classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

[Physicist]

Aristarchus - do you have the whole paper?

Reading the abstract, I suspect that the author doesn't understand GR too well, but I'll reserve judgement until I've read the whole thing.

[Aristarchus]

Aristarchus - do you have the whole paper?

Yes.

http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/hynecek18.pdf

Light Deflection by a Gravitating Body a Hidden Deception
in General Relativity Theory

Employment History
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES
Czech Technical University
Case Western Reserve University
A. S. Popov Research Institute , Prague
Board Memberships and Affiliations
Founder
ISETEX , Inc.
Education
Ph.D degree , electrical engineering
Case Western Reserve University


You might also want to check with those charged with the Gravity Probe B - as they are not convinced by the current evidence for the GR theory in our solar system:

While Einstein’s 1916 theory of gravity has earned its place as a cornerstone of modern physics, it remains poorly tested. “In the realm of black holes and the universe,” Caltech physicist Kip Thorne once put it, “the language of general relativity is spoken, and it is spoken loudly. But in our tiny solar system, the
effects of general relativity are but whispers.”

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Top.pdf

[Aristarchus]

Physicist,

Just a heads up on more information regarding the author [Jaroslav Hynecek] of the paper you requested from me concerning his credentials - here's more:

immigrated to the United States and received the Ph.D degree in electrical engineering from Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), Cleveland, OH, in 1974. From 1962 to 1969, he worked at the A. S. Popov Research Institute, Prague, and as an Assistant Professor of physics at CTU, Podebrady. From 1974 to 1976 he worked at CWRU. In 1976, he joined Texas Instruments, Inc. Dallas and achieved the position of TI Fellow in 1990. In 1998, he founded a consulting corporation, ISETEX, Inc., Allen, TX, where he is CTO. He has published 51 papers and is author or co-author of 82 issued U.S patents. Dr. Hynecek received the Paul Rappaport award for the best paper published in any IEEE Electron Devices Society journal during 1983, 2003 Walter Kosonocky award, and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. In 1978 he invented Virtual Phase CCD Technology that became the basis for the Pinned Photodiode concept and reduction of dark current by accumulation of holes at the Silicon-Silicon dioxide interface. In 1993 he invented "Impactron" a charge multiplying CCD image sensor that is the solid state equivalent of vacuum tube Image Intensifiers. He has also participated in numerous image sensor related conferences and workshops as a member of the paper selection committees or as a session chairman or cochairman. Dr. Hynecek served as Assoc. editor for IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES from 1997 until 2006.

[solrey]

Got your back Mike.

The Gaussian Plasma Lens in Astrophysics. Refraction (pdf)

We consider the geometrical optics for refraction of a distant radio source by an interstellar plasma lens, with application to a lens with a Gaussian electron column density profile. The refractive properties of the lens are specified completely by a dimensionless parameter, alpha, which is a function of the wavelength of observation, the lens' electron column density, the lens-observer distance, and the transverse diameter of the lens. Relative motion of the observer and lens produces modulations in the source's light curve. Plasma lenses are diverging so the light curve displays a minimum, when the lens is on-axis, surrounded by enhancements above the unlensed flux density. Lensing can also produce caustics, multiple imaging, and angular position wander of the background source. If caustics are formed, the separation of the outer caustics can constrain alpha, while the separation of the inner caustics can constrain the size of the lens. We apply our analysis to 0954+654, a source for which we can identify caustics in its light curve, and 1741-038, for which polarization observations were obtained during and after the scattering event. We find general agreement between modelled and observed light curves at 2.25 GHz, but poor agreement at 8.1 GHz. The discrepancies may result from a combination of lens substructure or anisotropic shape, a lens that only grazes the source, or unresolved source substructure. Our analysis places the following constraints on the lenses: Toward 0954+654 (1741-038) the lens was 0.38 AU (0.065 AU) in diameter, with a peak column density of 0.24 pc cm^{-3} (1E-4 pc cm^{-3}) and an electron density of 1E5 cm^{-3} (300 cm^{-3}). The angular wander caused by the lens was 250 mas (0.4 mas) at 2.25 GHz. For 1741-038, we place an upper limit of 100 mG on the lens' magnetic field.

Bold highlight is mine to point out the multiple imaging scenario of a plasma lens might be applied to something like Einstein's Cross.

Plasma lensing would also seem to throw a big question mark onto the practice of using lensing as proof for the gravitational influence of "dark matter".

Something else to consider:

Novel Negative-Index Metamaterial Bends Light 'Wrong' Direction

Surface plasmons are light waves coupled to waves of electrons at the interface between a metal and a dielectric (a non-conducting material like air). Plasmonic waveguide elements route these coupled waves through the material.

The question is, can surface plasmons provide a waveguide along the boundary between a charge sheath (electron sheath) and an electric field in a double layer? Could that also be a mechanism involved in plasma lensing?

