Chapter 14
Aberration and Ether
"Those are my principles. If you don't like
them I have others."
Groucho Marx (1890-1977)
Introduction
One
of the most controversial issues during the ether vs. photon debates of the
early 1920s had to do with ether and aberration of starlight. Because of the null result of the MMI, ether
drag had to be considered. However,
since ether drag dragged the light from stars with the earth, it was felt by
some that there would be no aberration of starlight if the ether drag theory
were true. This chapter will be
somewhat speculative, but between the two theories that will be presented, the
truth is likely to be found.
There
is almost no doubt that aberration of starlight with the ether drag theory
involves the apparent or actual bending of light at the boundary, meaning
outside edge, of the ether drag. Lunar
Laser Ranging experiment demonstrate that the ether drag extends many tens of
thousands of miles above the earth's surface.
It is at the outside surface or boundary of the ether drag that
aberration of starlight must occur. In
fact this theory was mentioned by Stokes as early as 1845.[6]
Stokes theory, viewed today, is more of an explanation of
"atmospheric refraction," which will be discussed in the next
chapter, but he understood that aberration of starlight did occur at the
boundary of the ether drag and continued as the light passed through the ether
drag.
There
are two basic theories that will be discussed in detail. Briefly, the first one is that the bending of
light at the boundary of the earth's ether drag is an apparent
bending, and only appears to bend to those inside of the ether drag. The second theory is that the bending of
light at the boundary of the earth's ether drag is an actual
bending of light. It is also possible
that a combination of the two theories is the correct choice.
Moving
Medium Laws (an Apparent Bending)
First,
we must discuss how big the sun's ether drag is. Does the sun's ether drag extend beyond the earth's orbit
distance from the sun? Based on Lunar
Laser Ranging experiments, considering how high the earth's ether drag must be,
the answer is that it is highly probable that the sun's ether drag does extend
well beyond our earth's orbit distance from the sun. This will be assumed in this chapter.
This
means that the earth is orbiting the sun inside of the calm ether ocean of the
sun's ether drag. This means that the
aberration of starlight at the boundary of the earth's ether drag, is based solely
on our earth's orbit velocity around the sun.
This also means that the bending of light for secular aberration
(apparent or actual) occurs at the boundary of the sun's ether drag, many
millions of miles from the earth. This
means that total aberration occurs in two phases: first at the sun's ether drag
boundary for secular aberration, and second, at the earth's ether drag boundary
for stellar or annual aberration (actually, the USNO almanac included secular
aberration as a part of the definition of stellar aberration, but I am separating
them because they probably occur at two different locations).
Whatever
causes the bending of light at the boundary of the earth's ether drag is also
causing the bending of light at the boundary of the sun's ether drag. Thus, we will only talk about the
earth. (Note: It is possible that the
galaxy also has a type of ether drag, thus the bending of light at the boundary
of the sun's ether drag may not be based on our solar system's total velocity
in space.)
Let
us consider a beam of light from a distant star as it comes into contact with
our moving ether drag, I say "moving" because we are orbiting the sun
at 30 kps, thus the ether drag is moving relative to a light beam from a
distant star. Suppose the beam enters
this ether drag perpendicular to our path around the sun (i.e. to our ecliptic
plane) and perpendicular to the earth where we are standing (technically this
beam is normal to our horizon plane - the 2D plane tangent to where we are
standing). Let us consider how
different observers view this beam of light.
The
first observer travels with the beam of light, but he stops and stays
stationary just before the beam enters our moving ether drag. This person waits above our earth and
watches the path of the light from directly above the earth until the light
hits the earth or passes by the earth.
Even though our ether drag is moving (i.e. our earth is moving), this
person may notice that the light travels in a straight line, whether it hits
the earth or not. The beam may, by
nature, travel in a straight line (as seen by this first observer) even when it
hits a moving medium such as ether drag.
To
visualize how this can happen, the "Moving Medium Laws"
will now be described. To understand
how they work, do this mental exercise.
Consider a 5 meter tall sphere made of chicken wire (chicken wire is
mostly air, the wires are very thin and are very far apart). Suppose that in the middle of this chicken
wire sphere is a soccer ball that is rotating.
