There are so many more things in my understanding of light which I'd like to tell you about that I wonder when I'll be able to write again on the subjects I kind of abandoned in some past pages. This thought is a little troubling, for reasons I cannot find the strength to disclose just yet. At this point in time, though, I feel that I should continue with discussing my journey into the nature of light, and for that reason I'll try to resist the discomfort and urge imparted on me by my terribly itchy feet for as long as I'll be able to.
So, according to those conventionalists from the Institut für Theoretische Physik the explanation for the "coloured fringes" seen in prismatic experiments of the subjective kind is simple. How simple? Well, one would think that since they didn't care to outline it even in the briefest of manners the explanation in question must be so simple that perhaps either everyone knows it, or can figure it out with the same easiness as working out the sum of 1 plus 1. But I, for one, do neither know it, nor can figure it out. What should I do then? I asked myself. Should I write to the Institut für Theoretische Physik to ask for help? Should I join a physics forum and ask the volunteer experts for clarification? Should I...
No, the truth is that I don't need to do any of that. That's because the truth is that I know the truth in that matter. Yeah, that is the truth, and I know it so well that in this particular case I can safely afford the luxury of continuing my fight against the conventional establishment without caring to find out what its strengths are in this matter. Indeed, I can tell you that in this particular field--as in a number of others--I am convinced that I can easily defend my position by developing and implementing the necessary strategy and action at the time and place thereby required. For now I shall restrict myself to contending that the conventional theory cannot explain the so-called "coloured fringes" in prismatic experiments by appealing to either of its two types of explanations in the matter. (Remember I mentioned this in the previous page?)
To my mind there are only two possible ways to explain the location of the colours that border the two ends of the spectrum seen in the subjective prismatic experiments. One way is that apparently unlikely possibility for two opposing directions of refraction in prisms. The other is the much more likely possibility that the prism lifts into the observer's view the spectrum that is otherwise embedded in the spatial dimension which is essentially invisible to the human eye. My money, of course, is all laid on this second possibility, even though there seems to be some pretty compelling evidence for the first one as well. I'm referring here to that slightly modified Newtonian experiment with the red and blue lines which we conducted on the previous page. That experiment, as I was saying, was one of the first Newton performed in his early years of prismatic investigation. Many years later he repeated that experiment in a slightly modified manner, and that became the first prismatic experiment in Opticks. This experiment, which we shall replicate next (with a little modification) has been widely regarded as conclusive proof that the colour blue is refracted at a greater degree than the colour red in a prism--even though, as I mentioned, the two colours were evidently 'bending' in opposite directions. Indeed, that so appears to be the case seems even more so in the modified version of the experiment presented in Opticks. You can verify that what I am saying is virtually true by looking through your prism (vertex left, as before) at the picture below.
(I have left this observation to be yours alone--meaning that, unlike in the previous cases, there is no illustration of what the observer will see through his prism.) But even though the two squares in the picture above appear, when looked at through a prism, to have indeed been refracted in opposite directions, I can show you that that is not the case. To do that I will ask you to look through your prism (same orientation and distance) at the picture shown below.
(Again, I left the drawing above without a "what is seen through the prism" accompanying counterpart.) It should be quite obvious now (for anyone who's looked through a prism at the picture above and thought a little) that no colours are in fact refracted in different directions. Indeed, it should also become obvious at this point that the reason for the apparent refraction in opposite directions of blue and red was a visual artifact created by a combination of the images of the objects (the red and blue squares, above) with their respective spectra.
But there is one even more important thing that should become obvious--with a little more thinking. That is that, unlike in the conventional theory (in which the Newtonian rational framework of differential refraction of the spectral colours cannot satisfactorily explain a subjective prismatic observation of blue and red objects, like in the experiments we've discussed), in the case of my understanding (in which the rational framework is that of the visual accessibility offered by the prism of the third dimension, along which the spectral colours are distributed in a precise order) the observations of the same experiments are fully accounted for. To get a visual perspective of what I mean have another look through your prism, first at the picture from the Newtonian experiment with red and blue squares (which I outlined in green), and then at the respective squares in the drawing above.
Let me now outline for you, point by point, the essential aspects of my understanding.
The rationale that forms the framework of my understanding of the nature of light and spectra in prismatic experiments is simple. In effect I contend that the colours that form the spectrum are distributed along the light's direction of travel in a precise order: violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red (from the far end of the spectrum to the close one). Furthermore, I also contend that the reason for the so-called "coloured fringes" seen in subjective prismatic experiments is that the prism gives one a perspective of the third dimension (which is otherwise invisible to the observer), which in turn reveals the named distribution of the spectral colours. This rationale is strengthened by the fact that it, unlike the conventional one, can seamlessly explain the origin and existence of the VBGYOR spectrum.
