The Wavelength of Light Is Constant, Not Variable

[Pentcho Valev]

Imagine a scenario in which an observer measures a shift in the frequency of the incoming light. Given the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength),

we conclude that the frequency shift is caused by

(a) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

(b) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

The generalization of (a) over all possible scenarios is

(A) Any frequency shift is caused by an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

The generalization of (b) over all possible scenarios is

(B) Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.

It is easy to see that (A) is logically equivalent to Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

(A') The speed of light is constant.

Analogously, (B) is logically equivalent to

(B') The wavelength of light is constant.

I have been trying, for decades, to show that the fundamental axiom (A') turned out to be a malignancy the metastases of which killed theoretical physics. If so, it makes sense to try to build a new, Einstein-free physics predicated on the axiom (B'). Here are some of the corollaries of the new fundamental axiom:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer is c' = c+v, as posited by Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.

Corollary 5: The so-called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light gradually slowing down as light travels through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that low-speed, high-redshifted light (known as CMB), coming from very distant sources, is invisible.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

A light source emits equidistant pulses and an observer starts moving towards the source:

The fact that the motion of the observer does not change distances between subsequent pulses is obvious. Moreover, this fact is universally used, explicitly or implicitly, in the derivation of the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer):

Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics: "You can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift." https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/doppler/

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength...but a different frequency...to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V' = V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f' = V'/λ = (V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo...The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

The only problem with the obvious fact referred to above is that it is fatal for Einstein's relativity. If the motion of the observer does not change distances between subsequent light pulses, then the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer VARIES proportionally to the frequency at the moving observer.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Whether Feynman is correct is not a matter of discussion here. I am just drawing the attention to a crucial implication. The concept of VARIABLE wavelength of light

is preposterous if "light is made of particles". That is, the particle model of light implies that the wavelength can only be an invariable proportionality factor in the formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)

And the formula says that, if the wavelength is constant, the so called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light slowing down as photons travel through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe. This is not a totally unacceptable idea:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

It is obvious that the particle model of light is incompatible with VARIABLE wavelength of light. Curiously, the wave model is incompatible as well:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

This interpretation implies that the emitter is CHASING the emitted crest - that is the reason why, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests is smaller than when the emitter is stationary:

As chasing becomes faster and faster, the distance between crests approaches zero - the emitted crests remain in the vicinity of the emitter for a long time. Absurd, isn't it?

The variation of the wavelength of light with the speed of the emitter is absurd not only intuitively. It is incompatible with the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the variations inside his spaceship - so he would know his spaceship's speed without looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

For light waves, there can be no chasing. No matter how fast the emitter is moving, the speed of the emitted crest relative to the emitter remains constant, c. Accordingly, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests remains unchanged - the same as when the emitter is stationary.

The wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Constant wavelength of light is an unavoidable conclusion if one ignores for a while the absurdities of Einstein's relativity and returns to common sense:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

So the speed of falling light increases and the frequency increases "accordingly". It is clear from the context that "accordingly" means "proportionally". And since the frequency and the speed of light vary proportionally, the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

says that the wavelength remains constant. As simple as that.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

[Pentcho Valev]

"As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_redshift.shtml

At the same time Einsteinians teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all (they reject the scenario in which expansion does occur but is overcome by gravitational attraction):

"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

So light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc.

The statement that light is stretched by space expansion, just like Big Brother's 2+2=5, is so preposterous that no rational criticism is possible. The reaction can only be hysterical ("But this is idiotic, don't you see?") and then the critic becomes crank, crackpot, troll, etc.

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

[Pentcho Valev]

"The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity...The speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/waseinsteinwrong/

It is not even around the corner - it is inside the house, on the couch. The speed of light OBVIOUSLY varies with the speed of the observer, and the all-powerful relativistic ideology is not able to camouflage this fact any more:

http://youtu.be/bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer.

The speed of light is variable, theoretical physicists. The wavelength of light, however, depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev