3. Theory

You can download at the Home page my publications :

E Brauns, "On multiple anomalies and inconsistencies regarding the description of light phenomena in contemporary science.", 9 pages

E Brauns, "On a massive anomaly through a straightforward laser experiment falsifying the equivalence principle for light.", 6 pages

E Brauns, "A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in "exact" science ?, 450 pages

E Brauns, "Two massive anomalies within contemporary "exact" science's light paradigms proving that multiple contemporary paradigms (including the relativity paradigm) are totally flawed.", 47 pages

3.1 Critique on the classic representation of light phenomena in physics and the Lorentz contraction

In Figure 5 the simulation of the trajectory of a photon or a laser pulse is represented, conform to a graphical presentation as found in the literature (e.g. Griffits, p. 485) or on the internet e.g. ( The simulation  illustrates a set-up of two parallel mirrors which are reflecting light (a light pulse) back and forth while moving horizontally at a velocity “v”. It can be noticed that nowadays extremely short laser pulses are in fact available in industry, such as e.g. laser pulses of 200 femto seconds (1 femtosec = 1E-15 sec). Such a laser pulse shows a length of only 60 micrometer, which corresponds to about the thickness of a human hair. A laser pulse of that type is indeed then no longer a “ray of light” but could be considered as a “package of photons” travelling through space. When e.g. having a trajectory of 1 m, that pulse with a length of only 60 micrometer, is definitely travelling that distance of 1 m while occupying at each time instant a very specific location in that spatial interval of 1m. In addition, it is even reported in the scientific literature that it is feasible to produce a single photon in a controlled manner. That clearly highlights even more that a light/laser pulse indeed incorporates "a collection of" individual photons (light quanta).

Figure 5: Simulation according to principles in physics of a laser pulse, bouncing forth and back between two parallel mirrors

From the simulation at the indicated website, as well as in Figure 5, thus being in accordance with the actual light paradigm in contemporary physics, it is also clear that contemporary physics claims that the launched laser pulse (thus each single photon within that pulse) precisely inherits the horizontal velocity component of the moving set-up : the laser pulse (photon) indeed is considered to co-travel horizontally along with the set-up, at exactly the same speed of the set-up (thereby bouncing back and forth exactly between the midpoint of each mirror) for whatever set-up speed. Thus also for any speed of Zoe’s car at

At the moment that Zoe’s car stops during a light pulse bounce, contemporary physics thus claims that the light pulse will “detect” during the bounce that the horizontal velocity component of the set-up is zero, thereby “inheriting” that zero horizontal velocity and then keeps bouncing back and forth exactly between the midpoints of the two mirrors, now at rest. Contemporary physics also claims that the light pulse will still keep on bouncing back and forth exactly between the midpoints of the two mirrors for whatever speed value of Zoe’s car. If Zoe e.g. doubles the car’s speed contemporary physics claims that the light pulse will continue to travel between midpoints of the mirrors, even during the acceleration during the speed change ! That extraordinary claim by contemporary physics can only be possible if the light/laser pulse’s/photon’s horizontal velocity component continuously and exactly matches the horizontal velocity component of the moving set-up, thus the horizontal velocity of the mirrors. There is however in the contemporary physics literature no information at all on the mechanism by which a photon is inheriting the horizontal velocity component of the (horizontal velocity changing) mirrors set-up. I call that very peculiar, by contemporary physics claimed but still unexplained, inheritance mechanism extremely inconsistent and flawed (as explained further in this section).

Another firm example of that belief in contemporary physics about the photons inheriting the mirror’s or light/laser source’s horizontal velocity component is given at  in a 4 minutes during representation, introducing  Einstein’s relativity (including relativity’s consequence of time travelling, thus all according to contemporary physics). When scrolling to the time stamp value 2minutes30seconds in that representation the light clock principle (as claimed by contemporary physics) is illustrated very clearly.  As one can see for oneself : contemporary physics claims it to be very true that the light pulse continue to travel back and forth exactly between the midpoints of both mirrors and for whatever speed value (including the acceleration and deceleration periods ! ; and at velocity zero) of that light clock device, thus also for both mirrors in Zoe’s car. This point of view (fundamental belief) within contemporary physics about the “inheritance of the horizontal velocity vector component” however is leading to the most gigantic paradigm inconsistency within contemporary physics, ever encountered in the history of science ! It seems that this inconsistency was overlooked for a period longer than the last 100 years and, as a result, remained hidden up to now. In my opinion the contemporary physics view of the back and forth bouncing of the light pulse, exactly between the midpoints of both mirrors, is rather based on a simple expectancy of the human's mind (of the contemporary physics defender/believer) that an observer moving along with the moving set-up “needs” to observe such behavior of  the light-pulse bouncing forth and back between the midpoints of the two mirrors ?! Such expectancy then forces the defender/believer to be convinced about the principle of the inheritance of the horizontal velocity component of the set-up by the photons. I already proved by a laser experiment that this principle is totally wrong as explained in the experimental section 2 in this website and as demonstrated by Figure 2. I will moreover reveal  here also in a rather straightforward way this major paradigm inconsistency within contemporary physics by the introduction of a thought experiment.