For a visual depiction of this I will ask you to look again through your prism at a picture I'll show you in a moment. For this observation we'll change the angle of observation (from its hitherto 90° angle to a 60°), but we'll keep the orientation of the prism with its vertex towards your left. In effect what I'll ask you to do is to line up the vertex of your prism with the left side of the equilateral triangle in the picture below, and then to look carefully at every object in the picture from a distance of approx. 0.5 m.
From a vantage point as that I asked you to follow you will see through your prism a picture similar to the one below.
It is quite reasonable from this observation to agree (at least temporarily) with my assertions. After all there's no doubt that the manner in which the "coloured fringes" are oriented relative to the objects themselves are fully consistent with what one would expect to see 'in perspective'. Moreover, a careful examination of the interaction of the colours will also reveal a picture consistent with what is expected if my understanding is correct.
On the other hand, though, one may find reasonable to question why the colours displayed by the whole objects are different than those displayed by their wireframe counterparts. For instance, one may argue, where is the yellow in the wireframe objects or the green in their whole counterparts? I can assure you that there's nothing suspicious about that. On the contrary, I can assure you that there are beautiful explanation for those observations. All that, however, at another time. To give you a token that what I'm saying is true take your prism and place it, in the same orientation as before, very close to the monitor with one of the wireframe objects in view. (Just stretch your arm out to do that, you don't need to change anything else in your position.) Now look from where you are at the image you'll see through the prism and then slowly move your prism away from the monitor and towards your eye. See what I mean? (Conversely, you can also look at the whole objects through your prism from increasingly greater distances to see analogous effects at work.)
Finally, on this point, I will ask you now to look through your prism again from a distance of some 0.5 m at the picture without "coloured fringes", but this time to change the orientation of your prism to all possible angles. By doing that you will see that the image you will get in every case is entirely consistent with the facts and expectations relevant to the matter.
I contend that the factors I claimed to be responsible for the observations characteristic to subjective prismatic experiments experiments are also valid for the observations characteristic to the so-called objective experiments. In effect, I contend that the explanation for those observations is the result of the alteration of the spectral order, from its usual parallel to the direction of travel state to a perpendicular state in the prism and thereafter. This assertion, unlike the conventional one, is fully consistent with the observational facts seen in both subjective and objective experiments.
I have talked quite a bit in these pages about the VBGYOR spectrum, including about my fight over the subject with the conventional powers to be. In the process I have proved that it's impossible to explain the VBGYOR spectrum seen in the subjective prismatic experiments by using the conventional theory. In contrast to the murkiness of my fight with the conventionalists, to back up what I have declared in red above is very simple and clear. So simple and clear, in fact, that all I'll need in order to achieve that is a couple of pictures and a handful of words. First, the pictures.
And now the explanatory words--if they're necessary. On the left there is a picture showing the location of the VBGYOR spectrum. On the right there is a picture showing both the VBGYOR and the ROYGBV spectra. That's all I should have to say, really, in order to back up the claim of this point. Nonetheless, I feel that some would benefit if I explained (again) why there's absolutely futile to try to explain the two spectra by using the conventional theory.
The conventional physicists have all apparently failed to realise that when you look with the naked eye at the spectrum generated in a prism by a source of light what you actually see is the whole image of the setup, e.g. the prism, the spectrum, the source of light, etc. What does this mean? This means that no coloured rays extended so foolishly and naively from the visible VBGYOR spectrum to the eye of the observer (as many a physicist have nonetheless done, as you know), bears any relevance to the real fact! You know what I mean? You do not? OK, let me show you a couple of real images of the fact of the matter.
To my mind it is childishly comedic that physicists (who see themselves, and are seen, as smart, ingenious, clever, inventive, far-seeing, etc. etc.) have totally failed to realise how completely different the nature of the VBGYOR spectrum must be simply from knowing the nature of the Newtonian ROYGBV spectrum. After all, how hard is it to come to that conclusion when even though both spectra are generated by the same source in an experiment, at one spectrum you can comfortably look without any noticeable strain--while of the other you can't even catch a jiff of a glimpse without seriously risking blindness!
And finally on this topic, if you read once again my current declaration and then if you have another look at the two drawings and the photos above, I'm convinced that you will understand everything I need and wanted to tell you.
I contend that the mechanism through and onto which the entire rational framework of my understanding is based and functions is empirically evidenced and proved.
On this subject I need to say even less than in the last one, for what I said in red is evidenced by photos like the two above and by those I have shown on this page.
