2.1 Experimentally detected anomaly (conflicting with contemporary photon (light) paradigms such as the primitive/simplistic contemporary ray-of-light paradigm)
CS (Contemporary Science) claims that the graphical representation in Figure 1 of the photon phenomena is correct. In a laboratory room a photon source is set up and launches a photon in the perfect y-direction towards a fixed wall of which the midpoint M is exactly on the ordinate axis (called Yobs2). The photon is emitted exactly at the origin (Xobs2, Yobs2)=(0,0) of the reference frame having the ordinate axis Yobs2 and abscissa axis Xobs2. CS considers the photon source and the wall to be at rest in the laboratory room. CS also considers the observer Obs2 (called Obs2 since another observer Obs1 will be introduced later), who performs the experiment, to be at rest. In the case that Obs2 is a CPBD (Contemporary Paradigm Believer and Defender) and when asked if the emitted photon will exactly hit the wall in the midpoint M of the wall, Obs2 will confirm of course that the photon source is exactly lined up with the ordinate axis Yobs2 and that the photon, emitted in the origin (Xobs2, Yobs2)=(0,0), indeed will hit the wall at its midpoint M since, according to Obs2 the complete photon source set-up, wall and reference frame are all “at rest”. According to the CPBD the correctness of the graphical representation in Figure 1 is just plain trivial.
However, in a laboratory on the planet Earth, a CS/CPBD notion “at rest”, for the Obs2, the laboratory room and the photon source set-up, is then also trivially in conflict with the irrefutable fact that the Earth has a very high velocity in its orbit in real space around the Sun. The scalar value of the EOVV (Earth’s Orbit Velocity Vector) is indeed about a whopping 30000 meters per second (that is over 100 000 km per hour, thus about 1000 times faster than a car at a highway). The Earth thus travels in one second a distance of about 30 km in real space! The notion “at rest” by CS and the CPBDs regarding the set-up in the laboratory on the surface of our planet Earth, represented by the CS Figure 1, thus suddenly is not so trivial any longer (as CS or a CPBD erroneously thought it was) and thus should be reevaluated by Obs2. The Figure 1, as claimed by CS and the CPBDs, thus needs to be checked for inconsistencies. In Figure 1B the CS view linked to the CS Figure 1 is dynamically represented: CS and CPBDs in fact simply claim in Figure 1B that the photon inherits the horizontal velocity of the photon source in a way that the photon travels from S to M perfectly along the Yobs2 axis, in order to defend the CS Figure 1. However my claim is that my graphical representation in Figure 1C is correct and consistent. I prove such and I thus falsify the CS Figure 1 and Figure 1B. I also falsify the CS Michelson and Morley nul-result paradigm and multiple other CS paradigms based on photons.
Regarding the further views in this section one thus needs to consider light from the quanta point of view, thus light as consisting of photons. The existence of light as quanta (photons) was proven by Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers#Photoelectric_effect). Einstein indeed received in 1921 a Nobel Prize on the basis of his work on the Photoelectric Effect (publication Einstein, Albert (1905), “Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt“, Annalen der Physik 17) in which he postulated that light itself consists of localized particles (quanta, thus photons). It should be remarked that Einstein did not receive a Nobel Prize with respect to his relativity theory, as some may erroneously think that he did.
A CPBD type of Obs2 will claim that Figure 1 and Figure 1B are correct in CS, thus that a photon called Photon1 will be emitted at the location (Xobs2, Yobs2)=(0,0) at time instant t1 and will arrive, after travelling the distance from (Xobs2, Yobs2)=(0,0) to the midpoint M of the wall, precisely at the location M of the wall at the time instant t2. A CPBD type of Obs2 thus also will claim that, in a laser set-up in a room at the surface of the Earth, the laser dot at a measuring grid on the wall will be in a totally fixed location. Obs2 claims that the room is at rest, that the laser is at rest, that the wall and measuring grid are at rest and thus that the laser dot will also be at perfect rest during a laser dot observation experiment of 24 hours. In this section it is however experimentally proven that the latter claim by a CPBD type of Obs2 is totally flawed, thereby falsifying the CS/CPBD claims of Figure 1 and Figure 1B.