The equations describing plasma and fluid vortices are the same. It's possible we might also discover the equations describing plasma lensing are, likewise, similar to the equations describing gravitational lensing, or at least produce similar results.

Light Deflection Near the Sun's Limb: Refraction by the Solar Atmosphere

Light refraction by the Sun's atmosphere is calculated.As detected from the Earth, the refraction can deflect a light ray emitted from the Sun's limb by 13'' or a starlight ray grazing the solar limb by 26'', an effect 15 times larger than the gravitational deflection.

Now, the point is, if anything is being overlooked or unaccounted for, we might find there's a plasma refraction that's the same as the alleged gravitational deflection. Einstein was influenced by Maxwell after all...just sayin'.

cheers

[Physicist]

Aristarchus - do you have the whole paper?

Yes.

http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/hynecek18.pdf

Thanks Aristarchus.

Without having checked through all his math, my initial impression is that this one is pure pseudoscience.

This result agrees with observations and the Cassini space probe measurement, so this is a good reason for
celebration and for proclamation that GRT is correct. But wait a minute, this is all nice, but where did
Eq.5 come from? Shouldn't this equation be derived from some other more general principle to agree with
the rest of the physics? It is not reasonable to just postulate an equation and claim that this is it when it
agrees with observations. We have the rest of the physics to make the principle to agree with.

The "more general principle" is that light travels along null geodesics - in other words, simply that light always travels at the speed of light. Seems strange that he doesn't know this.

It is well known that the gravitational field affects the speed of light, so one would expect that
the Fermat principle should also apply there and could be used to calculate the light trajectory.

Ugh! Now it becomes clear where his misunderstanding lies. The gravitational field does NOT affect the speed of light - light always travels past any observer at the same speed c.

Unfortunately, this result does not agree with the observations and the experiment. How is this possible?
What is wrong? The answer is not too difficult to find. The problem is the Schwarzschild metric and the
Einstein field equations from which the Schwarzschild metric is derived. To prove this point let's use
another metric derived elsewhere [3], which does not predict the existence of Black Holes and which is not
derived from Einstein field equations. The metric is:

In other words, "let's use a metric I made up". The reference is another paper of his. Have you got that one?

Employment History
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES
Czech Technical University
Case Western Reserve University
A. S. Popov Research Institute , Prague
Board Memberships and Affiliations
Founder
ISETEX , Inc.
Education
Ph.D degree , electrical engineering
Case Western Reserve University

Another electrical engineer eh

You might also want to check with those charged with the Gravity Probe B - as they are not convinced by the current evidence for the GR theory in our solar system:

While Einstein’s 1916 theory of gravity has earned its place as a cornerstone of modern physics, it remains poorly tested. “In the realm of black holes and the universe,” Caltech physicist Kip Thorne once put it, “the language of general relativity is spoken, and it is spoken loudly. But in our tiny solar system, the
effects of general relativity are but whispers.”

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Top.pdf

Well they are convinced that the solar system is entirely consistent with GR, if my understanding is correct. The interesting question is whether or not it is still correct under more extreme conditions.

Indeed, we know that GR must break down somewhere, because the classical theory inevitably contains singularities.

[Jarvamundo]

Several even went so far as to admit Crothers was right but stated they could not change their 'belief' in black holes.

Seems Crothers has posted a bit of an update from Rabounski, for those interested.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... unski.html

[mharratsc]

Physicist said:

The "more general principle" is that light travels along null geodesics - in other words, simply that light always travels at the speed of light. Seems strange that he doesn't know this.

That's not entirely true. You have to consider the refractive index of the propagating medium (unless you are simply theorizing about light in a perfect vacuum), and of course, the distance the light has travelled in said medium as well.

Regarding Mr. Hynecek, you also stated:

Another electrical engineer eh

That seems almost derogatory...? You seem to be implying that- because he is an electrical engineer- that perhaps he shouldn't be writing papers concerning optical physics. However, the gentleman in question is considered quite a leading expert in digital optic systems, isn't he? Presumably that would give him a functional (vs theoritical only) knowledge of the topic in question.
It's not like he's writing an article based upon other people's research... this guy has patents for systems that he has designed, after all. That should count for something, even with theoretical physicists... :\

[Aristarchus]

Without having checked through all his math, my initial impression is that this one is pure pseudoscience.

I am not conversing with you to gauge your impressions as valid qualifiers, but rather, to check to see how much you're apprised of the literature and subject areas that are counter to what you assumed through your education and alleged focus of physics. It's one thing to disagree, but your responses assume a conclusion that then becomes predictable in your next responses. In other words, your statements in your posts are foregone conclusions.