Now suppose that the entire interior of this chicken wire sphere (except
for the soccer ball) is a chicken wire array or grid. In other words, every cubic meter of this chicken wire sphere is
filled with a 3 dimensional grid of chicken wire.
Now
image that this chicken wire sphere is placed on a flatbed car on a train and
that the train is traveling at a constant 70 kph. As this train is entering a tunnel, someone standing on top of
the tunnel (this is the person just mentioned that stops before the light gets
to the ether drag) drops a single, but large, drop of water straight down at
the train. The release of this drop of
water is timed so that it hits the very top of the chicken wire sphere just
before the flatbed car enters the tunnel.
This
observer standing above the tunnel (who is equivalent to the first observer
above), who drops the drop of water, notices that the drop of water travels in
a perfectly straight line whether it hits the soccer ball or the flatbed car.
A
second observer is standing a hundred meters away from the train; he is standing
on the ground. If this person focuses
only on the drop of water, he will observe that the drop of water moves in a
straight line until it hits the soccer ball or the train.
However,
if this second observer focuses only on which wires inside of the chicken wire
sphere are touched by the drop of water, he will notice that a pattern
emerges. A string drawn between the
places where the drop of water hits the chicken wire grid forms a straight line
that angles in the opposite direction that the train is headed
(using the top of the sphere as the beginning reference point).
A
third person, sitting on the flatbed car and moving with the train,
exactly where the drop of water finally hits the flatbed car, will think that
the drop of water is coming down at an angle.
To understand why this is so, note that the string just mentioned
represents the path of the water drop relative to the chicken wire grid. Because this person is moving with the
train, she will think that the drop has come down at an angle because she will
see the path of the water drop relative to the chicken wire grid. Since the observer sitting on the flatbed
car sees the direction the water drop appears to come from, she would see the
water drop coming in at an angle, not from directly above. In fact, the angle formed by the string
would be the exact angle she would see the drop of water coming in from. The "bend" of the drop of water is
both apparent, to those moving with the train, and occurs exactly at the boundary
of the chicken wire. Once inside the
chicken wire, the drop travels in a straight line relative to the wire and
string, but it travels at an angle.
The
third person is equivalent to an astronomer that is inside of the ether
drag. Since the light bends in the
opposite direction of the path of the earth (starting from the top of the
sphere), it is clear to her that to align her telescope with the light beam
that reaches her, she needs to tilt her telescope in the same direction that
the earth moves.
With
this theory, the tilt of the telescopes is needed because the bending of light
is caused by the moving ether drag surrounding our earth, meaning the
"moving medium." The tilt is
not due to the motion of the telescope while a photon travels from the top to
the bottom of the telescope. The
bending of light starts to occur at the boundary of the ether drag (i.e. at the
top of the chicken wire), long before the light gets to the telescope.
Thus
there are three observers of this drop of water. Two of them see it travel in a straight line. The third observer, who is moving with the
train, sees it come in at an angle. The
same phenomenon would occur for aberration of starlight in the Moving Medium
Law scenario.
Likewise,
if there were a fourth person laying stationary on the train
tracks, directly underneath where the water was dropped, because this person is
not moving, he would see the drop of water travel in a straight line, meaning
directly from above. I make this note
because of occultations, which will now be discussed.
One
might wonder if there is any evidence that the Moving Medium Laws might be
valid and that the bending of light is only an apparent bend to those inside of
the ether drag. The answer is yes, and
as might be expected, it comes from astronomy.
If the earth has ether drag, then so does Jupiter. Jupiter's ether drag would be much denser
than our earth's on its surface and it would have a much higher altitude of
ether drag than the earth's.
The
light that comes from a star, and passes next to Jupiter on its path to us,
must pass through the ether drag of Jupiter.
Thus, we are the "fourth person" mentioned above relative to
the train example (i.e. we are underneath the train and are stationary relative
to the ether drag of Jupiter).
In
astronomy there is a phenomenon called "occultation." An occultation basically occurs when one
celestial body (always a planet, moon, asteroid, etc., but never a star because
we don't see stars move very quickly) goes in front of another celestial body. Usually, it is the moon or a planet that, in
its motion, moves in front of a star.
In the case of Jupiter, there are people who have regularly observed
occultations that involve Jupiter.
