PAGE 1

 

Churinga Publishing

 

V

 

 

Books and publications on the interaction of systems in real time by A. C. Sturt
Economics, politics, science, archaeology. Page uploaded 27 November 2004

 



Page 3/5

PDF PRINT VERSION

The Nature of Light

 

A Unified Theory of Rotating Electromagnetic Dipoles

 

NEXT PAGE

 

by A. C. Sturt

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY

1. Introduction

2. Current Views on the Nature of Light

3. A Theory of Rotating Electromagnetic Dipoles

4. A Deflection Mechanism

5. The Bending of Light around Corners

6. Phasing of Interacting Dipoles

7. Angles of Deflection

8. Diffraction Gratings

9. The Inverse Square Law

10. Tests of the Theory of Rotating Electromagnetic Dipoles

References

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY

1. Introduction

2. Current Views on the Nature of Light

3. A Theory of Rotating Electromagnetic Dipoles

4. A Deflection Mechanism

5. The Bending of Light around Corners

6. Phasing of Interacting Dipoles

7. Angles of Deflection

8. Diffraction Gratings

9. The Inverse Square Law

10. Tests of the Theory of Rotating Electromagnetic Dipoles

References

 

 

4.       A Deflection Mechanism

 

The proposal of this paper is that when rotating electromagnetic dipoles come into a position of coincidence, they deflect each other. The essence of the model lies in the forces of attraction and repulsion between dipoles, which result from the separation of charges on individual dipoles. Systematic coincidences deflect dipoles which may accumulate in geometrical patterns. These accumulations produce enough change in intensity for us to observe e.g. as diffraction.

 

Dipoles originating from a notional point do not meet, because they are radiating outwards away from each other. But they do not meet even if they are travelling in the same direction, because they are emitted separately and travel at the same velocity.

 

However, the only real point source of light is an individual bond, as in a single atom. All other sources of emission have bulk dimensions perpendicular to the line of travel of light, which are significant enough to cause the paths of a proportion of the emitted electromagnetic dipoles to coincide at some point, before they meet an absorber in the form of another particulate structure. So the Sun has a significant diameter for those on Earth, and a lamp filament in the laboratory has a length. Even when steps are taken to form a narrow beam of light with slits etc, any phenomena resulting from the dimensions of the original source may persist for at least part of the journey. 

 

If the paths along which the rotating dipoles travel are arranged so that coincidences occur, they may deflect each other. This is particularly likely when they are travelling in opposite directions on the same track  No energy is lost during the encounter, rather like a perfectly elastic collision. However, although it is convenient to consider them as spheres, and represent them on paper as circles, rotating dipoles are not billiard balls; the laws of mechanics do not apply. Hence the use of the term “coincide” instead of “collide”.

 

Deflection occurs when the charges on two dipoles coincide in alignment, or sufficiently so to repel or attract each other. Thus there are two possible mechanisms at work. First, the dipoles may repel each other if their paths cross because their negative charges are opposed at the instant of coincidence. They then continue on new paths at equal but opposite angles to their original directions, equal on grounds of energy conservation. Since red is observed to be deflected more than blue in diffraction, some kind of orbital mechanism seems to be at work.

 

This might be easier to envisage with the second mechanism, which concerns attraction. This would occur when the negative charge of one dipole was in proximity to the positive charge of the other at the instant of coincidence, so that there was an attraction between them.

 

The ‘spheres’ would not merge but enter into each other’s orbits briefly in passing, like incipient twin stars, and they would then both be ejected at equal angles to their original paths. Higher frequency rotating dipoles would seem to interact less than lower frequency rotating dipoles. The low frequency dipoles would be able to penetrate further into each other’s orbits, and get a greater ‘slingshot’ effect, with the result that they would deflect each other more.

 

This would be analogous to electrons and other charged particles penetrating atomic structures.

 

This is set out in Figure 3. Arrows within circles represent the electric vector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


A measure of distance is required to demonstrate the change in dipolar orientation as they approach. There is no wavelength as such, but there is a convenient measure of distance d which is the distance travelled while rotating electric vectors make a complete rotation.