When indeed performing a real straightforward experiment with a laser (see 2.3 for some details about the set-up that was used), this so-called triviality of the CS correctness of Figure 1 and Figure 1B within the mind of the CPBD type of Obs2 is completely eradicated. The result of the Figure 1D straightforward type of laser experiment definitely proves that the CS Figure 1 and CS Figure 1B type of CS theoretical model, does only exists virtually in the mind of the CPBD type of OBS2, is totally flawed and is thus not representative at all for the real photon phenomena, occurring in real space (see my critiques on the flawed CS views and see the corrected views that I claim in 3.1 and 3.2). When thus using a laser with a very small beam divergence it is possible to generate with such a specific laser a very fine laser beam and thus also a small laser dot (e.g. 3 mm in diameter or less) at a wall at a distance of e.g. 10 m. When then photographing the laser dot position (on a fixed measuring grid on the wall, having grid lines with an inter distance of 1 mm), in regular time intervals with a PC controlled digital camera, during a time period of 24 hours and when rendering those images into a movie (time lapse photography), the result is shown in Figure 2. I performed such 24 hours laser experiment over and over and obtained over and over the same result (thus reproducible).
This striking experimental observation of a changing laser dot position (which was erroneously claimed by CS to be in a fixed position) on the measuring grid is simply linked to the superb experimental conditions of a very high orbit velocity of the Earth around the Sun, in combination with the Earth’s axial rotation effect during a 24 hour period. That superb experimental combination indeed alters the angle between the EOVV (Earth’s Orbit Velocity Vector) direction and the laser photon’s trajectory direction. The Earth and thus the laboratory room, the laser set-up, the wall and the measuring grid of course are not at rest and travel in fact along with our planet at a very large real velocity through real space. It should be noted that the EOVV is of primary importance here and not the much smaller local tangential velocity vector at the Earth’s surface, caused by the Earth’s rotation.
When I explained a university level civil engineer the effect and cause of a changing laser dot position at the wall in a 24 hour experiment, his first reaction was that light is that fast over a distance of 10 m that one can totally neglect any such effect. So I challenged him to use a calculator on the spot in order to first calculate the time that light needs to cross a distance of 10 m. Cynically he showed me the result of 3.33E-08 sec and he considered his claim as proven. Then I asked him to calculate the distance that our planet and thus also the wall (fixed on the surface of our planet) traveled in real space during that, by him called negligible small, time interval of 3.33E-08 sec. He remained of course very cynical during that trivial calculation only to calculate, on the basis of the phenomenal Earth’s orbit velocity of 30000 meters per second, the value of 0.001 m which is 1 mm (!!!). He was really stupefied with that calculation result and re-calculated again only to find of course the very same value of 1 mm. So he was totally flabbergasted that the wall indeed traveled in real space a distance of 1 mm during the “negligible” travelling time of only 33.3 nanoseconds of a photon over the distance of 10 m from the laser to the wall. Intuitively he expected at most an effect of micrometers or even much less but clearly his “intuition” was totally wrong in this case and so he was baffled regarding the 1 mm of displacement of the Earth during that, so-called negligible very small time interval! At that moment he experienced a Gestalt Switch and thus immediately understood better the reason of a changing laser dot location at the wall during an experiment of 24 hours. He indeed started to understand that the angle between the direction of the EOVV and the photon’s travelling direction (“laser beam” direction) is cyclically (sinusoidal) changing over a 24 hours full Earth’s rotation, thus that Figure 1C then indeed predicts the outcome of the laser experiment (set-up in Figure 1D). So eventually take your own calculator and make yourself the very simple calculations to see for yourself and then experience the same type of astonishment …
Therefore it is even more strange that CPBDs keep hiding themselves, now already for more than 15 years, in silence from my views and the result presented in Figure 1C and Figure 2. Notwithstanding my uncountable contacts with numerous CPBDs in the domain of photon phenomena over more than15 years they all avoided and declined a further discussion. They are simply unable to counter my irrefutable findings and then prefer to “silence things to death” it seems. That is not what one expect from objective scientists since one assumes that they would show an open mind as scientists. The reality however that I experienced over and over and countless times during more than 15 years is the opposite: CPBDs are really extremely conservative and thus indeed have a closed state of mind. They are all locked rigidly inside their paradigm boxes.
The CPBDs also hide for the meaning and consequences of my Figure 24 (see 3.2) by which I prove that there exists an irrevocable massive theoretical anomaly proving that their CS claim (that photons, being emitted in the y-direction, will inherit the velocity vector component in the x-direction of the moving photon source) is totally wrong. Regarding those erroneous CS “inheritance” claims by the CPBDs there is also no scientific information at all coming from the CPBDs about:
- the phenomenology of that type of selective “photon source velocity vector component inheriting mechanism”,
- of which the CPBDS peculiarly and specifically/only claim the horizontal velocity vector x-component in Figure 1B to be inherited,
- and then forbid on top of that an inheritance mechanism in the vertical direction!