On these three major points my understanding of the nature of light and spectra in prismatic experiments is basically laid. But if their basic outlines seem to be simple enough to be sketched on a half-page, the reality is that beyond that apparent simplicity lays a vast and complex architecture of which I will next tell you a handful of things about. This handful of things I will discuss in a little chapter similar, and subsequent, to the three above.
Some of you who're familiar to this site may have noticed that there is one thing missing in my three rounds of declarations--a mechanism of how the prism changes the orientation of the spectrum from one running parallel to the direction of travel to one that runs perpendicularly to it. This is in contrast to what I had written in the early stages of this site, when I'd proposed one such mechanism (see this page, if you're interested). Why have I omitted it now from my declarations? For a combination of reasons.
In my personal work of prismatic investigation I have discovered two properties that are particular to prisms (and to other similarly shaped objects). One of those properties is the already mentioned 'lifting' process, in which the third dimension is brought into the view of the observer. The other prismatic property I have discovered is that I've discussed on this page--and of which I will give you a summary now.
I conducted the following experiment. On one side of a triangular prism I drew a line half-way across. I then turned the prism around and looked at it from an eye-level perspective. Upon doing that I thus noticed that the image of the line I was getting had been significantly 'moved' from its original position. See the photos below for a visual description of the experiment.
Now, it becomes immediately obvious that such observation clashes head-on with the principles and rationale of the conventional understanding. That's because according to the conventional dogma an image is carried by the same photons through any medium, and since in a prism light in all forms is refracted in a direction towards the base of the prism, an image of a line that appears to have been refracted by a prism in a direction towards its vertex is no less than anathema for the currently reigning beliefs within the conventional establishment in physics.
To my mind of a personal version of the Greek kind, however, the observational fact I discovered came with a rather familiar degree of expectancy. Indeed, before this observation I used to be puzzled by the apparent fact that when light travels through a prism it is bent in a direction as that stipulated by the conventional theory. How could God--who is the supreme and absolute master of efficiency--let His light behave in such a totally unnatural manner in a prism? Why couldn't His light find, as in every other case, the shortest path to exit the prism even if it has to do it at a slower pace? Such questions used to trouble my mind before my discovery, but since all the evidence seemed to point in the conventional direction I'd had no choice but to put up with it. With the knowledge of my discovery, furthermore, came not only a sense of relief, but also a number of additional potential benefits (which I shall leave unmentioned for the time being, nonetheless).
But not everything brought forward by my discovery has proved to be soothing or rewarding, I must confess. Indeed, in the recent past my discovery began to trouble my mind in a fashion similar to that I had experienced before its arrival onto reality's stage. You see, to my mind it would be highly desirable to have the same explanation for both the spectral attributes, as well as for the factors behind the observational fact depicted in the pictures above. As it stands at this time, though, my mind has not been thus far able to reconcile the apparent discrepancy that exists between the two. That discrepancy is concerned with the totally opposite directions in which the two phenomena occur. Thus, in the case of the spectrum (and here I'm referring of course to the Newtonian ROYGBV one, which is particular to the so-called objective experiments) the beam of light that generates it is definitely bending in the prism in the direction stipulated by the conventional theory, while in the case of the observational fact we've been discussing its direction of manifestation is diametrically opposite.
Now, although thus far I've been unable to unify (in a manner which my mind would find wholly acceptable) the two named phenomena, my continuing exploration in that field has not been entirely fruitless. For example, to some degree I can in fact truthfully say that I have developed a common explanation for both phenomena--albeit, a highly speculative one, I must also add. Nonetheless, in spite of that, I believe that the explanation in question still carries within itself enough potential worthiness to warrant at least a brief presentation on this page.
Let me start that presentation, then, from the following vantage point. It is so stipulated, and conversely believed, that the velocity of a beam of light is quite significantly slowed down when it enters a prism--and my position in that matter is no different. However, I believe that one question that is discerningly important to the topic needs to be asked (for it indeed it has never been, hitherto) and answered. That question is this: How is it possible to have a beam of light slowed down in one of its parts yet remain completely unaffected in the other? You know what I mean?
Consider the basic setup of the so-called objective prismatic experiment. A narrow beam of light is focused toward a prism into which it eventually enters. Upon entering the prism, the part of the beam of light that does that is then slowed down. But what about the rest of the beam, which is yet to enter the prism, and which in the meantime continues to be pushed toward the prism by a continuous influx of emitted light? Can this rest of the beam still travel at the same velocity even if its frontal part is advancing at a slower pace? Personally, I don't think so. Not even if one would argue that the longer path travelled by the light in the prism should account for, and eliminate, any possibility of consequential affection in the beam. To my mind, which by and large thinks and reasons by visualisation, the beam of light in a prismatic experiment is a singular entity that extends from its point of origin to its point of interception by the screen--and it, therefore, is commensurately affected at all points, by any change at any point.
