김택진 물리학 연구소 - Kim phys lab

This study aims to experimentally verify the principle of constant velocity of light and Galilean relativity. Special relativity states that the velocity of light is constant to all observers, but there has been no study that had experimentally verified the principle of constant velocity of light as the velocity of the light source increases with respect to the observer. This paper aims to experimentally verify the principle of a constant velocity of light by using the velocity of the image data signal sent by Voyager 1 to Earth. The experiment is performed by dividing the distance of the light path between Voyager 1 and Earth by the delay time for the signal from Voyager 1 to reach Earth. If the principle of the velocity of light is correct, the velocity of the signal will be the same as the velocity of light in the vacuum. But if Galilean relativity is correct, the velocity of the signal will be the velocity of light subtracting the velocity of Voyager 1. In this study analyzing the velocity of the signal shows that the velocity of the signal does not match the velocity of light in the vacuum. Furthermore, the velocity of the signal decreases in inverse proportion to the increase in the velocity of Voyager 1, suggesting that the velocity of Voyager 1 affects the velocity of light. This phenomenon can be an example of Galilean relativity being applied to the velocity of light.

Research square: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3166333/v1

English https://vixra.org/abs/2307.0069

Korean https://vixra.org/abs/2307.0068

Phenomenon caused by the relative velocity between the observer and the light source

I asked questions to bard (a chat bot created by Google) that I asked the previous to Chat gpt.

The point of the question is, "Does the observation of the redshift prove the error of constant light speed?"

The video contains all the questions and answers.

If you're interested, pause the video and read it.

We translated all the questions and answers in English.

The question itself is difficult and confusing, so Bard's answers are all over the place, so if you want to see the conclusion, please watch it from the 14th minute.

If you ask Google Chat bot Bard about the conceptual conflict of light speed constancy and redshift?

to see video visit my page

Basically, in physics after Einstein, we think light as a quantum.

If light is a particle, if one photon is sent from a light source, where is the position of the light after one second?

Its 300,000 kilometers from the light source.

If there is an observer outside our galaxy, and sees the galaxy moving towards right side, where is the photon?

The observer outside our galaxy, who observes light from light source on Earth, no matter where the galaxy is moving, he will find out that photon is 300,000 kilometers from the light source in one second.

If light is a particle, the light speed constancy is wrong because Galileo's principle of relativity is applied.

But when light is thought as a wave is the problem.

There are complicated stories about whether there is a medium of light or not, whether there is an inertial system of waves or not, if there isn’t inertial system of waves who will be the reference point or who will be the reference point if there is no inertial system of wave.

First, we have to solve the question. Is there a wave without a medium?

Second, if there's a wave without a medium, what's the speed?

And at the end, we have to talk about the inertial system of wave.

Einstein couldn't solve problem from here. He couldn't solve it, so he gave up, and said that the speed of light was constant in all inertial systems.

<A question Einstein couldn't understand in the end>

You can see full video at my youtube or my main page.

Unlike what we've learned in majors and books, T. Young actually doesn't use double slits and lasers, but he uses cards that can act as slits under sunlight. Up to here, you can see occasional references on Veritasium YouTube or other lecture videos. But it doesn't comment or interpret anything further. Because if you put the card instead of the double slit, it can't be interpreted as a wave. As you can see in my video “why light doesn't go spherical waves”, you can see that light is already divided when it hits the slit.

<Let me tell you about the actual double-slit experiment of T. Young>

<why light doesn't go spherical waves>

If you did an experiment to check the aether, you don't have to do an interferometer experiment until you die.

Mickelson thinks there's an aether, and he wants to know in what direction and at what speed the Earth is moving with respect to the absolute inertial system, so he's experimenting with it all his life.

However, this experiment proved to be no aether.

So basically the first thing to think about is, if it's a wave, there should be a medium, but there's no medium?

Is light a wave without aether?

Then is there a wave without a smack?

You have to ask questions in order.

And the position where the light from the light source is one second later is 300,000 kilometers from the light source.

The position of the light is precisely specified.

However, if you describe it as a wave, the position of the light may change.

But in order to do that, you need a medium.

Depending on what motion the light source makes relative to the medium, the position of the light can change.

However, even if there is no medium, it is special relativity that the observer acts as a medium.

In a magnetic inertial system, the speed is the same in any direction, whaether you're shooting a photon or throwing a baseball.

<There's no reason for Mickelson to experiment until he dies to identify aether>

to see video visit my page

Einstein's general theory of relativity is different from Newton's universal gravitation, whether it presents the cause of gravity or not.

General relativity describes the cause of gravity as the curvature of space.