But first some further critiques/comments on the contemporary science paradigm as represented in Figure 5 (and at and at Contemporary physics even claims a direction depending velocity inheritance in the case of Figure 5 since the 'bouncing' photon is claimed by contemporary science to inherit (as I call it : "in some strange selective way") the horizontal velocity vector component of the 'source' (thus the mirror in this case) but forbids the inheritance principle in the direction in which the photon travels (that is the contemporary physics principle of the light speed to be constant in the direction of travel). In that respect two questions can be raised : "What is the 'reflection' mechanism by which contemporary science can explain the back-and-forth 'reflection' of the photon(s) by the two mirror's surfaces ?" and in addition "What is in fact moreover the mechanism of the direction selective inheritance of only the horizontal velocity vector component of the mirror ?". Those mechanisms are not explained by contemporary science at the level of a single photon that is interfering at the mirror's surface with the 'so-called smooth' and 'reflective' atomic structure at that mirror's surface ...Reflect yourself on those two mechanisms and try to answer both questions yourself in the case of the contemporary science paradigm, as represented by Figure 5. At the moment that you start to reflect on those questions you will get confronted with an even more stringent question : "If the principle of the inheritance of the horizontal velocity vector component (as claimed by contemporary science) would be true : why is the photon then NOT inheriting that horizontal velocity vector component of a mirror at each single moment that the photon is reflected at the mirror's surface ?!". The latter question additionally exposes an inconsistency within contemporary science since, when applying the inheritance principle at each reflection, the photon would acquire the mirror's velocity at EACH single reflection and therefore would NOT keep in sync within the representation by Figure 5 and thus would start to move, horizontally to the right, faster and faster ! Contemporary science is thus simply totally inconsistent with respect to Figure 5 : when applying its own velocity inheritance principle the photon would NOT keep 'bouncing' exactly between the midpoints of both mirrors but thus would stray away (ultimately even passing the mirrors) ! Please note that contemporary physics claims for a (x,y) frame that a material object B being launched at a launch velocity by/from another moving material object A will simply inherit both velocity vector vx,A and vy,A components. In the case of material objects such as object A and object B that velocity inheritance principle is correct. But then, in  the case of a laser C 'launching' a photon D in the y-direction, contemporary physics, very strangely, states that the photon will only inherit the velocity vector vx,C component but not the vy,C component (since the addition of velocity in the photon's launch direction y of the laser is forbidden by contemporary science). The only explanation for that very peculiar 'behavior' of a photon, as claimed by contemporary science, is that such 'happens on the basis of relativity'. But then again, on the basis of its own principles (thus of that very peculiar direction-selective velocity inheritance principle), the 'bouncing' photon within Figure 5 then needs to inherit during each reflection the reflecting mirror's horizontal velocity component and thus stray away and NOT keep on bouncing exactly between the midpoints of both mirrors ! I call the relativity argument a weak argument (I call it 'turning-in-circles-reasoning within a theoretical paradigm box' without any concise explanation of the phenomena/mechanisms of the direction selective inheritance principle) being confronted on its own basis with a major inconsistency.

Then now the introduction of the thought experiment : consider therefore within Figure 24 a laser which is mounted perfectly vertically upward on a horizontally movable set-up, thus being able to geometrically launch photons in the perfect  vertical upward direction while the horizontal velocity of the set-up can be controlled to any value. An observer Obs1 is at rest (the frame xObs1, yObs1 is also at rest). The set-up does not move in the vertical direction and is positioned at the location xObs1=1 at the start (t=0) within the thought experiment. Assume now that individual photons (or femto second laser pulses) are launched each second from the laser. In order to be able to demonstrate the upward travelling of the photons, the yObs1-axis is scaled in light-seconds (each yObs1-axis scale unit corresponds to the distance travelled by light in one second).


Figure 24 Animation of the thought experiment as based on the views within contemporary physics

The laser resides at the location xObs1=1 during the first 3 seconds and thus the three photons (labelled #1, #2 and #3) travel accordingly, as illustrated in Figure 24. Since the laser source does not move in the horizontal direction during the first 3 seconds, evidently the three photons move upward along the line xObs1=1 (those three photons do not move in the horizontal direction). The assumption is made in this thought experiment that immediately after t=3 sec the laser is set in motion at an immediate horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec while still launching a photon each second (see later in this text a discussion when not having in this thought experiment an infinite high acceleration value with respect to an immediate horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec at t=3 sec but a finite acceleration value at t=3 sec). In addition, the assumption is also made that the laser immediately halts when arriving at the location xObs1=9. Contemporary physics claims that those photons, as being launched from a moving laser source, inherit the horizontal velocity of the laser and therefore, the photons with labels #4 … #10 thus should behave as illustrated in the animation within Figure 24. Contemporary physics thus claims that those photons will “reside precisely” (while of course travelling vertically upwards) “above” the laser during the travelling of the laser from the xObs1=1 to the xObs1=9 position. The label #4...#10 photon’s xObs1 locations are thus exactly the same as the laser’s xObs1 locations in the 1 m < xObs1 < 9 m  interval (as claimed by the views within contemporary science !). But the dramatic consequence of this all is that the photons with labels #4...#10 will also keep moving horizontally to the right since contemporary science evidently cannot claim in any way that those photons (labels #4...#10) would stop moving to the right (at the velocity of 1 m/sec) at the moment that the laser halts at the location xObs1=9 ! There is totally no mechanism why those photons (labels #4...#10) would be able to 'notice' the halting of the laser source at the location xObs1=9 and then also would stop moving to the right. It would be totally absurd if a contemporary paradigm believer/defender would desperately try to save his paradigm by claiming that those, already travelling, photons (labels #4...#10) still would 'detect' and 'inherit' (in some mysterious way) the horizontal velocity being zero of the halted laser at the xObs1=9. In addition, the photons (produced by the halted laser at the location xObs1=9) with the labels  #11...#15 will show a zero horizontal velocity component, according to contemporary physics, since the laser has a zero horizontal velocity from the moment that the laser halted in the position  xObs1=9. Therefore the gigantic inconsistency within the views of contemporary science becomes extremely obvious : the photons with labels #4...#10 will simply keep moving horizontally to the right and therefore get completely disconnected, from a horizontal direction point of view, from the photons with the labels #1...#3 and, in an analogous way, become also disconnected (from the horizontal point of view) from the photons with the labels  #11...#15. That is clearly illustrated within the graphical representation within Figure 24, fully based on the views within contemporary science.      