The CPBDs have no explanation at all for that direction selective mechanism that they claim. Such lack of explanation about the real world phenomena is irrational and inconsistent. No CPBD ever answered that issue during more than 15 years from 2006 on. A too annoying fact for the CPBDs that they simply can not answer and thus simply avoid to answer? That closed state-of-mind of the CPBDs and their strategic “hiding in silence” effectively blocks further scientific progress for over 15 years now.
The result of my straightforward laser experiment of course has extremely important consequences with respect to the actual existing CS paradigms regarding light phenomena and that is what the CPBDs actually fear and avoid to tackle. It should be remarked that the experimental observation shown in Figure 2 was observed in multiple experiments during separate 24 hour cycles and thus was proven to be reproducible. It is the object of the next sections to explain and discuss these observations. It should be remarked here that the result of my straightforward laser experiment is already an irrefutable massive anomaly regarding the Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm and thus (already in 2006) totally falsified that Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm. Multiple indications were also given in section 5.2 (thus already in 2010) (now in my official Elsevier publications: see the menu “My Publications”) regarding the experimental flaws that caused the so-called “null-result” within the Michelson and Morley experiment. Michelson and Morley indeed used a flawed graphical representation in their Figures 1 and 2 in their publication which did not save at all the real light/photon phenomena. They in fact used, for their fundamental research experiment, erroneously the totally flawed CS ray-of-light paradigm (see further). CS thus is of course forced to reevaluate the Michelson and Morley experiment.
Lorentz concluded also from the (by me falsified) Michelson and Morley experimental null-result paradigm his Lorentz contraction equation, which thus also was shown by me to be a flawed paradigm. The result of the laser experiment as shown in Figure 2 thus constitutes a destructive anomaly with respect to multiple contemporary paradigms, including the CS ray-of-light paradigm, the CS Lorentz contraction equation, the CS light clock paradigm, the CS “possibility of travelling to the future” paradigm (Langevin’s twin paradox which is claimed of course by CS not to be a paradox at all and “can be explained” by contemporary theories in physics) etc. See the other sections at this website. The laser experiment as described in this website in fact represents a full alternative experiment with respect to the Michelson and Morley experiment. My type of laser experiment is moreover very straightforward and much less complicated as an experimental set-up when compared to the Michelson and Morley complex experimental set-up.
Multiple attempts over the years, from 2006 on, to publish the result of my laser experiment as shown in Figure 2 and the destructive consequences of that experimental anomaly for contemporary paradigms in physics were blocked by CPBDs over and over. I even made a report (over 70 pages) about that large scale tenacity and closed-state-of-mind of those CPBDs in the last section of my book (that I started to write in 2006). Hiding in silence seems nowadays a powerful approach to block new paradigm views and critiques on CS/CPBD paradigms. Up to now however none of those numerous CPBDs was able to disprove the experimental result as shown in Figure 2. Also my urgent call from the very beginning in 2006 to re-perform the straightforward type of laser experiment at universities or research centers only met silence and deafness (2006 – December 2023). The main goal of my website and my publications is indeed simply to stimulate at least some researchers out there who are showing an open-state-of-mind and who are willing to set up the type of laser experiment that I describe. When confirming the result of my laser experiment they will experience for themselves the existence of the experimental anomaly as shown in Figure 2 and such would support the, in fact already existing, CS paradigms check-mate position. It should be remarked here that it is very important for open minded researchers to first give priority to understand the importance of the theoretical meaning and implications resulting from e.g. my Figure 1C and Figure 24 and then, even as a secondary priority, to re-perform my straightforward laser experiment. Indeed, I even predicted in 2005-2006 the experimental laser result, as demonstrated in my Figure 2, on the basis of my earlier theoretical analysis and views, as represented by e.g. Figure 1C and Figure 24. My theoretical views represented by Figure 24 were in fact the basis of my design of my straightforward laser experiment. Figure 24 thus should already stimulate them even more to re-perform my straightforward laser experiment and again, such can only trigger further the process of a paradigm shifts as described by Thomas Kuhn. A new school of scientists, on the basis of the views represented by Figure 1C, Figure 24, Figure 1D and Figure 2 is needed.
2.2 Set-up moving at high speed in real space
In Figure 3, a graphical representation is introduced which shows two reference frames (in blue for Obs2 and in red for Obs1). Indeed, a type of laser set-up as described in section 2.1 (Figure 1D) is present within the laboratory room which evidently is located on Earth and thus in reality is moving in real space at high velocity. One must indeed realize that the Earth has an astounding orbit velocity around the sun of about 30 000 meters per second! When then considering the reference frame of Obs2 it is clear that the laboratory room (and therefore in fact the reference frame of Obs2 itself can be considered as such) is actually moving through real space at high velocity. If an CPBD type of Obs2 claims that the Obs2 reference frame is “at rest” then Obs2 should be fully aware that such view is merely a mathematical virtual construct in the mind of Obs2. Obs2 should thus clearly realize that the room, laser set-up and the Obs2 reference frame in reality is not at all “at rest” in real space.