Therefore, the difference between these two theories is not the magnitude of the force, but whether it presents the cause of the force.

Einstein suggested the phenomenon of gravitational lensing of the sun and the near-point shift of Mercury as evidence of the theory.

Since the forces are same but only the cause of the force is different, there should be no difference from Newton's universal gravitational value.

However, there was almost a twice difference between the value calculated by Soldner in terms of gravitation (0.9”) and Einstein's expected value (1.75”).

Originally, Einstein also predicted that if a photon had no mass, there would be a 0.875" change in the path of light.

However, just before publication, it turns out that the photon has a mass, and all of a sudden, if the photon has a mass, it claims to be 1.75" bent.

It's quite strange that the difference in power doubles just because you've suggested the cause of the force.

If the theory of relativity is correct, we should set everything at twice the current gravitational value.

to see video visit my page

The relativity of simultaneity explains that when lightning strikes simultaneously, lightning first arrives at the direction of the train.

This is quite contradictory to the logic used to argue for light speed constancy.

First, in the relativity of simultaneity, it is said that the light arrival time changes due to the movement of the observer.

However, the movement of the light source and the observer cannot be distinguished by the principle of relativity, observer movement is equal to light source movement.

So if the light source moves, long waves form in the light source moving away and short waves form in the light source coming closer, so the two lights arrive at the same time.

Therefore, if two lights arrive at the observer at the same time it will mean that the light source has moved, and if one of the light have arrived first, it will mean that the observer is moving toward the light that arrived first.

The two contradict each other because the observer does not know which way he is moving according to the principle of relativity.

<The relativity of synchronicity that no one knows>

In order to confirm whether Professor Cha Dong-woo's argument is correct, we will conduct an experiment to gather all the bright parts that appear on the screen at one point.

As the professor claims, the two lights from the double-slit are coherent lights, and the bright part is bright due to the valley and valley of the wave or the floor and the floor meet and made a reinforce interference.

However, from the professor's argument, if all the coherent light is gathered at one point, all the valleys and floors should meet at one point and offset interference should be observed.

It's going to be quite dark, not usually the same brightness as all the light combined.

But the experiment result showed that all the bright parts were added together.

As the physics Professor Cha Dong-woo argued, it was confirmed that the light passing through the double slit wasn’t coherent light, and the bright part was not bright due to the reinforcement interference between valley and valley or floor and floor.

To see experiment video visit my page or YouTube. <Fact check! As the physics Professor Cha Dong-woo claims, lights interfere when coherent light meets each other. Do you think so?>

Why it's hard to understand the speed and frequency of light?

An understanding of the speed of light in a medium is related to the density of the medium. Usually, the velocity of the wave is transmitted faster as the medium becomes denser. If light is a wave, the medium must be transmitted quickly in a dense place. The denser the medium in the wave, the faster the speed is because the transfer within the medium is faster than the transfer time from one medium to another. However, light travels more slowly where the medium is dense. Why does this Phenomenon happen? Light reacts with electrons when it meets atoms in the medium. When they react with electrons, they become excited and travel longer distances (exited state of electron moves in bigger radius), which slows them down. For this reason, light travels slower in the medium than in vacuum or air. And if the wavelength of light gets smaller, electrons are more excited, so the speed gets slower in the medium.

Now, if you apply this interesting fact to hydrogen line spectrum, you can also infer the velocity of electrons.

To see more interesting theories visit my YouTube or main page.

<Let me explain the fundamental reason why it is difficult to understand the speed of light>

Does interference occur in coherent light that past two slits?

To determine whether the bright and dark patterns on the screen are caused by interference of light from two slits, we observed changes in the bright and dark patterns when only light from one slit arrives on the screen.

If the bright and dark pattern is caused by the interference of light from two slits, the interference will not occur when blocking one light stem. As a result, if one ray of light is blocked bright part will be less bright and the dark part will be brighter.

However, if it was not patterned by interference. We can think two rays of light arrived in the bright part and ray didn’t come to the dark part from the beginning, the bright part would gradually darken as the barrier behind slits move to other side, and the dark part would remain unchanged.

Observations showed that the bright parts gradually darkened, but the dark parts didn’t got brightened at all. After all, the bright and dark patterns were not caused by the interference of light from the two slits. In other words, contrary to Young's argument, the bright and dark patterns were not caused by interference, the light for the dark part of the screen did not come from the beginning.

Experiment video (has Eng. sub)

Imagination without argument and proof is not science.

According to relativity, the relative time of the inertial system is determined by the distance at which light is observed.

However, this argument has ambiguous standards.