Let us call the photons of type #1...#3 as belonging to a group A, the photons of type #4...#10 as belonging to a group B while considering the photons of type #11...#15 to belong to a group C.  It should then be very obvious to anyone that the reasoning above also holds in the case that the laser would continuously produce photons instead of 1 photon or laser pulse per second. Indeed : consider a continuous laser, thus producing a large number of photons of the type of group A during the first 3 seconds. The very last photon within group A being produced by the laser, while standing still in the location xObs1=1, will travel in the same way as all the photons of group A, thus along the line x=1. However the very first photon being produced by the continuous laser when starting to move horizontally to the right after 3 seconds will inherit the horizontal velocity vector component of the laser (according to contemporary science) and thus will start to travel as the type of photons of group B. That means a permanent/lasting horizontally movement to the right, as claimed by the views of contemporary science. Therefore anyone will immediately understand that the first photon of the type group B will start to drift/stray away to the right in the horizontal direction, from the last photon of the type group A. Moreover that is also true in the case within the thought experiment when the acceleration (towards the horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec after t=3 sec) is not assumed to be infinitely high but has a finite value. Indeed, in that case the very first photon of group B will inherit the actual horizontal velocity vector component (albeit even small at the start of the acceleration period) from the moving laser source (according to the views within contemporary science) and therefore will inevitably drift away from the last photon of the group A ! Whether an infinite high ('immediate') acceleration or whether a finite acceleration of the laser source after 3 seconds : the conclusion/consequence of the effect of the horizontal drifting away between the very last photon of the type of group A and the very first photon of the type of group B holds ! That drifting away between those two photons is a massive anomaly within the views of contemporary science with respect to its linear/continuous/undisrupted modeling of light phenomena (thus the contemporary physics linear 'ray of light' model !). In the graphical representation by Figure 24, as resulting from the views within contemporary science, there is thus clearly a positional disconnection/disruption between the photons of the group A and the photons of group B (of which the latter will keep on drifting away horizontally to the right !) ! In fact that permanent horizontal drifting away to the right of the photons of group B is one major first anomaly while the clear disconnection/disruption between the photons of the group A and the photons of group B needs to be considered as a second major anomaly. As a result : the 'continuous' character of the so-called 'laser beam' is destroyed by that disconnection effect and thus forms a gigantic inconsistency within the views as claimed by contemporary science.

To illustrate that things are even getting worse regarding both anomalies, in the case of having within the thought experiment a finite acceleration value after 3 seconds and having a continuous laser, let us indicate all the photons being produced in the acceleration time interval (acceleration up to the horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec) as to belong to the group indicated by A-B (group of photons of type A-B 'in between' the photons of group A and the photons of group B). The laser thus starts to move at some low velocity immediately after 3 seconds and therefore the first photons of this group A-B will inherit that low (but non-zero) velocity value (according to contemporary science). At the end of the acceleration period towards the laser velocity value of 1 m/sec it is obvious that the last photons of group A-B will inherit the laser's velocity of 1 m/sec. The photons of group A-B thus show different inherited horizontal velocity values which leads to the obvious conclusion that those group A-B photons will also show different horizontal-drifting-away-to-the-right velocities ! Indeed, the first photons of group A-B will move more slowly to the right when compared to the last photons of group A-B (the latter move faster horizontally to the right). Contemporary science thus should start to realize the additional absurd consequence (third anomaly) (within the discussed example) of its own peculiar principle of the horizontal velocity inheritance paradigm : the photons within group A-B will not alone drift away permanently horizontally to the right (which is already a very absurd consequence) but moreover those photons of the group A-B will also show a mutual drifting away from another as a result of their different inherited velocity values ! As if contemporary science allows the 'laser beam' segment of photons within group A-B to show from their horizontal location perspective, a stretching-in-space-effect ! That third type of anomaly, as a result of an acceleration, clearly questions again the views within contemporary science with respect to a 'laser beam" and claimed to be representable as linear (thus the 'ray of light' model within the views of contemporary science). 

Another absurd consequence (within the thought experiment) of the inheritance principle of the horizontal vector component of the laser's velocity (as claimed by contemporary science) becomes obvious when analyzing the photon phenomena in the case that there is not an infinite large deceleration, at the moment that the laser halts its movement. Let us therefore indicate all the photons being produced in the deceleration time interval (deceleration from the horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec to the zero value) as to belong to the group called B-C. The laser thus starts to move at a velocity somewhat lower than 1 m/sec and therefore the first photons of the group B-C will inherit that somewhat lower velocity value (according to contemporary science). At the start of the deceleration period towards the laser velocity value of 0 m/sec it is thus obvious that the first photons of group B-C will also permanently drift horizontally away to the right (as all the photons of group B) but as a result of their velocity value lower than 1 m/sec will start to lag behind, relative to the location of the photons of group B ! The photons in group B-C thus also show different inherited horizontal velocity values which again leads to the severe conclusion that those group B-C photons will also show different horizontal drifting-away-to-the-right velocities. Indeed the first photons of group B-C move faster to the right while the last photons of group B-C move slower. Contemporary science thus should realize again that the additional absurd consequence/inconsistency (fourth anomaly) of its own very peculiar direction selective velocity inheritance paradigm : the photons of group B-C will not alone drift away permanently to the right (which again is already a very absurd consequence of that principle) but moreover those photons will also show a mutual drifting away from one another as a result of their different inherited velocity values. As if contemporary science, again, also allows the 'laser beam' segment of photons within group B-C to show, from their horizontal location perspective, a stretching-in-space effect. Moreover, in the case of the B-C group of photons, the last photons will move horizontally slower to the right than the first photons of the group B-C in a way that the first photons of group B-C will pass the last photons, all this resulting from the views within contemporary physics. That complex and combined fourth type of anomaly (passing effect and (horizontal) location stretching effect), as a result of a deceleration, clearly questions again those views within contemporary science regarding its linear "ray of light' model.

When moreover having both a finite acceleration value and a finite deceleration value within the thought experiment related to Figure 24 the absurdity of the inheritance principle within the views of contemporary science on light phenomena is highlighted even more ! Indeed, anyone will understand quickly from the discussion above that, next to the permanent horizontal drifting away to the right of the photons of group A-B (acceleration period) and B-C (deceleration period) that even the last photons of group A-B will drift away faster than the last photons of the group B-C and thus eventually will pass those last photons of the group B-C ! That consequence could be called a fifth anomaly and clearly destroys in addition the contemporary science 'linear model" representation of a continuous laser 'beam', all those anomalies leaving behind a shattered, totally flawed contemporary science's paradigm of a direction selective velocity inheritance principle in the case of light/photons.

