers. Ring lasers are examples of the Sagnac effect which is first order in v/c. However a Michelson interferometer is second order in (v/c)² and 350 meter/second is too small for it to unambiguously detect.

    Note that a Michelson interferometer on an orbiting spacecraft could easily detect its motion with respect to the local-ether/ECI due to its orbital velocity (~7500 m/s).

    So why should one consider this local-ether model? I assert that it is superior to Einstein’s Relativity. This is because it provides qualitative and quantitative explanations of the same fundamental phenomena that are conventionally cited as evidence supporting Einstein’s Relativity (and many others). However Prof. Su’s explanations are far simpler and clearer. Also, the theory doesn’t require one to scrap their common sense about the nature of time and space.

    For example, since the local-ether model is based on universal time, there is, of course, no Twin Paradox to worry about.

    For more details including a summary of Prof. Su’s theories with abstracts of and links to his 20+ papers, see

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350190574_The_Local-Ether_Model_and_Quantum_Electromagnetics_Theory_of_Prof_Ching-Chuan_Su

    The best paper to read first is:

    C.C. Su, “A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave”. European Physical Journal C, 21, pp. 701-715, Sept. 2001, DOI:10.1007/s100520100759, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.509.6294&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Best regards,

    Jim Marsen

  • John-Erik

    Member
    June 7, 2021 at 2:16 pm

    James

    Thank you for spreading info about the important works of Prof C C Su (also on RG). I agree to most of it. However, I have a theory that goes one step further and also explains gravity by means of a radial ether wind. My ideas are described in an article called The wave-particle dilemma in light as you can find at:

    PHYSICS ESSAYS 34, 2 (2021)

    I will come back here with a short summary of it.

    John-Erik

    • James

      Member
      June 8, 2021 at 1:32 am

      Hi John-Erik,

      I don’t know of any evidence for a radial flowing ether. In my opinion, the pseudo-range correction, also called a one-way linear Sagnac effect, contradicts this concept.

      Best regards,

      Jim Marsen

      • James

        Member
        June 8, 2021 at 4:08 am

        I’m meant to say: “…the pseudo-range correction used by all GPS receivers…”

        • John-Erik

          Member
          June 8, 2021 at 2:06 pm

          James

          GPS is symmetric with all satellites at the same altitude. So, the same radial error in all data. I do not see how ypu can regard GPS as contradicting.

          My article to PHYSICS ESSAYS contains many arguments for radial ether wind. One is that gravity is explained.

          Regards ______________ John-Erik

  • John

    Member
    June 8, 2021 at 1:03 am

    Dear James Marsen:

    Thanks for your post and references to Prof. Su’s papers. I was unaware of his work. I presume your post is either a response to the latest Sat CNPS vidcast or my video on Replacing Special Relativity. As noted, my video [1] is planned to be a paper. I asked for input. Well, Prof. Su’s paper(s) are certainly going to be a reference.

    His work may be a beginning for consideration of some problems in my STOE. One is the Doppler Effect. The Relativity of it is incorrect. The STOE issue is: the galaxy redshift is, according to the STOE the same equation/phenomena as the Pioneer Anomaly [2]. The same equation should apply to the Pound-Rebka experiment (PR). But it isn’t. The PR used the Doppler Effect. The STOE has yet to develop a model for the Doppler Effect. I have yet to examine Prof. Su’s work on the Pioneer Anomaly, the PR, and the Doppler Effect. Is there a downloadable paper(s) where Prof. Su examines these observations?

    The STOE explains all 10 of the Pioneer Anomaly’s problem observations. [3]

    After reading Prof. Su’s paper you referenced, the STOE model is the “carry-along” [1] in a single model of the various local-ether (my plenum) regions. That is, the matter warps the plenum (ether) which influences the photon’s speed and hod content. On Earth, it’s the air and surrounding matter. In the Solar system it’s the planets and asteroids. The gravitational field (divergence of the plenum density) that warps the local ether (plenum).

    Could your “ons” be my hods. I ascribe the hods to be magnets. Your “ons” are spherical in form. If your tron model could postulate a magnetic nature to the “ons” and a fractal nature to the universe, spherical magnets and their interaction could help construct your “trons”. [4]

    I note Prof. Su did not reference Prof. Beckmann’s “entrained ether”. Is there a downloadable reference for the “entrained ether”? At first blush, this also seems like the STOE’s “carry-along”. “Entrained ether” seems to hold more promise than “local-ether”. It seems the book “Einstein plus two” is about the problems of relativity rather than the “entrained ether”.

    [1] Replacing Special Relativity

    [2] Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton’s model

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344442808_Scalar_Theory_of_Everything_STOE_unites_the_big_the_small_and_the_four_forces_GUT_by_extending_Newton's_model

    [3] Hodge, J. C. 2006.Scalar potential model of the Pioneer Anomaly.

    http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612567v1.pdf

    [4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343240746_Magnetic_field_causes_the_strong_and_weak_nuclear_forces_and_is_the_GUT_force?_sg=2oqqB3EyoXjnnKiu6opplDO-d_4SnzMpeNfd3V4KIeYTQ2tYVSgUrqktJk6FMO4QeINz-ZW6phcYfdJB2c_M6UAlrZpawCtq_G4a55Qf.L1KBu_YkbzeWzVcTUmJ1_3VeL6sfDCCZS3M2WiSP9l7P6gH0Hk2AYyyW_ndRA4CVN05t_7YyxnIoRTm0zFEYOg

    Hodge

  • John-Erik

    Member
    June 12, 2021 at 12:20 pm

    James

    I said earlier that I should come back with a short description of my ideas.