Based
on what I know about occultations (which isn't a whole lot), unless there is an
atmosphere involved (which will be discussed in the next chapter), the light
bends very little, if at all. This
slight bend could be caused by the River Effect Laws (to be discussed below) or
the Density of Ether Laws (to be discussed in the next chapter) or something
else. Sorting all of this out will take
a considerable amount of time, but for now it is sufficient to state that there
are three possible causes of the key types of "aberration," and two
of them involve the actual bending of light.
Occultations
involving the mountains on the top or the bottom of the moon (from our
perspective) can be measured extremely accurately. These occulations, called "grazes" when the starlight
grazes the top or bottom of the moon (as it appears to us), indicate that the
Moving Medium Laws are part of the answer to aberration.[30]
Signals
That Travels With a Particle Versus Signals Between Two Particles
Suppose
there are 1,000 soldiers standing in a perfectly straight row (shoulder to
shoulder), and they are standing 3 meters apart from each other. Now suppose there are a thousand rows of
such soldiers, where there is 3 meters between rows. Now suppose all 1,000,000 soldiers start to march slowly across a
large field in perfect formation.
As
they are marching, a person tosses a ball to one of the soldiers on the outside
column of the formation. This soldier
instantaneously passes the ball to the soldier next to him, at the exact same
speed that the soldiers are marching.
In other words, the soldier only has the ball in his hands for a
nanosecond, but throws the ball to the position of the solder next to him (in
the same row) at the instant he received the ball. However, because the velocity of the ball is equal to the velocity
of the marching soldiers, the ball would be caught by the soldier behind
the solder standing next to him. In
other words, while the ball is "in the air," the soldier standing
next to him moves 3 meters forward, leaving his position vacant, and the
soldier standing behind this solder moves into the vacant position of the
soldier in front of him and catches the ball when it gets to him.
Now
let us consider the person that originally threw the ball to the first
soldier. As the ball is passed from
soldier to soldier, during the march, the person that originally threw the ball
would see the ball travel perpendicular to the direction the soldiers are
marching. In other words, just like the
person above the train in the previous example saw the water drop travel in a
straight line, perpendicular to the road he is standing on, the person that
threw the ball would see the ball travel in a straight line perpendicular to
the vector of the marching soldiers.
Note
that in this example, each soldier holds onto the ball for only one nanosecond,
but the ball is passed to the next soldier (actually the person behind the next
soldier), very slowly.
If
we looked from above, and drew a line connecting all of the soldiers that
touched the ball, this line would form a 45 degree angle relative to the vector
of the marching soldiers, terminating at the soldier that first touched the
ball. If we looked from above, and
focused on the ball itself, it would move perpendicularly from the person that
threw the ball.
Now
let us change things.
Now
let us suppose that each time a soldier receives the ball, he holds onto it
while he marches for 3 meters, then he instantaneously (at the speed of light)
passes it to the person standing next to him.
In this case, the person marching next to him would be the one that
catches the ball. Everyone that touches
the ball would be in the same row.
If
we looked from above in this case, and drew a line connecting all of the
soldiers that touched the ball, this line would be one row of soldiers. However, the person that originally threw
the ball would see the ball travel at a 45 degree angle to his right (assuming
the soldiers were marching to his right).
In
the first case, the ball was only instantaneously touching the soldiers, and
slowly moved between the soldiers. In
the second case, the ball was held on to by the soldiers, but was
instantaneously passed to the person next to him. The pattern seen by those standing above the marching soldiers
(i.e. a string connecting the soldiers that touched the ball) was different for
the two cases. Likewise, it was
different for the person that originally threw the ball.
If
these soldiers represented ether particles, and if the ball represented an
electromagnetic wave, which of the two examples best explains the moving ether
drag as light enters the ether drag?
The first case was the one already mentioned, which was represented by
the chicken wire and train. In the
first case, the chicken wire did not "carry" the drop of water with
it, it simply "passed it on" instantaneously to the "next"
wire that happened to touch it.
The
second case will now be mentioned.
The
River Effect Laws (an Actual Bending)
The
key element of the "River Effect" laws is the path of light entering
the moving medium of ether drag, but in this case the assumptions are
different. In this case, the light is
carried with the ethons, and is instantaneously passed to the next ethon. The reader should pay close attention to any
discussion of the "path" of sound in water. The term "River Effect" originates from a visualization
of the path of sound in a river.