The non-disputable non-stop horizontal drifting-away-to-the-right of photons and therefore their disconnection within Figure 24 thus already constitute in fact two major anomalies within contemporary science. A third and fourth anomaly in the case of a finite acceleration and/or finite deceleration value is, on top of this all, the stretching-in-space effect of the photons of group A-B and group B-C. Such a series of multiple severe anomalies regarding the modeling of light phenomena, which contemporary science seems not to have remarked up to now and moreover will not be able to explain/counter, thus certainly is conform to a falsification (as defined by Popper) of the laser's horizontal velocity component inheritance paradigm within contemporary science with respect to photons. The conflicting and non-counterable anomal(y)(ies) then correspond(s) to a, by Popper defined, falsification which is much stronger (according to Popper's falsification theory) than a series of different so-called verifications (by experiment). Also Einstein stated himself that one single anomaly/falsification could completely overthrow (a) (his) paradigm(s) (a paradigm as being a theory that is believed to be true at that moment in  the history of science). One single anomaly then ultimately leads to a situation by which the complete series of experimental 'verifications' needs a total revision as to detect the reason of an obvious misinterpretation during those multiple types of verification experiments (see the critiques at this website on specific experiments/paradigms and even in more detail in my publication). Even the results claimed by more recent experiments then need a detailed reconsideration. As to the existing paradigms, the well known Michelson-Morley experiment showing the null-result-paradigm is a contemporary paradigm and therefore the case of having even two severe main (multiple) anomalies at once, as expressed through Figure 2 and Figure 24 will lead to the need of a complete revision of the modeling (as used within the paper of Michelson and Morley) and thus also the outcome of the experiment (on the basis of e.g. the conclusion from the experimental result within Figure 2). The effect as illustrated within Figure 2 was indeed NOT considered in the model as being used by Michelson and Morley (as presented in the paper of the Michelson & Morley experiment). So the Michelson-Morley experimental 'null-result' could be possibly very well explained from the consequences of the experiment, as shown in Figure 2. Therefore the Michelson and Morley experiment then definitely needs to be re-evaluated from that perspective (see the critique at this website). Moreover, the experimental set-up linked to Figure 2 is much more straightforward than the Michelson and Morley experimental set-up. A signal of about 1 mm for a distance of about 10 m is indeed a very interesting feature and therefore it is incomprehensible that up to now no university nor research laboratory has re-performed that straightforward type of laser experiment ! One should importantly note that the Michelson and Morley experiment is fully based on an extremely small longitudinal effect (direction of the travel of light) since the interference principle is used in their experiment. The laser experiment within Figure 2 is however not based on a small longitudinal effect but based on a large transversal effect (thus the observation of the effect is perpendicular to the direction of the travel of the photons), as favorable detectable on our planet. Therefore the laser experiment set-up, to create the result shown within Figure 2, is straightforward and sensitive specifically in the case that a sophisticated laser (and optics) would be used with a very low divergence (spot size) at a distance of the order of 10 m. Also the cost of such a set-up will be marginal when compared to the extremely high cost of actual (very large scale) scientific experimental set-ups involving laser/light set-ups (references regarding the latter extremely expensive experiments are in fact not needed here but the Gravity Probe B and the LIGO experiments could indeed be mentioned here ...). So again here the stringent call towards universities and/or research centres to simply re-perform the straightforward type of laser experiment as demonstrated within Figure 2 to experience the clear anomaly for themselves. At the moment that the result of Figure 2 is confirmed, contemporary science is facing a very large conflict regarding its multiple, totally flawed, contemporary paradigms involving light/photon phenomena. 

Figure 24 and the thought experiment thus prove, through the multiple inconsistencies/anomalies, that specific graphical representations (“ray of light” ; “laser beam”) within the contemporary light paradigms in fact definitely need to be reconsidered as being totally wrong from its own basics, namely the principle of the direction selective inheritance of the horizontal velocity of the laser (photon) source in the example ! That inheritance principle within contemporary physics thus should be abandoned since it leads to a dramatic misrepresentation of the real photon phenomena ! The consequences for specific paradigms in contemporary physics are extremely severe, as explained within the sections of this website (in addition see also Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 23).

The simulation within Figure 5 is claimed here to be based on a wrong perception by the human mind regarding the phenomena of such a laser pulse (or a photon within a laser beam) between two parallel mirrors. According to that wrong perception, the observer Obs2 (reference frame in blue) who travels along with the mirrors and who thus is “at rest” relative to these mirrors is expected by classic physics to see the light beam bouncing forth and back perfectly between both midpoints of the two mirrors, whatever the velocity “v” of the set-up. Moreover, the observer Obs1 who is linked to the reference frame in red and who is watching the moving set-up of the two mirrors is expected by classic physics to observe the light beam as presented by the red zig-zagging lines in the simulation within Figure 5. As a result of that mistaken perception, the human mind then creates from a mathematical construction in Figure 5  the triangle as shown in Figure 6 and thus makes a second severe mistake. Indeed, as the velocity of light c is considered to be a constant in all reference systems, Lorentz suggested  that distance and time in one reference frame needs to be transformed in another reference frame through a contraction formula :

A velocity value v=0 results in a zero contraction (α=1). At a very high velocity the value of v²/c² becomes important as to the mathematical limit where v=c and v²/c²=1 and therefore then α=∞. At v=c, according to Lorentz, the contraction becomes complete, meaning that an object’s length would be reduced to zero and time will be standing still. The contraction formula is used in relativity calculations involving spatial dimensions (length) and also time.

The Lorentz contraction as expressed by formula (1) can easily be deduced from the Pythagoras formula involving a rectangular triangle as shown by Figure 6, deduced from Figure 5. However, the triangle ABC in Figure 6 results from a completely faulty reasoning of the human mind when modelling the light phenomena as graphically represented by classic physics (optics) in the simulation within Figure 5.

Figure 6: Graphical representation within classic physics regarding the Lorentz contraction derivation

However, let’s analyze the mathematical derivation in the literature of the Lorentz contraction from the graphical representation within Figure 6. As indicated in Figure 6, Pythagoras can be applied for the indicated rectangular triangle ABC. According to that graphical representation in the literature, Obs1 would observe the photon to have travelled the distance AB = c.ΔtObs1 in the Obs1 reference frame (in red). According to that same literature Obs2 however (reference frame in blue) would observe the photon to have travelled the distance AB=d between the upper and lower mirror. In order to the create a conversion between both observation frames, it is then stated in literature that the time ΔtObs2 can be introduced as following (from the light speed “c” to be a constant for whatever observer) :

d=c . ΔtObs2
When introducing this equation for AC=d in the Pythagoras equation one obtains :

( c . ΔtObs1 )2 = ( c . ΔtObs2 )2 + ( v . ΔtObs1 )2

( ΔtObs2 )2 = ( ΔtObs1 )2 - (v2/c2) . ( ΔtObs1 )2 = ( ΔtObs1 )2 .(1 - v2/c2 )

Therefore the Lorentz contraction α becomes :

α = ΔtObs1/ ΔtObs2 =1 / [ 1 - (v/c)2 ] 0.5

The Lorentz contraction paradigm, being based on a simple Pythagoras rectangular triangle formula, is however an artificial mathematical construction connected to an artificial mathematical space, all created within the human mind, but not representing the real phenomena in real space as observed within the laser experiment (Figure 2) (I consider the Lorentz contraction formula therefore fictional and not corresponding to real phenomena in real space, thus leading to a gigantic error in the history of science).  Indeed, the following remarks can be made, from the viewpoints of Obs1 and Obs2, as explained in the next sections 3.2 and 3.3.