For example, you first claimed that the author of the paper appeared to you as not well versed in physics, which was invalidated rather comprehensively in my last post. The author was assistant professor in physics at the Czech Technical University, but, apparently you were not on the review board for his interviewing process. In addition, the author was awarded three distinct NASA Group Achievement Awards.

Ugh! Now it becomes clear where his misunderstanding lies. The gravitational field does NOT affect the speed of light - light always travels past any observer at the same speed c.

Now, let's look at what you did not include and what you obviously took out of context from the author's paper. Here's the complete passage:

where for the index of refraction n holds: n = c / v and where v is the velocity of light in the glass
medium. It is well known that the gravitational field affects the speed of light, so one would expect that
the Fermat principle should also apply there and could be used to calculate the light trajectory. Let's
consider that light propagates close to the radial direction in these trajectory deflection tests. The radial
light speed from Eq.2 is then: c = cg tt .

Looking at the equations in the above quote, it is more than apparent that the author understands the speed of light as a constant. In addition, the premise, in fact, the thesis sentence, is in the very abstract of the paper, making it clear that the author is relating all this to the trajectory of light, i.e., according to the Fermat principle. Based on this, the statement that the "gravitational field affects the speed of light," is obviously a yes/no answer when considering Einstein's GR theory:

Most of us have heard of the result from _special_ relativity that the speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames.

The result is _not_ the same in general relativity. In general relativity, the statement becomes that the speed of light is the same (i.e., good old 'c') for all observers in _local_ inertial frames.

Local inertial frames in general relativity are just those frames of reference in which the observer is in gravitational free fall. A fancy way of looking at it is that the _local_ frame of reference of a free falling observer corresponds to a small patch of _flat_ spacetime tangent to the globally curved spacetime. As long as the observer confines measurements to a small enough local region, the approximation provided by the small tangent patch of flat spacetime can be made to be an arbitrarily good approximation to the true spacetime, which is actually curved in the main. The speed of light in flat spacetime is, of course, the usual value of c.

For example, if one had a closed laboratory in orbit (i.e., in free fall) around the earth and one did an experiment inside that laboratory to measure the speed of light, one would get the usual published value of c. All such observers would get one and the same value for c.

If, however, the distance through which the light travelled in the course of measuring its speed was too great, the deviation of the reference frame from being 'flat' would become apparent. That is, gravitational effects would begin to become apparent.

So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

With all due respect, you need to consider the context of the paper, which, again, you have not addressed the issues therein. As for the papers, they are almost identical. Could we perhaps delve into the details of the premise, and if you disagree, please base it off what the author is stating according to the Fermat principle and optic lensing?

[Physicist]

Looking at the equations in the above quote, it is more than apparent that the author understands the speed of light as a constant.

So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field

Aristarchus - which is it then? Which of these claims am I supposed to respond to?

While I'm sure you can continue the quote mining ad infinitum, I'm curious as to YOUR opinion. Do you think that the speed of light is constant in GR? How would YOU define it?

Is it your opinion that because you can find someone with any given crackpot opinion on the internet, that makes the relevant science controversial? Taking a page out of the climate science denial playbook, so to speak? Is it really necessary for me to debunk every article in the "Progress in Physics" ( ) catalog for you?

I'll be back in a few days. You guys will have to do without my brilliant insights until then

[Aristarchus]

While I'm sure you can continue the quote mining ad infinitum

It's not called "quote mining." It's called citing sources/references.

I'm curious as to YOUR opinion. Do you think that the speed of light is constant in GR? How would YOU define it?

I'm offering authoritative cited sources that appear to defy your previous comment (viz), "The gravitational field does NOT affect the speed of light - light always travels past any observer at the same speed c." My previous cited sources was from Warren F. Davis who obtained his PhD in Physics from M.I.T.

It's not for me to define, but for you to have an understanding of how this is actually understood in your field of physics. For example - here's more:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0 ... 0054v1.pdf

Three Tests of General Relativity via Fermat’s
Principle and the Phase of Bessel Functions

The slowing down of clocks in a gravitational field will result in an apparent reduction in the speed of light. Light will therefore travel at the phase velocity u(r) = c/η(r), rather than c, as it would in vacuum.

What you stated above, i.e., "The gravitational field does NOT affect the speed of light - light always travels past any observer at the same speed c.", is patently untrue. This is according to the GR theory.

Is it your opinion that because you can find someone with any given crackpot opinion on the internet, that makes the relevant science controversial? Taking a page out of the climate science denial playbook, so to speak?

Trying to bait those that you're debating with using the sophomoric hyperbole engaged by the likes of Phil Plait doesn't bode well for your argument, or present you as being graced with the calm demeanor of an objective observer. In addition, you continue to make an obvious attempt to distort the credentials of those authors when it has already been pointed out to you as having impeccable curriculum vitae, and such a modus operandi from you doesn't demonstrate that you're here to seriously debate the topics with the appropriate scientific responses. It's not a question as to whether you agree or not with these authors that I presented, but rather, if you can negotiate through a proper discourse the points of specifics where you disagree.