Let
us for a moment consider a large, square swimming pool which is 10,000 feet
across, side-to-side, and 100 feet deep.
Let us put a bell, or some other device for making sounds, 50 feet below
the surface in the middle of the swimming pool. Let us further put a device on two opposite sides of the pool
(each halfway from the corners of the pool and across from each other), also 50
feet below the surface, which can not only detect sound intensities, but can
also determine the direction the sound comes from.
If
we ring the bell, based on the speed of sound in water, a certain amount of
time will elapse between the ringing of the bell and when the listening devices
on opposite sides can detect the sound.
Let us measure this amount of time.
This time is assumed to be the same time whether we were in a lake or a
swimming pool.
Now
let us change the scenario. Let us find
a river which is 10,000 feet wide and which is 100 feet deep. Let us again put a bell 50 feet below the
surface in the center of the river. Let
us also put two listening devices, directly across from each other, such that
the bell is half way between them (note: the bell and each listening device is
5,000 feet apart from each other). Each
listening device is 50 feet below the surface.
The line between the listening devices not only includes the bell, but
is obviously perpendicular to the flow of the river. Further, let us assume that the water in this river travels from
left to right, from the observer's perspective, at a speed of 150 miles per
hour (a very fast river to be sure).
The observer is standing next the bell on his side of the river.
Let
us consider an imaginary circle around the bell, and consider that the shore is
tangent to the circle (i.e. the radius of the circle is 5,000 feet). Since the bell is in the center of the
circle, we can consider 360 different sound vectors leaving the bell, one for
each degree of the circle.
One
of these 360 sound vectors initially heads directly towards the bell at the
opposite side of the river from the observer.
While sound will reach this bell, the sound vector that initially
heads towards this bell will not reach the listening device because the river
will carry the sound downstream at 150 miles per hour. In other words, as the molecules of water
bump each other, the water will simultaneously carry these molecules and the
sound signal downstream. Since the
water molecules physically bump each other, the scenario is somewhat similar to
the second scenario with the marching soldiers, meaning the "time"
the signal takes to travel between soldiers is virtually zero (because the
molecules are bumping each other).
After each molecule is bumped by a neighbor molecule, as it is traveling
to bump the next molecule it is also traveling downstream.
Now
consider the sound vector that actually did arrive at the listening device on
the opposite shore. This sound vector
initially headed upstream from the line perpendicular to the two listening
devices. If a person could track the
path of this sound vector, it would be seen that the path of this sound would
travel in an arc, where the sound initially heads upstream from the listening
device, then arcs and eventually heads downstream to where the listening device
is located.
I
have stated that sound travels in an arc in this situation; this statement
needs to be clarified. Sound travels in
water by water molecules bumping each other.
Thus, if the water (i.e. the medium) is in motion, the water molecules
are in motion, and the motion of the water molecules will effect the path that
the sound travels, since sound travels solely because of the water. Since the initial direction of this sound
vector is upstream from the direction of the water, this sound vector will
arc. Actually it will arc until its
tangent becomes perpendicular to the motion of the water and then it will move
in a straight line downstream (at the same angle the sound vector did that was
initially headed towards the bell).
When
a bell is rung, sound actually travels in all directions simultaneously. Thus literally 360 different paths of sound
could be theoretically followed after one ringing of the bell. To plot the path of each of these 360 sound
vectors would yield what I call the "River Effect Chart." It would be a combination of straight lines,
curved lines, and lines that are at first curved and then go straight, as I
will now expand on.
If
a person could track the sound that initially heads in a straight line towards
the listening device on the opposite side of the observer, that sound would
travel in a straight line, but the straight line would head downstream from the
listing device. This sound would not
reach the listening device on the opposite side.
The
sound vectors that initially head upstream and eventually reach the shore,
however, do not travel in a straight line.
The path of these sound vectors is an actual arc, regardless of where
this sound reaches the other shore!
This is because the sound is headed upstream originally, but the motion
of the water carries it backwards as it travels. The arc may be very pronounced or be very flat, depending on:
1)
The angle at which the vector heads upstream (i.e. the angle relative to a line
which is perpendicular to the direction of the water), and
2)
The relationship between the speed of sound and the speed of the water, and
3)
The distance the sound has to travel.