3.2 Viewpoints of observers Obs1 and Obs2

3.2.1 Corrected views of Obs1

When considering the principle of a photon’s trajectory as illustrated in Figure 3 and in Figure 4 it should by now be very clear that the graphical representation in Figure 5 showing a zig-zag trajectory of  a photon (or laser pulse) in the reference frame of Obs1 is totally incorrect. A photon (or a very short laser pulse of e.g. 200 femtosecond) which is reflected by a mirror in Figure 5 and as observed by Obs1 indeed needs to travel in a trajectory having a direction perpendicular to the x-axis towards to the other mirror. During the travelling time of the photon (or laser pulse) from the first mirror to the second mirror the set-up is also travelling through space in a way that the photon (or laser pulse) will not arrive at the midpoint of the second mirror. In order to demonstrate the effect in a dynamic way, a further enhanced visual representation (when compared to Figure 4) of the phenomena of photons or laser pulses (by e.g. a pulsed laser producing short laser pulses) can be found in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Trajectories of individual laser pulses (or photons) being launched perpendicular to the x-axis

In Figure 9, a series of laser pulses (or photons) are generated by a laser, located at the origin of the reference frame (in blue) of Obs2. In Figure 9 there is again a wall (not a mirror in this case) where the photons will arrive. Figure 9 then clearly shows that Obs1 observes the individual laser pulses or photons (being produced by the moving laser) will each travel in their own separate trajectory. Each trajectory is perfectly perpendicular to the x-axis since the laser pulse is NOT inheriting the velocity component of the laser in the x-axis direction. 

The individual photon trajectories in Figure 9 are parallel to one another. It should be remarked in that respect that Figure 5, which is based on classic optics, indeed suggests that the laser pulse is perfectly following the laser for whatever velocity of the laser ; thus that the laser pulse "inherits" in the x-axis direction the velocity of the laser itself. That is already a contradiction within classic physics where it is stated that the speed of light is not influenced by the mechanical velocity component of the light source itself. How then to explain in Figure 5 by that same classic physics approach that the laser pulse in Figure 5 is perfectly “following” the set-up in the x-axis direction ? It can be concluded that Figure 5 is incorrect also from such consideration. Therefore Obs1 should definitely abandon the wrong illusionary graphical representation within Figure 5. A correct reasoning within the mind of Obs1 would be that a photon, being reflected by the first mirror at t=t1, will not arrive after the travelling time Δt=t2-t1 precisely at the midpoint of the second mirror at t=t2. It will arrive to the left of the midpoint of the second mirror since a photon within the “ray of light” (within the laser beam or laser pulse) needs to perfectly travel in a direction perpendicular to the x-axis during the time interval Δt=t2-t1 and during which however the second mirror indeed has moved to the right (in this example). That displacement of the upper mirror in real space should also NOT be linked to a very small “relative velocity” when e.g. having a set-up within a moving vehicle (e.g. in but moreover should be linked to the reality of the very high orbit speed of our planet around the sun (or even the velocity of the solar system within our Galaxy, in real space).

In Figure 9 the trajectory of each individual laser pulse is illustrated. It is interesting to observe the movement of the “red marker” photon/laser pulse. The original launch position of that marker laser pulse within real space (real space as represented by the reference frame in red of Obs1) is indicated through a red dotted circle on the x-axis. That dotted circle has of course a fixed position in the reference frame of Obs1. It is clear that the location in real space of the marker laser pulse at whatever time instant is perfectly on the line perpendicular to the x-axis and through the dotted red circle on the x-axis. From the representation in Figure 9, Obs1 recognizes the fact that each photon in Figure 5 in reality always travels exactly the pure perpendicular distance “AB”=“d” between both mirrors in Figure 6 , for whatever value of the velocity v of the set-up of the two mirrors in Figure 5, and NOT the distance AC in Figure 6 ; Obs1 observes that a photon, being launched perpendicular to the x-axis, is indeed NOT zig-zagging at all in real space, as wrongly represented in Figure 5.

Figure 10: Illusion within the human mind when considering SF as the trajectory of the photons/laser pulses

So, Obs1 realizes that (s)he can also no longer represent the photon's phenomena by e.g. a simple geometrical line, e.g. as a “ray of light”. If Obs1 would e.g. state that the line SF in Figure 10 represents the “ray of light” then Obs1 does not save the phenomena of the photons (laser pulses)  since Obs1 then would claim the “light to move along SF as a ray of light” which obviously, as can be understood from the dynamic representation within Figure 9, is wrong regarding (a correct location and time labeling of) the real phenomena of individual photons, travelling through real space in the direction perpendicular to the x-axis. Light thus should not be modeled through simple geometrical lines but, from the particle (photon) point of view, on the basis of the quanta related behavior. The line SF does not at all represent such a quanta related behavior and is thus incorrect as a graphical representation. In reality, a photon does NOT travel over the distance between S and F in Figure 10 but as indicated over a distance conform to the two positions of  Photon “i” at time instant t1 and t2, thus between the positions Photon i(t1) and Photon i(t2) in Figure 10.  The value of that distance is of course equal to the value of the distance between M and S in Figure 10. To consider the line SF as a “ray of light” would thus be another human modelling error next to the already indicated modelling error when considering the line “AC” in Figure 6 as a representation of the photons phenomena.

From Figure 10, another important conclusion by Obs1 is that the distance between the actual location F of the arrival at t2 of Photon “i”  and the midpoint M of the wall is simply proportional to the absolute velocity v of the set-up in the x-axis direction. This contradicts Mach’s point of view that only relative velocities of a material object Obj1 can be measured from the paradigm that it is always necessary to have another independent material object Obj2 (being defined to be “at rest”) as a reference in order to be able to determine the “relative” velocity of Obj1. However, from measuring the distance FM in Figure 10 it is thus possible in principle to measure in the x-axis direction the absolute x-axis velocity vector component through an adequate set-up as described later in some more detail in section 4.1. In section 4.1 the concept of an absolute velocity measuring device, able to determine the absolute velocity components in all three dimensional directions, will be discussed.