When light goes perpendicular to the direction of progress, the length of light seen from the outside is observed differently than the length of light seen from the inside, so time goes by differently.

However, when light goes horizontally in the direction of progress, it is explained that it goes the same distance inside and outside. If you set the time based on the distance that light went, it becomes unclear which light should be based on the horizontal light of the same length as the vertical light that looks longer.

Science is a discipline that must be constantly questioned by argument and demonstration.

<Einstein is more of a fantasist than a scientist>

To date, light speed measurements are consistently observed because the observer's inertia has a light source. But just because the speed of light traveling with the observer is constant, there's a logical leap to say that the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems. The Aberration observation is evidence that the speed of light has changed due to the movement between the light source and the observer. Maxwell's equations are based on the assumption that there is an aether (an absolute inertial system). In Maxwell's equation, epsilon_0 and mu_0 are constants, but it doesn’t tell where the value is from. The wave source, or where the light originated. However, it turns out that there is no absolute inertial system or aether. But assuming that the electromagnetic wave is constant regardless of whether the medium is present or not We need to solve what is a wave without a medium? Just because the speed of light in a vacuum and the speed of light traveling with the observer is constant, there is a logical leap to say that the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems. <Let me tell you’re misunderstandings in Maxwell's equation>

Is light really acts as spherical waves and is bright spot interference pattern?

It is said that if you irradiate a laser on a steel bead, a bright light appears in the center of the shadow.

If light meets a steel bead and proceeds a spherical wave and a bright spot appears in the middle of the shadow by interference.

Then there should be a change in the brightness or shape of the light in the middle of the shadow if the interference of two waves are blocked.

But if you block the left and right sides of the bead, as in the experimental video, you can still observe the bright spots and there is no change in phase or brightness.

What we can see from this is that the point in the middle of the shadow is not from either end of the metal bead, but from the center of the metal bead.

<Fact check! As the physics community claims, the bright spot in the middle of the shadow behind the circular object is caused by light reinforcement interference. Do you think so?>

Visit my page or my YouTube. Video has Eng. subtitles.

A true interpretation of the Mickelson-Molly experiment.

If you interpret the Micalson-Molly experiment correctly, all the time and speed must be the same in order for light from a semi-reflector to go to the y-axis and light from the x-axis to reach the screen at the same time.

Also, in order for the light traveling along the x-axis to have the same speed (light going to reflector and comes back to semi-reflector), it must have the same speed relative to the light source.

This is a property of particles. That is, light must be particles to explain.

And if the Micalson-Moly interference experiment confirms that there is no ether, then we should start thinking about what waves are without the medium.

<A true interpretation of the Mickelson-Molly experiment>

Interfering light and non-interfering light

According to physicist Professor Cha Dong-woo, coherent light causes interference with each other.

Therefore, in the double slit experiment, the bright part is made by reinforcing interference of coherent light.

Non-coherent light from fluorescent lights or LEDs has different phases, so it does not cause interference.

But what happens if we collect coherent light passed double-slit with a magnifying glass?

By interfering with the coherent light, the light collected by the magnifying glass should be darker than the original light.

However, as a result of collecting light with a magnifying glass, it comes out similar to the original brightness of the light.

Therefore, the argument that light from the double slits in physics matches and causes interference does not fit the experimental results.

For my experiment vidio come and see my youtube or my page.

The Mickelson-Molly experiment was not an experiment to determine the presence or absence of a medium of light the ether.

The experiment tried to measure the Earth moving speed and direction for a virtual medium ether by measuring the fringes created by difference in the speed of light.

Mickelson continued this experiment until he died for the rest of his life because he couldn't find the valuable fringe shifts.

Since this experiment initially thought that light was a wave.

There is a logical leap of light speed constancy.

That the speed of light is constant even if the light source and the observer moves.

And even without the medium for wave.

Mickelson-Molly thought the light was a wave and conducted an experiment, but after few years it has been proven that light is a particle.

The problem with experiments is that light is thought of as a wave.

It is common knowledge that when a particle is fired within the same inertial system, it arrives at the same time either way.

So, to discuss the success of the experiment, it is a successful experiment that proved that light is a particle.

<The Mickelson-Molly experiment is a successful experiment that proves that light is a particle. >

How to observe two lines without interference patterns on a double slit.

In the double-slit experiment, it is said that observation results in two lines and interference patterns if not observed.

Has anyone seen an experiment with two lines at least once, or confirmed that two lines are observed?

What quantum mechanics say about observation of two lines are nonsense.

<"Professor Kim Sangwook! Observation’s makes it two lines?" Have you ever done a double-slit experiment? >