Furthermore,
for some of the upstream vector angles the arc may become a straight line
before reaching the other shore. Once a
line tangent to the arc becomes perpendicular to the direction of the flow of
the river the sound vector will turn into a straight line from then on. Thus it may be an arc for only part of the
time. However, the beginning point
where it becomes a straight line is upstream from the direct line between the
bell and listening devices.
Likewise,
for some of the vectors that travel directly upstream, or nearly directly
upstream (meaning nearly parallel with the flow of the water), these vectors
will never reach the shore at all. They
will theoretically come back, but will dissipate long before they come back to
the bell, from where they came.
If
this experiment were actually to be performed (actually such an experiment
would be virtually impossible to perform unless a "sound laser" could
be invented that shot out a very narrow sound wave), two things of significance
would be learned.
First,
for the sound vector that actually hits the listening device on the opposite
side; the time that it takes the sound to reach the listening device will be
longer than it took in the swimming pool (this is because of its path).
Secondly,
for this same sound vector, the portion of the listening device which
determines the direction the sound is coming from will falsely determine that
the sound is coming from a point upstream from where the bell is actually
located.
Now
consider anyone standing on the far shore.
If they could see the sound vector that initially heads for them, they
would realize that this not the sound vector that arrives where they are
standing.
It
is of critical importance to note here that the medium is in motion. If the medium is stationary, and the bell is
in motion, it is highly probable that all sound lines emanating from the bell
will be straight lines. It is important
to keep in mind whether it is the medium or it is the bell that is in motion! It is also important to keep in mind whether
the measuring of the sound is taken by someone who is in motion in the water or
who is standing on the shore.
With
ether drag, if the River Effect Law solely causes aberration, it is an actual
bending of light, and it occurs at the boundary of the moving ether drag.
Back
to Aberration
Is
aberration of starlight caused by the Moving Medium Laws or the River Effect
Laws, or some combination of the two?
First,
the reader should be reminded that the Moving Medium Laws create an apparent
bending of light only to those inside of the ether
drag. The River Effect Laws creates an actual
bending of light, to everyone, whether inside the ether drag or not. Because occultations of Jupiter seem to
indicate that starlight is not actually bent by a moving ether drag (or is bent
very little), this experiment indicates that the Moving Medium Laws are the
only laws, or are the dominant laws, affecting aberration. However, since no one has specifically
looked at a Jupiter occultation with this question in mind, with extremely
accurate measuring instruments and formulas, occultations cannot be considered
a definitive proof of the Moving Medium Laws.
The
point to this discussion is this, in the Moving Medium Laws the aberration of
starlight would occur at the boundary of the ether drag. With the River Effect Law, if the starlight
was headed downstream of the motion of our ether drag, the aberration of
starlight would also occur at the boundary of the ether drag. To understand why, consider that when a
sound vector comes from the bell, the angle of the vector is determined
immediately after the bell is rung, not when the vector is halfway to the
opposites shore. With the River Effect
Laws, if the starlight was headed upstream from the motion of our ether drag,
the ratio of the speed of light and the velocity of our planet in orbit around
the sun (remember the sun's ether drag is assumed to extend beyond our earth's
orbit distance), is so dramatic, that it is unlikely that the light would arc
significantly (i.e. it would be unmeasurable).
Thus, even in this case the aberration of starlight would occur at the
boundary of our ether drag. Thus, any
aberration of starlight caused by the combination of the two laws would also be
at the boundary of the ether drag.
Sir
George Airy Water-Telescope Experiment
Sir
George Airy, in 1871, built a water-telescope to prove the ether theory. Because it was believed that aberration
occurred inside the telescope (ether drag was known about, but was not
generally believed at the time of his experiment), and because the speed of
light is slower in water than in air, Airy expected that the aberration of
light in a normal air-filled telescope would be different than the aberration
of light in a water-filled telescope.
In other words, refraction of light, when the starlight hit the boundary
of the water in the telescope, would be different than normal aberration would
predict. It did not happen - he got a
null result, meaning the aberration of light was the same for both air-filled
(as all telescopes are by default) and water-filled telescopes.
This
null result is typically explained by ether proponents by using the Fizeau Drag
Coefficient. However, the Fizeau Drag
Coefficient is designed for use where there is ether, but no ether drag. During the time of the Airy experiment,
ether drag had long been speculated, but it was not the commonly accepted
theory for ether, as is evidenced by the surprise of the MMI null result.