A person who would state that this is all nonsense, is indeed merely desperately trying “to save the wrong appearances” from a paradigm point of view (being comparable to the defenders of other paradigms at that time in the history of science). That person is captured within “a thinking inside the box”, stating that the theories within the literature (from which that person was trained) “must be correct". According to that person, literature and its published paradigms thus simply can never be wrong ? However, Figure 5 is indeed derived from the actual paradigms related to light phenomena in such literature but seems to be a completely wrong representation.  As Kuhn indicated, paradigms have shown in the history of sciences to be able to be very wrong. That person therefore should abandon “trying to save the wrong appearances” and focus on “saving the real phenomena”. That person should also perform (her)(him)self the straightforward experiment as described in section 2 and then try to explain the experimental result from within the paradigm that (s)he believes in.

In addition, it should be indicated here that Imre Lakatos e.g. also pointed to the fact that the wave-particle duality (two compeletely different but co-existing paradigms/models on light phenomena) is not a sound situation in science (Horsten, 2007, p. 188). Horsten even states that it is probable that such an unsound situation of two co-existing paradigms will be surpassed one day (Horsten, 2007, p. 188). It is indeed contradictory that many scientists consider science as representing nature "as it is" while at the same time they have no problem at all to switch at will between either the particle (photon) model of light or the wave model (introduced originally by Huygens). They should realize that the existence of two completely different models is the proof that science is definitely NOT representing the world (reality), outside the human mind, "as it is" but only tries to describe it in the best possible way. The approach of geometrical lines to represent "rays of light" may be adequate and usefull in daily practice (optics) but when neglecting the important phenomena as described by Figure 9 and Figure 10, wrong theoretical and practical conclusions are the result. This will be indicated in section "4. Applications" where it is indicated that significant errors can be made in light based surveying measurements on earth, when e.g. measuring the dimensions of large objects (buildings, constructions, ...) as a result of the effect of our planet's high velocity in space and the phenomena involving the trajectory of photons.

3.2.2 Corrected views of Obs2

As represented within Figure 5 and Figure 6, Obs2 first considered from the existing light theory/paradigm that a photon/laser pulse is bouncing back and forth perfectly from the midpoint of the first mirror to the midpoint of the second mirror, and vice versa. This is however a completely wrong representation within the mind of Obs2, caused by the wrong perception of  Obs2 that within classic physics “both mirrors are at rest”, comparable to the situation as depicted by Figure 1 in section 1 where the laser pulse is expected to perfectly arrive at the midpoint of  the opposing wall. An observer Obs2 in a laboratory room, while standing next to such a set-up, indeed is tempted to think that (s)he and all “non-moving” laboratory items are “at rest” while however the laboratory room, since located on our planet, in reality is travelling at a very high speed through real space. So, Obs2 and most people were/are convinced that they “MUST” observe a “ray of light”, being reflected between the two parallel mirrors, to bounce forth and back precisely between the midpoints of those two parallel mirrors... But then there is the experimental result in Figure 2 to be explained by those people ...

In reality however and when the laser pulse travelling direction is perpendicular to the earth’s orbit velocity vector for the maximum effect, a photon being reflected by the first mirror will NOT arrive in the midpoint of the second mirror and vice versa, according to the same principle as expressed by Figures 3 and 4 while moreover being verified experimentally, as illustrated in Figure 2. The fact that the second mirror in reality  would be moving in real space (from the left to the right in the example), at the much higher speed of our planet, during the travelling time of the photon from the first mirror to the second mirror, should of course replace the illusion of the human mind that the mirrors are “at rest” in the virtual/artificial mathematical space of the reference frame of Obs2 ; a virtual mathematical space that only exist in the human mind but in which surely no real photons are travelling.

From the communication of Obs2 with Obs1 within section 3.2.1, Obs2 however realizes that her/his mathematical reference frame merely corresponds to that artificial mathematical space which not equals at all to the unique, thus single, real space outside her/his mind. A human definitely should not dictate and force virtual/mathematical “phenomena”, only “existing” within an artificial mathematical space, upon the real space outside her/his mind and should not claim then to have created a correct representation "of the real phenomena as they are in real space".

An acceptable graphical representation which combines both the reference frames of Obs1 and Obs2 is already discussed in 3.2.1 and  illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. The representation within the reference frame of Obs1 of photon trajectories perpendicular to the x-axis within those figures saves the phenomena of the photons. Figure 10 could be called a “photon-time based representation of the photon’s phenomena” since it shows the time instant and the corresponding position of one photon. The linguistic model on the basis of the red marker photon/laser pulse in Figure 9 could e.g. be : “a photon/laser pulse “Photon i” departed from the laser in the past at time instant t1 in position Photon i (t1). The photon arrives now (at t2) at the position Photon i (t2).The horizontal distance between the position Photon i (t1) and the yobs2-axis corresponds to MF. The distance represented by MF is equal to the horizontal displacement of the reference frame of Obs2 within the absolute reference frame of Obs1.”

The representation within Figures 9 and 10 shows that each photon/laser pulse travels the very same distance as the red marker “Photon i” , being equal in value to the distance MS. This is true in the reference frame of Obs2 as well as in the reference frame of Obs1 ! If Obs2 would finally accept such (while experiencing a profound Gestalt-Switch!) but then would still fall briefly into a pitfall of wrong reasoning by claiming that the red marker “Photon i” in the frame of Obs2 then must have travelled “sideward to the left” from S (where the laser is positioned) towards F, Obs2 then again forgets that the red marker “Photon i”, being considered here, was launched earlier by the laser at the instant t1 in position “Photon i(t1)” in real space (red dotted circle on the x-axis) : it is thus NOT launched in the position S(t2) in real space and only arrives later at the wall in Figure 10 at the time instant t2.
If Obs2 would continue to have doubts then Obs2 should reflect on the paradoxes that :

- if Obs2 keeps on claiming that in the Obs2 frame the red marker photon/laser pulse was “launched in S” and thus travelled the distance SF in the Obs2 reference frame, denies the reality of the shorter real trajectory as explained in Figures 9 and 10.