    Space is the container and ether is the content. If the container is empty it has no properties. The content can be quantized into fast and small particles as Fatio said about quantized gravity 300 years ago. They seem to be neutrino-like and passing our bodies, as we can feel in gravity. Planck’s quanta are based on matter in the form of electrons observed in a photodetector. We experience the effect of neutrinos in gravity.

    My theory is like Su’s model except that also gravity is explained, and the content must explain gravity also. If matter attenuates the omnidirectional flow, less particles coming from below in relation to the number of paricles that are coming from above. So, gravity is a small difference between pushing and pulling gravity. The ether wind is moving in negative radial direction. Light travels down faster than up, as I said in GED July 1999.

    By assuming a radial ether wind equal to the escape velocity from the Sun we find that 2-way light speed is increasing with distance to the Sun at the edge of our solar system. This increase can simulate a decrease in Pioneer space station speed, and explain the anomaly as a measurement error.

    What do you think about my article The scandalous Sagnac effect? I state that Sagnac effect explains VLBI aberration.

    Best regards from ________ John-Erik

    • John-Erik

      Member
      June 16, 2021 at 9:46 am

      James marsen

      1. VLBI aberration is explained by the Sagnac effect and this proves an existing ethet.
      2. A radial ether wind equal to the escape velocity can explain Pioneer anomaly and also cause the force of gravity.

      What do you think?

      John-Erik

  • James

    Member
    June 18, 2021 at 4:03 am

    I fully support the Local-Ether Model proposed by Prof. Ching-Chuan Su and Prof. Petr Beckmann as the superior paradigm to Einstein’s Relativity. Their theories provide a path to climb out of the rabbit hole of “Albert in Wonderland” physics and back onto a path toward reality.

    The theories deserve to be considered “as is”.

    I urge patience. It is tempting but premature to try to define detailed physical properties for the medium such as what it is made of or the mechanics of propagating transverse waves (note that the current paradigm doesn’t even attempt to explain a physical reality for its equations). First, the orthodox physics community (or at least a significant fraction of it) needs to be convinced that there is a better paradigm that can provide viable alternative explanations of the experimental facts – particularly those cited as evidence supporting Einstein’s Relativity.

    I (and others) predict that a Michelson-Morley type experiment performed in low Earth orbit or (better) solar orbit would clearly detect its orbital velocity. Also, a laser ring gyro on the same spacecraft would detect its orbital period. This is the first giant leap to escape the rabbit hole.

    Everyone should ask the following question: What’s fundamentally different about the physics of the propagation of electromagnetic waves when measured by a first order instrument like a Sagnac loop interferometer versus a second order instrument like the Michelson interferometer (first order means that the magnitude of the signal is proportional to v/c while second order is proportional to v/c squared). The answer is: No Difference.

    The Sagnac effect due to the rotation of the Earth with respect to the ECI is clearly detected every day by every GPS receiver. A Michelson interferometer is just a lot less sensitive to this velocity. This is because the the first order Sagnac effect is canceled due to the reflections of the orthogonal light beams but an effect proportional to (v/c) squared remains.

    Best regards,

    Jim Marsen

    • John-Erik

      Member
      June 20, 2021 at 11:07 am

      James

      MMX is a second order Sagnac effect, as Dr Su said. First order effect is compensated, as you said. I say that second order effect is also compensated, due to a length contraction equal to 2 times the FitzGerald contraction, since 2 forces moving in antiparallel directions are controlling atomic separations. Therefore, change due to 2 forces moving in antiparallel directions between mirrors in MMX are compensated. So, MMX is a useless method, not fulfilling prediction. The results from 140 years of MMX testing should be disregarded and not be interpreted as a negation of the prediction. A scandal should not be repeated in a satellite to an enormous amount of money.

      A radial ether wind from the Sun, equal to the escape velocity, can explain the Pioneer anomaly and affect light moving radially. Gravity potential affects light moving in all directions.

      Sagnac effect of first order has been regarded as disributed along a line, l, or as over a surface, A, according to mathematics: lv=Aw. However a physics phenomenon can only have one distribution, and the fiberoptic gyroscope proves distribution along a line, that must not be closed. Therefore, Sagnac 1913, GPS every day and VLBI, all 3, prove the same as MMX could not do, and never will.