 

Spheres 1 and 2 approach each other from opposite directions. Their dipoles have the same orientation when they coincide. The spheres are attracted enough by the proximity of the negative charge on Sphere 1 to the positive charge on Sphere 2 to swing round each other and set off in new directions at the same angle with respect to the original directions.

 

All this can take place in three dimensions, and in fact the two mechanisms may be the same process for practical purposes, whatever coincidence is needed to produce the orbital deflection effect. The following analysis assumes that the principal mechanism is the repulsion of negative charges.

 

5.       The Bending of Light Around Corners

 

The deflection process explains why light which consists of discrete quanta travelling in straight lines can apparently bend around corners.

 

First the emitter has bulk dimensions, which means that it presents an area to the path of the light. Light is emitted in all directions at random from every point on the area, so that the paths of some of the rotating electromagnetic dipoles will coincide in transit to the receptor. The very large numbers of dipoles ensures that the opportunities for such coincidences persist along the path of the light. The process will come to an end only when all dipoles with a component of velocity at an angle to the mainstream have been deflected out of the way of the other dipoles, so that the chances of coinciding among those that remain are reduced to zero. There will be a geometrical relationship between the paths before and after deflection.

 

The receptor must also have dimensions, if it is to have any chance of receiving the light. Some light will be reflected from the effective area which it presents to the direction of the beam. Reflected dipoles may then interact with oncoming dipoles, which will cause more deflections. There will be a geometrical relationship between the directions before and after deflections as in Figure 3.

 

All this will be occurring between any source of light and its receptor.

 

However, if the receptor surface were pierced, say by a circular hole, the beam of light would travel through the hole and might be viewed by a telescope. If all the dipolar spheres were to travel in parallel straight lines, the telescope would see just an illuminated disc. But if a proportion of dipoles were on divergent paths as they passed through the hole as a result of the process of deflection by coincidence, they would fall outside the area of the disc by a distance determined by the angle of deflection.

 

If the circular hole in the receptor was large, the edge effect would be many orders of magnitude smaller and much less bright than the central disc, and so it would not be observable. However, if the circular hole were very small, there would be much more edge compared with the area of the hole. The same edge effect would occur, and fringes of light would appear on the unlit background at the predetermined angles, outside the bright disc, in the form of bright circles resulting from the circular shape of the disc. The separation of the circles would depend on the angles inherent in the orbital deflection of dipoles, which is characteristic of their frequency.

 

The process depends on the probability of coincidence of the moving, rotating dipoles. The angles of deflection depend on the frequency of the rotating dipoles i.e. the colour which they represent to a receptor. However, these are only the most probable coincidences and outcomes. There is no reason why dipoles of different frequency should not coincide. It is simply that their probability of interacting electromagnetically i.e. through their charges will be that much less than for identical dipoles. Moreover, there is no reason why dipoles, whether identical or different, should not interact at different angles of rotation i.e. they do not have to be opposed or in phase to influence each other, but the coincidences are much less likely to occur. The outcome will be a whole population distribution of angles which occur less frequently.

 

The result is that there will not be a single clear angular displacement from such a process. There will be the main displacements, which have the greatest intensity, resulting from the most frequent i.e. likely coincidences. These will be flanked by broader distributions of lower intensity representing the distribution of lower probability coincidences.

 

This is what is in fact observed in the phenomenon of diffraction.

 


 

 



mutual deflection

 

 

coincidence


 



dimensions of source



 

 
’coincide’

 

not billiard balls

 

when alignment is appropriate

 

deflection

 

no energy loss

 

 

 


 

 





 


 

 

 


 













 







 




 


 




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘wavelength’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All in 3D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bulk dimensions of emitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

bulk dimensions of receptor

 

 

 

 

holed receptor

 

 

 

 

edge effects

 

disc

 

bright circle separation – from orbital deflection

 

 

probability of coincidences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

distribution of intensities

 

i.e. diffraction

 

 

 

Copyright A. C. Sturt 27 September 2001

continued on Page 4

 

 

Churinga Publishing

^