- then Obs2 also encounters the mind boggling problem of having a photon departing now (t2) to depart in the very same position in real space as the red marker photon already did in the past (t1) or vice versa … ?!  That would mean that both photons "would be present" or "have been present" in the very same location in real space at the very same time instant, which of course is impossible ! [that should convince Obs2 here as being very wrong when insisting on considering SF to be the travelling distance of a photon and also should convince Obs2 that such would simply be an illusion within the mind of Obs2]. That Obs2 fully understands this impossibility, is evidently of key importance.

Obs2 thus experiences a real strong Gestalt-Switch and then becomes convinced that also in the Obs2 reference frame the real (non-illusionary) travelling distance of the red marker photon/laser pulse is the very same distance observed by Obs1 (of which the value is equal to the value of MS). This results in Obs2 and Obs1 to conclude that the light velocity is indeed constant in both reference frames. From that point of view and in contrast with the publications in literature, a light clock being build from a moving set-up of  two parallel mirrors, then will evidently produce NO difference at all in clock readings by Obs1 and Obs2: since each photon/laser pulse travels exactly the same distance having the value of MS in both the reference frames of Obs1 and Obs2 (thus NOT, as indicated in Figure 6, the different distances AB in the reference frame of Obs2 and AC in the reference frame of Obs1; NOR the different distance values of MS and SF if Figure 10).

Obs2 is then also strongly stricken by another very important fact. Obs2 suddenly realizes that the origin of his mathematical Obs2 reference frame “travels through real space” at a high velocity and that the position (as observed by Obs1 in absolute rest) of that origin in real space is thus time dependent (the origin of the reference frame of Obs1 is at absolute rest). At a velocity of 30 000 meter per second that origin is displaced within one second over a distance of 30 000 meter (or eventual even more depending on the actual velocity vectors in space of our solar system or even galaxy). Obs2 then experiences a second conflict within his mind : how to correctly represent the red marker photon/laser pulse in the Obs2 reference frame at time instant t1, thus the position of that red marker photon/laser pulse in the past ?

From the considerations within Figures 9 and 10 (see the dotted circle on the x-axis representing correctly the position of the red marker photon/laser pulse at the time instant t1 in the past) it is thus incorrect by Obs2 to represent that position also in the origin of the Obs2 reference frame at a time instant t2... !  Obs2 thus suddenly realizes that it is indeed impossible to correctly represent that position in the Cartesian mathematical (virtual, artificial) “space” of the reference frame of Obs2, which is introduced and used by the human mind in trying to describe phenomena in the real space outside the human mind. This conclusion that there is no way to represent correctly a photon’s position in the past by a moving observer Obs2 in the reference frame of Obs2,  is really mind boggling but nonetheless true. It is only possible to correctly represent all photon’s positions in the reference frame Obs1 at absolute rest.

Figure 11: Symbolic representation of the past position (t1) of a photon in the reference frame of Obs2

With respect to the reference frame of Obs2 and in the two-dimensional examples presented on this website, it is only possible to represent in a symbolical way by a dotted circle on the x-axis of the Obs2 reference frame the “past position” of the photon/laser pulse, as illustrated in Figure 11. That dotted circle should then only be interpreted as a “witness position, at time instant t1, while linked to the real space, thus to the unique reference frame of Obs1 which is the sole reference frame completely linked to the real space (absolute space). The classic graphical representation in the reference frame of Obs2 simply fails for photons since photons become locked to absolute space at the moment that the photons are “launched” from their source. In fact there is only one single perfect one-to-one correspondence : namely between the real phenomena of photons in absolute space (at perfect rest) and the mathematical graphical representation within the frame of Obs1 (at perfect rest).  Such one-to-one graphical correspondence is impossible in the case of the moving frame of Obs2. This represents a major philosophical problem in science and the, in the literature existing, graphical representations of photons within a (Cartesian based) frame therefore definitely need to be reconsidered accordingly. 

The astonishing conclusion is that up to now no one has ever doubted the graphical (x,y) frame representation itself as a possible source of “not having saved the phenomena of photons”. The concluding key issue from the views on this website however is indeed that such IS the problem in physics. It is shown that a Cartesian based reference frame linked to a moving observer does NOT allow a correct representation of a photon’s past location in real space and that therefore the actual representations are simply within an artificial  space construction of the human mind while losing the one-to-one correspondence with the real phenomena of the photons in real space. Therefore, in moving reference frames (artificial space), all existing mathematical models of light, including differential equations based models, in fact show such one-to-one correspondence error when neglecting photons (as quanta) travelling in real (absolute) space as shown by experiment in Figure 2.


3.3 Theoretical proof through a thought experiment

(This part was added by Etienne on 18 November 2010)

The result as obtained by the laser experiment (illustrated in Figure 2) can also be proven through a thought experiment.

Consider an observer Obs1 at rest and a reference frame (xObs1, yObs1) at rest. The xObs1-axis scale is in meters. However, the yObs1-axis scale is explicitly chosen in light-seconds, in order to be able to dramatically zoom in on the effect to be proven. Obs1 places a laser in position xObs1 = 1 m. In this thought experiment, the laser is considered to be ideal without any beam divergence, thus a divergence equal to zero. The laser beam of the laser at rest is perfectly directed in the upward direction, thus perfectly parallel to the yObs1-axis when activated in the rest position. The laser is mounted on a small carriage which can be commanded to travel to the position xObs1 = 9 m at a velocity of 1 m per second. The laser then stops in the position xObs1 = 9 m, again in perfect rest.

The thought experiment that Obs1 then performs is executed as following. Obs1 activates the laser at time instance t=0 sec while the laser is at rest in position xObs1 = 1 m. The laser will remain in that position during a few seconds and will then travel automatically to the position at xObs1 = 9 m at the velocity of 1 m per second while continuously being activated. The photon production by the laser is thus not interrupted during its travelling. In the position at xObs1 = 9 m, the laser is again at rest and will continue to send photons in the upwards direction for a few seconds.

Since the laser is active for a few seconds in its rest position at xObs1 = 1 m it is obvious that a laser beam segment with a length of a few light seconds will be produced, moving upwards at the speed of light while being perfectly parallel to the yObs1-axis (tracer photons Photon1 to Photon3). Evidently and in an analogous way, there is also a production of a laser beam segment having a length of a few light seconds when the laser arrives in the position at xObs1 = 9 m while, at rest, continuing to produce light for that few seconds (tracer photons Photon11 to Photon15).