In order to describe somewhat better the situation of Obs2, a reference frame is introduced in Figure 3 belonging to an observer Obs1 who is considered to be really at rest in real space. CS has accepted such approach from Michelson and Morley in their world famous publication (https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/MichelsonAndMorleyPaper1887.pdf) representing in their Figure 1 in their publication also a reference frame at rest. Since CS still accepts that approach by Michelson and Morley, CS evidently cannot have a critique about my use of Figure 3 and the assumption that the reference frame (in red) of Obs1 is at rest. Figure 4 shows an animated version of Figure 3: make very sure to remark that the location in real space where the Photon1 departed at the time instant t1 does not correspond any longer with the location of the origin of the frame of Obs2 at time instant t2!
Tenacious CPBDs will continue to claim that the graphical representations within Figure 3 and Figure 4 are wrong, from their CS belief that a photon inherits the horizontal velocity component of the photon source (CS Figure 1 and Figure 1B). However, those CPBDs are totally overruled in that belief as a result of the massive and irrefutable theoretical anomaly, revealed by Figure 24 (see further 3.1). Figure 24 represents a Karl Popper type of irrevocable falsification of the CS belief that photons inherits the horizontal velocity component of the photon source (CS Figure 1 and Figure 1B), since Figure 24 proves the existence of a massive theoretical anomaly. The experimental result in Figure 2 is an experimental confirmation of that falsification. But there is still only silence from those CPBDs since 2006 for over 15 years now with respect to the irrefutable falsifications of the CPBD paradigms through the destructive anomalies as illustrated by Figure 2 and Figure 24.
Assume then a laser set-up in the laboratory room (set-up type as shown in Figure 1D) (and thus the wall and the reference frame of Obs2) to travel through real space at a velocity of 30 000 meters per second from the left to the right in Figure 3. Consider also a distance of 10 meter between the wall and the origin of the Obs2 reference frame. From the extremely high speed of light at about 300 000 000 meters per second most people think that the short distance of 10 meter is traveled that quickly by a photon that it is evident that the laser beam still will hit the midpoint of the wall but then those people severely misjudge the effect of our planet’s speed in space. Indeed, the traveling time needed by the laser light to cross the distance of 10 meter at a speed of 300 000 000 meter per second is 10 m divided by 300 000 000 m/sec which equals to 33.3 10-9 sec (33.3 nano second). This may seem to be a totally negligible short time interval having no effect on the arrival position of the laser beam (photon, laser pulse) on the wall but when calculating the distance that is traveled in space by the laboratory room, during the 33.3 nano second time interval at the speed of 30 000 meters per second, it is clear that laboratory room and thus the wall traveled a very noticeable distance of 0.001 meter, thus 1 mm, in that short time interval!
Since a photon travels perfectly in the direction perpendicular to the x-axis when departing from the laser at the origin (0,0) at time instant t1 it is clear that the midpoint of the wall has shifted 1 mm to the right during the travelling time of the light (photon) towards the wall. Therefore, the value of xp in the Figure 3 corresponds to 1 mm in the case of a velocity of 30 000 meters per sec in the x-axis direction and a distance between the laser and the wall of 10 m. From these considerations it is obvious that the laser beam will not hit the wall precisely at the midpoint but 1 mm to the left of that wall midpoint under the conditions corresponding to the example being described in Figure 1D. This predicted shifting effect was actually registered in the 24 hour laser experiment, as presented in Figure 2.
2.3 Experimental conditions
The trajectory phenomena, as described for the photon within Figure 3, when travelling perfectly vertically towards the wall, but then not arriving at the midpoint of the wall, in the case that the horizontal velocity of the photon source was not zero, was thus experimentally proven (Figure 2) through a straightforward laser experiment. When pointing a fixed laser towards a fixed measuring grid at a distance of e.g. 10 m, the Earth’s high velocity in space will have a significant effect on the position of the laser dot on the measuring grid, during a time interval of 24 hours. Indeed, from the continuously change, of the angle value between the EOVV (Earth’s Orbit Velocity Vector) direction and the laser beam direction (during that 24 hours time interval (full rotation of the Earth around its axis)), one easily can understand that the scalar value of the EOVV component perpendicular to the laser beam will show a sinusoidal trend. In the experiment a very fine laser beam, pointing horizontally in the East-West direction, was used. Therefore:
- in the morning (Sun rise) the laser beam direction is in the direction of the Sun. At such time instant a photon’s trajectory is thus more perpendicular to the EOVV direction. As a result, the scalar value of the EOVV component perpendicular to the laser beam will show a maximum. The displacement corresponding to xp in Figure 3, thus the location shift of the laser dot on the measuring grid, will then also show a maximum. Note that the photon travels away from the Sun in this case (laser beam East-West) while in case 3 (see further “evening”) it is the opposite (photon travels towards the Sun).