Is it really necessary for me to debunk every article in the "Progress in Physics" ( ) catalog for you?

What is being asked of you at this point is to simply defend the remarks that you have thus far offered from my previous links. Instead, you indulge in a puerile mudslinging, besmirching, and now "laugh in your Interlocutor's
face," instead of expecting he/she to properly defend him/her against your remarks, which I suspect you desire to be the final word beyond any reproach. I also suspect that isn't working too well for you at this point, and your frustration is now taking the form of the mad hatter’s laugh.

[Nereid]

I admire Nereid's politeness

Thank you.

The bending of light around the sun (actually radio waves I believe) has now been measured very precisely, and is in accordance with general relativity to within an accuracy of something like one part in several thousand.

Clifford Will's "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment" (2006, the latest version, here) is a good place to start looking for papers reporting observations of the bending of light by the Sun.

Section 3.4.1 ("The deflection of light") lists quite a few of these; from the perspective of testing theories, the VLBI (e.g. Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S., “Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979–1999”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 121101, (2004)) and HIPPARCOS (e.g. Froeschlé, M., Mignard, F., and Arenou, F., “Determination of the PPN parameter γ with the Hipparcos data”, in Proceedings from the Hipparcos Venice ’97 Symposium, Proceedings of the symposium held on 13–16 May 1997, (ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997)) observations are perhaps the most useful here.

Do you guys seriously think that plasma refraction could provide a better explanation?

I would certainly be interested in reading any papers which reported reproducing the observed bending, in those VLBI and HIPPARCOS results (to within the stated errors), by plasma refraction.

[Nereid]

Pardon my obtrusion, had this in my bookmarks:

Following those difficulties, and since it has also been demonstrated that the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation, we show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the Sun.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/eclipse/

It's a pity the authors didn't consider the HIPPARCOS results (which are in the optical/visual waveband), nor the later VLBI ones (that Will cites, for example).

Would you be interested in going through this paper, to look at how the observational results are analysed?

BTW, how good do you consider the authors' match of observations to their 'plasma refraction' hypothesis to be?

[Nereid]

The Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field:

And yet Kennifick, in 2007, comes to a rather different conclusion:

The 1919 Eclipse Expedition to test the light-bending prediction of General Relativity remains one of the most famous physics experiments of the 20th century. However, in recent decades it has been increasingly often alleged that the data-analysis of the expedition's leaders was faulty and biased in favor of Einstein's theory. Arthur Stanley Eddington is particularly alleged to have been prejudiced in favor of general relativity. Specifically it is claimed that some of the data, which would have favored the so-called Newtonian prediction, was thrown out on dubious grounds. This paper argues that a close examination of the views of the expedition's organizers, and of their data analysis, suggests that they had good grounds for acting as they did, and that the key people involved, in particular the astronomer Frank Watson Dyson, were not biased in favor of Einstein. It also draws attention to a modern re-analysis of the most important eclipse plates which, though overlooked until now, tends to strongly support the thesis of this paper.

[Aristarchus]

And yet Kennifick, in 2007, comes to a rather different conclusion:

Indeed. Perhaps. When the science has not been settled, there are contrary views among experts and those involved in the research.

[Nereid]

Got your back Mike.

The Gaussian Plasma Lens in Astrophysics. Refraction (pdf)

Interesting solrey, but it doesn't seem to be relevant to the bending of light (visual, radio, etc) by the Sun, nor does it seem to say anything about the observed bending expecting to be achromatic (especially over so many decades as the visual/optical to radio) - did I miss those parts?

Plasma lensing would also seem to throw a big question mark onto the practice of using lensing as proof for the gravitational influence of "dark matter".

How? I mean, 'plasma lensing' is chromatic, isn't it?

Something else to consider:

Novel Negative-Index Metamaterial Bends Light 'Wrong' Direction

The question is, can surface plasmons provide a waveguide along the boundary between a charge sheath (electron sheath) and an electric field in a double layer? Could that also be a mechanism involved in plasma lensing?

The equations describing plasma and fluid vortices are the same. It's possible we might also discover the equations describing plasma lensing are, likewise, similar to the equations describing gravitational lensing, or at least produce similar results.

That would indeed be a most interesting discovery!

Light Deflection Near the Sun's Limb: Refraction by the Solar Atmosphere

Light refraction by the Sun's atmosphere is calculated.As detected from the Earth, the refraction can deflect a light ray emitted from the Sun's limb by 13'' or a starlight ray grazing the solar limb by 26'', an effect 15 times larger than the gravitational deflection.

Should be an interesting read! Especially since the observed deflection is a great deal smaller.