      John-Erik

  • James

    Member
    June 18, 2021 at 4:11 pm

    Dear John < @Hodge >

    The Local-Ether Model postulates that there is a local-ether at rest with the Earth Centered Inertial reference frame (the ECI) and this forms the “preferred” inertial reference frame for the classical propagation of all electromagnetic waves in the vicinity of the Earth (out to well beyond the Moon’s orbit). This is experimentally observed by the first order in v/c pseudo-range correction (also called a Sagnac effect) applied by all GPS receivers to the microwaves transmitted from GPS (and other) satellites.

    The Local-Ether Model therefore implies that a Michelson interferometer in low Earth orbit is moving with respect to this reference frame and would experience a fringe shift due to its orbital speed of approximately 7500 meters/second.

    The Local-Ether Model further implies that the speed of a terrestrial based Michelson interferometer with respect to the ECI would be due only to the Earth’s rotation – ~350 meters per second at 40 degrees latitude. This is far too small to be detectable by Miller’s interferometer or any other Michelson interferometers before the invention of lasers.

    I don’t accept Dayton Miller’s 1933 claim of detecting an “ether-wind” of 20 km/sec on Mount Wilson. Shankland’s 1955 critique of Miller’s analytical technique seems valid to me. He averaged his readings to claim a precision that was not present in the raw data. If I recall, his assistants interpolated by eye a fringe shift in tenths of a fringe. But then he averaged these readings for each run to claim a precision of 1/100 of a fringe. And during a run, the fringes were drifting due to temperature changes.

    Also note that according to the Local-Ether Model, there is a local-ether for the Sun/Solar system at rest with the Barycenter Inertial reference frame. This implies that a Michelson interferometer in a solar orbit would detect a greater fringe shift due to its orbital velocity of 30,000 meters per second with respect to the Sun’s local-ether – the same value expected by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.

    For more detailed information, I invite you to consider my paper at

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333865449_A_Michelson-Morley_Type_Experiment_Should_be_Performed_in_Low_Earth_Orbit_and_Interplanetary_Space

    Also see Prof. Su’s paper (particularly section 6) at

    C.C. Su, “A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave”. European Physical Journal C, 21, pp. 701-715, Sept. 2001, DOI:10.1007/s100520100759,

    https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.509.6294&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Best regards,

    Jim Marsen

  • James

    Member
    June 21, 2021 at 4:08 pm

    Dear John-Erik,

    Your assumption that there is length contraction is an ad hoc hypothesis. It is just like the assumption Lorentz and Poincaré made and that Einstein adopted. There is no physical justification for it. It just works mathematically to account for the apparent null results of Michelson-Morley type experiments. You are in effect agreeing with Einstein’s relativity. And it is too small an effect to account for the detection of Earth’s rotation by ring lasers.

    Note well: The physics of the propagation of electromagnetic waves is the same no matter what instrument is used to measure it. Michelson-Gale and ring lasers can clearly detect the Earth’s rotation with respect to the ECI/local-ether. A Michelson interferometer should be able to detect this velocity too (~350 meter/second with a constant east to west direction).

    According to Prof. Howard Hayden, the 1979 Brillet-Hall experiment did detect this velocity. However the experimenters dismissed the signal as “persistent and spurious” without further explanation. This was probably because they weren’t expecting it and it was small enough that they could attribute it to an unknown noise source.

    Also note that an MMX in low Earth orbit would be much less expensive than big physics projects like LIGO, the LHC, dark matter detection experiments, etc. There are private companies (e.g. Rocket Lab) that will launch a spacecraft into low Earth orbit for much less than typical NASA missions cost and don’t require approval by a committee. Also, the cost and mass of a spacecraft are much lower now than even 10 years ago due to miniaturization and standardization (e.g. Cubesats). The project could probably be funded by Elon Musk for less than he makes in interest in a day.

    Why be so certain of your ad hoc assumptions to dismiss the possibility of a positive result? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Moderate risk, very high reward.


    Best regards,

    Jim Marsen

  • John-Erik

    Member
    June 22, 2021 at 12:26 pm

    Dear James. Thanks for answer. I regard Dr Su’s work as important but not complete, since he does not explain gravity.

    However, you seems not to understand my ideas completely, since I do not use Lorentz transform and not time dilation. Instead I use Galilean transform and my contraction of matter is 2 times the contraction in SRT. My contraction is not ad hoc, but motivated by 2 anti-parallel forces moving between atoms for controlling spacing between atoms. These forces are assumed to be dependent on ether wind in the same way as 2 forces moving between mirrors in MMX. This means no observable effect in the meassuring arm.

    In the reference arm there is no effect, since transverse ether wind cannot tilt a wave front.

    Therefore, it is not possible to detect second order Sagnac effect of ether wind in MMX.

    These tests failed for 140 years and should be disregarded.

    Doing MMX in space is expensive although there are other tests even more expensive.

    However, second order Sagnac effect can explain the Pioneer anomaly by the radial ether wind from the Sun, equal to the escape velocity. The 2-way speed of light is increasing with range and creates an illusion of decreased space station speed. This effect can easily be calculated, and found to be in agreement to observations.

    John-Erik

  • John-Erik

    Member
    June 29, 2021 at 5:55 pm

    James Marsen, David de H, everybody.

    Take a look.

    John-Erik

Viewing 1 - 9 of 9 replies

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now