The crucial question now is : what are the photon phenomena between the laser position xObs1 = 1 m and its position at xObs1 = 9 m ? The laser was not switched off and therefore the light production was continuous. Therefore it is very clear that the photons in the bottom part of the vertical laser beam segment, created during the first few seconds in the laser at rest position xObs1 = 1 m, needs to “stay connected” all the time with the collection of photons being created by the laser when travelling from the position xObs1 = 1 m to the position at xObs1 = 9 m. Moreover, the photons created by the moving laser, when just arriving in the position xObs1 = 9 m, also need to “stay connected” with the photons in the top part of the laser beam segment having a length of a few light seconds and being created by the laser at rest in the in the position xObs1 = 9 m.

The very revealing result of the light phenomena is then as presented in the animation within Figure 23. The thought experiment indeed confirms that the laser which moves from the position xObs1 = 1 m to the position at xObs1 = 9 min, will produce photons travelling in the way as depicted in Figure 23 by the “tracer” photons. The same principle was already shown in Figure 4, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11 and even was proven experimentally (Figure 2).

Figure 23   Visualization of the thought experiment

Since the scale of the yObs1-axis is in light-seconds, Figure 23 allows to visualize this very clearly. Up to now, no one before has ever reflected about such, as induced by the very high speed of light, thus as a result of the large distances that photons travel in a fraction of a second. Up to now, the impression in the human mind from that was that a laser beam thus can always be represented as a straight line (as a "ray of light"). Obviously that wrong image in a human’s mind should be replaced with the correct image as illustrated in Figure 23, and one thus indeed needs a Gestalt Switch to deal with that new image about light phenomena. Since the earth moves in real space at about 30 000 m/sec, it is also clear that the effect can be detected on earth as explained on this website and shown in  Figure 2. This thought experiment thus in fact is already experimentally supported.

Moreover, consider a second observer Obs2 who travels along with the carriage, on which the laser is mounted. Obs2 defines a reference frame (xObs2, yObs2) of which the origin (0,0) coincides with the position of the laser. Evidently Obs2 :

- will be very wrong when stating that the "laser beam" which is produced by the laser corresponds to a "mathematical perfectly straight line" ("ray of light") in the reference frame of Obs2.

- will be very wrong when stating that the "mathematical perfectly straight line", thus the trajectory of the photons, can be represented by drawing a perfect vertical line through the origin of the reference frame of Obs2

Obs2 thus has multiple and severe problems within the contemporary light paradigm since Obs2 should understand at the time instance e.g. t=15 sec that in reality :

- the real location in real space where the photons were produced during the first few seconds does NOT correspond AT ALL to the artificial mathematical origin (0,0) of the reference frame of Obs2

- this is also the case for all the photons produced by the moving laser between its position xObs1 = 1 m and its position at xObs1 = 9 m

- Obs2 is thus even UNABLE to correctly represent in the mathematical artificial "space" of the reference frame of Obs2 the starting positions of the photons produced before its arrival at the location xObs1 = 9 m

It is very interesting to mention here the statement of one of the rare persons up to now who was willing to comment on the views presented within this website. He defended vigorously the actual light paradigm by stating that the photons, being produced by a laser travelling in a horizontal direction and being send by that laser perfectly vertical upwards, will travel at the speed of light upwards but will also always remain positioned exactly above the laser during their travel ... ?!  He thus tried to save the actual paradigm by enforcing on nature, thus on photons, a virtual behavior ( a virtual sideway horizontal movement)  in a virtual space ... This simply demonstrates the need for a Gestalt Switch by these paradigm defenders in order for them to ultimately see the flaw in their thinking. They should consider the thought experiment within this section and then reflect upon the error resulting from their reasoning "from within the box". They should try to think for themselves, thus not from within the paradigm that they were trained (rather "conditioned") in and allow themselves also to think from "outside the box". It is indeed the privilege and freedom of each person to think for oneself : the doctrine of a paradigm in fact can indeed also be paralyzing. The geocentric paradigm took 14 centuries before the Gestalt Switch towards the heliocentric paradigm occurred.

A second person criticized the thought experiment in figure 23 from the point of view of inertial systems. He indicated that there is an intermixture of acceleration systems and an inertial system. But then : if that person accepts the phenomena in Figure 23 in the inertial part between 1 m and 9 m, that person also can imagine a thought experiment where the laser is constantly moving, thus the laser and an observer Obs2 travelling along with the laser are then completely in an inertial system. Then Obs1 in perfect rest would still see the photons to be "located on an inclined line" moving upwards and where all individual photons are in a perfect individual vertical trajectory (Obs1 should alos not make the mistake to consider the photons to "move along the inclined line" !). Moreover, Obs2 would evidently NOT observe the photons to move along (and to be located on) a perfect vertical line through/locked to the laser.

The second person also accepted the effect as illustrated in Figure 2 but then again from our planet to be not in the situation of an inertial system. Such acceptance of Figure 2 of course is already extremely important, from whatever point of paradigm view : maybe without realizing it, such person then of course also questions the Michelson and Morley experiment since the experimental effect, as illustrated in Figure 2, was and still is not fully implemented in the analysis (model) of the Michelson and Morley experiment. The challenges here are for such persons thus :

- to prove that the effect shown in Figure 2 is not caused by our planet's high velocity (giving already a good experimental fit of "1 mm deviation at 10 m" but of course still to be analyzed in much more detail) but as a result of our planet not representing an inertial system

- to reconsider the Michelson and Morley experiment and implement the effect as presented in Figure 2 in that experiment's analysis (see also 5.2 on this website for more details). The multiple inclined mirror's in the Michelson and Morley experiment and the deviation could well have caused a run-away of the photons during the rotation of the set-up table and thus could have caused the null-result. In that respect Thomas Kuhn writes : "Normal science ultimately leads only to the recognition of anomalies and to crises. And these are terminated, not by deliberation and interpretation, but by a sudden and unstructured event like the Gestalt Switch. Scientists then often speak of the "scales falling from the eyes" or of the "lightning flash" that "inundates" a previously obscure puzzle, enabling its components to be seen in a new way that for the first time permits its solution".

As a matter of fact : is the experimental result on its own, as shown in Figure 2, simply not already an alternative of the Michelson and Morley experiment ? Thomas Kuhn writes : "Therefore paradigm-testing occurs only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to a crisis. And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternative candidate for paradigm... Testing occurs as part of the competition between two rival paradigms." As indicated in 5.2 an additional experiment introducing an inclined (polished metal) mirror would only strengthen the conclusions from the result as shown in Figure 2.