In
fact, what the Airy experiment proves is that the aberration of light occurs before
the light gets to the telescope. Airy
was looking at stars directly above him, thus the angle at which the light is
coming in is so small that the refraction of this light as it hits the boundary
of the air and water would be negligible.
Nevertheless, a modern day Airy experiment, done with the telescope
pointing straight up, as his was, and done with far more accuracy than the
original, would be a good test for whether aberration of starlight in ether
drag occurs at the boundary of the ether drag.
The
concept of ether drag does not depend on the Moving Medium Laws or the River
Effect Laws, but it is fairly apparent that stellar aberration does occur at
the boundary of the ether drag.
It
was also well known in the late 1800s that the Fizeau Drag Coefficient was not
needed for terrestrial light sources.[6] This should have been a clue that ether drag
was indeed the preferred theory of ether, but obviously it did not catch on at
the time.
Secular
Aberration and Ether Drag
The
above discussion explains the observable 30 kps stellar aberration of
starlight. How about the 370 kps
secular aberration of starlight?
If
the sun's ether drag does not extend to the orbit distance of the earth around
the sun, then the aberration that occurs at the edge of the earth's ether drag
must be at the total 340 to 400 kps velocity of our earth in the cosmos. The differential aberration, caused
exclusively by our orbit around the sun, would be observable, but the 370 kps
of secular aberration would not be noticeable because it is constant.
However,
it is much more likely that the suns ether drag extends far beyond the orbit of
our earth around the sun. Consider this
logical sequence:
1)
The sun's ether drag extends far beyond the orbit of our earth, and
2)
The sun's ether drag is moving at 370 kps in the cosmos towards Leo, and
3)
When light from outside of our sun's ether drag hits this moving ether drag, by
the Moving Medium Laws (and/or River Effect Laws) the light bends (apparent or
actual) at the boundary of the sun's ether drag as a function of
the speed of the sun's ether drag (i.e. 370 kps) (note that because we are
inside of the sun's ether drag we see the light bending with either law),
however,
4)
Because of the almost linear motion of our solar system, starlight consistently
bends in the same direction day after day and year after year and century after
century,
5)
In other words, the major bending of this light occurs many millions of miles
away and has been bending in the same direction for many thousands of years,
long before telescopes were invented and long before they were first calibrated,
and
6)
Because the sun is moving in such a straight line, and for a few other reasons,
the same calibration of our telescope will work for a long time (i.e. we don't
have to continually adjust our telescopes for this bending),
7)
Only the bending of light that is due to the orbit speed of our earth around
the sun (i.e. when the starlight hits our earth's ether drag), can be detected
because it forces the constant recalibration of telescopes.
In
other words, ether drag can easily explain account for the entire 340 to 400
kps variable velocity of our earth towards Leo.
For
planets and the moon and other objects that are inside of our sun’s ether drag,
their light travels within the sun’s ether drag and thus because we are also
within the sun’s ether drag, our telescopes do not need to be tiled for secular
aberration. For planets that are
outside of the sun’s ether drag, the bending would occur many millions of miles
away and the bend would be consistent (for a given location of the planet),
thus celestial mechanics formulas would be calibrated for their apparent
location, which would include secular aberration (all of this ignores galactic
ether drag). Because the pattern of
ether drag in the galaxy is a matter of pure speculation I will not pursue this
issue.
Thus,
aberration of "starlight" for Mercury (assuming we knew where it
actually was), would be different than aberration of "starlight" for
Jupiter (assume we knew where it was and assuming the sun's ether drag did not
extend that far).
Comments
In
1923-1924, during the short ether-photon debate, it was believed that our
earth's only motion in space was a closed elliptical orbit around the sun. Thus annual aberration of starlight, which
was also based on a closed elliptical orbit, was considered proof of the photon
theory of light.
But
our earth's average speed is now known to be 370 kps and our net direction is
nearly linear. But yet annual
aberration of starlight is still based on an average speed of only 30 kps and
the tilt of telescopes is still based on a closed elliptical orbit!
Indeed,
even though all of this can be easily explained, when the discovery of CMBR was
made, the ether-photon debate should have been reopened, but it wasn't.