- at noon the EOVV direction and de laser beam direction are more parallel. As a result, the scalar value of the EOVV component perpendicular to the laser beam will show a minimum. The displacement corresponding to xp in Figure 3, thus the location shift of the laser dot on the measuring grid, will then also show a minimum.
- in the evening (Sun set), the laser beam direction is again in the direction of the Sun. At such time instant a photon’s trajectory is also perpendicular to the EOVV. As a result, the scalar value of the EOVV component perpendicular to the laser beam will again show a maximum. The displacement corresponding to xp in Figure 3, thus the location shift of the laser dot on the measuring grid, will then also show maximum. However, in this case the photon travels towards the Sun and therefore the location shift in the evening of the laser dot on the measuring grid will be the opposite of the location shift in the morning of the laser dot on the measuring grid.
- at midnight the EOVV direction and de laser beam direction are again more parallel. As a result, the scalar value of the EOVV component perpendicular to the laser beam will show again a minimum. The displacement corresponding to xp in Figure 3, thus the location shift of the laser dot on the measuring grid, will then also show a minimum.
A consistent and reproducible 24 hour effect of the earth’s rotation on the location of the laser dot on the measuring grid, was measured experimentally over and over. As an example, Figure 7 and Figure 8 demonstrate such. However, tenacious CPBDs still prefer to neglect all my irrefutable theoretical and experimental findings, represented by Figure 1C, Figure 1D, Figure2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 24. Those CPBDs even still keep considering the simplistic, primitive and totally flawed CS ray-of-light paradigm as a correct CS paradigm that can be used in fundamental research (such as the world famous but flawed Michelson and Morley fundamental experiment). Those CPBDs thus still defend the totally flawed Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm and, consequently also numerous other totally flawed CS paradigm such as the flawed light clock paradigm, the flawed and totally virtual Lorentz contraction equation (only existing as a virtual reality in the minds of the CPBDs), etc. The CPBDs still (2006-December 2023) refuse to accept the irrefutable experimental result presented in Figure 2 and also still refuse to accept the proof of the existence of the theoretical anomaly (such as e.g. Figure 24). Since it is possible to present by theory and by experiment irrefutable anomalies with respect to such CS paradigm, such CS paradigms should cease to exist since they are falsified according to Popper’s falsification principle by anomaly (Horsten, 2007, pp. 151-165).
Regarding my straightforward laser experiment, I used an advanced laser Brightline PRO showing a very small beam divergence (< 0.1 mrad) which I purchased at Laserglow Technologies (USA). The laser was rigidly mounted on a tripod. The laser beam was horizontally directed to a measuring grid at a distance of 10 m (East-West direction). A low laser beam intensity was set by the laser power control unit in order to create an as small as possible laser beam dot size at the grid. The grid shows grid lines with an inter distance of 1 mm, as to be able to register the displacement of the laser dot during the 24 hour earth’s rotation. The laser dot was regularly photographed over a time period of 24 hours through a computerized trigger system and by using a high resolution digital camera on a tripod. The still photographs were then software sequenced (24 fps) into a dynamic image (Figure 2) (time lapse approach) enabling the visualization of the laser dot position, moving on the reference grid during the 24 hours time interval. To check the reproducibility, the 24 hours experiment was repeated on multiple days.
The earth’s inclined rotational axis and the actual location of the laser experiment demands a rather complex and detailed three dimensional analysis to calculate the precise laser dot displacement on the grid, which is not the subject of this website. A rigorous analysis evidently needs to implement additional effects such as the time of year (seasons; degree of declination of the sun), the laser set-up location on Earth (latitude and longitude) which would be the task later of a specialized research team.The results of the experiments however clearly show that the laser dot’s position is indeed not fixed on the measuring grid and that the size of the displacement is conform to the expected value. The sequenced photographs clearly show the movement of the laser dot position on the grid, being perfectly synchronous with the earth’s 24 hour rotation.