Now, this line of reasoning is at the core of my speculative explanation for both the Newtonian spectrum and the observational fact we discussed earlier. Thus in the case of the ROYGBV spectrum (which is bent in the known direction, and which exits the prism at a point lower than that it had entered) my, for now provisional, explanation is that due to the narrowness of the front upon which the photonic activity in the beam of light takes place, combined with the rate with which the prism slows down the velocity of light, and combined further with the natural tendency of all physical entities to preserve their integral status. the known path of the refractional journey of light becomes the most efficient, the most economic, and therefore the most likely to be followed. To make clearer the issues stated in this rather cumbersome sentence I'll make use of a couple of visual aids, shown below.
Consider first the illustration above on the left in the context of the things I have stated in the last couple of paragraphs. A narrow beam of light, of which one part is travelling through the prism at a velocity lower than its counterpart, which is yet to enter the prism, is affected--commensurately at every point--by the change in the velocity of its frontal part. The affection in question is manifested through a rippling effect that extends from the point where the beam enters the prism to the point where its light is emitted. The result of that affection has a two-fold effect. Firstly, the velocity of the whole beam is slightly reduced, and secondly, the photonic pressure in the beam is increased by the influx of the light, which continues to be emitted at the same rate. Eventually, though, all the effects and factors involved in the process reach a state of relative equilibrium at all points along the beam, and thus the entire process continues without any significant disturbances that could noticeably affect its behaviour.
Let us consider now the illustration on the right in the same context. If the frontal part of the beam of light would follow a path in the prism similar to the one depicted in the illustration under our present observation, the effect of the slowing in velocity of the part of the beam which is travelling through the prism would ripple through the light that is yet to enter it with some significantly different effects. In this case the first obvious difference would be that due to the supposed path that is followed by the beam of light, which would be shorter than the previous one, and which would therefore offer less resistance to the rest of the beam, the degree of affection in the velocity and the photonic pressure of the part of the beam that is yet to enter the prism would be considerably less than in the previous case. However, contrary to what may look at first as a beneficial difference, the effects that will eventually ripple through the length of the beam will be far more damaging than in the other case. That's because although the degree of affection imparted to the beam of light is significantly lower in magnitude in the beginning, in time the discrepancy in the physical states between the two parts of the beam will continue to unabatedly increase. Why? For the following reasons. In the beginning the system formed by the entities and factors involved in the experiment will evolve with a relative degree of equilibrium between the participants. Thus, in the beginning, and for a while, the resistance created by the interaction of the prism with the leading part of the beam of light will be matched in a proportional fashion by the part of the beam yet to enter the prism. Nonetheless, this state of relative equilibrium can neither be indefinitely maintained, nor can it be periodically adjusted. That's because the rate at which light continues to be emitted is not correlated, and does not act in concert, with the resistance generated by the interaction of the prism with the leading part of the beam. (At this point I can hear some irate voices crying out: "What about in the other case?" To those voices I shall only reply--for the time being, at least--with a cautionary advice to think a little further than that.) In effect that will result in a systematic increase in the photonic pressure in the beam, which in turn will eventually result in a fracturing separation between the parts of the beam that will be at the time located inside the prism, and the rest of the beam, which will at the time be extending from the source to the face of the prism.
In the case of 'the line observation' the leading front of activity is spread out pretty much to the frontal borders of the prism, and, moreover, it is virtually identical in both size and shape to the second front of action, which is located along the border between the entering side of the prism and the incumbent light--which is pretty much identical in both size and shape to the named side of the prism. This factor thus carries with it attributes with a considerable potential of influence, of which its eventual influence will be manifested by results vastly different to the previous ones. In effect, in this case whatever the true direction of the photonic refraction in a prism may be, its influence upon the other participants will be truly negligible to become a topic for consideration. The image of the line will be thus carried by successive layers of photons that follow what should be, in this case, the most efficient, economic, and most likely path through the prism. And that path, in this case, is the one seen in my 'line experiment'. This particular path becomes possible, in turn, due to the high degree of similarity, both in size and shape, that exists at the fronts where the eventual outcome is fought and decided by the inter action between the participant entities and factors. In effect, the participant entities and factors have attributes that will invariably eventually end in a coherent and cohesive collective act involving all participants. (I can tell you though that the collective act I'm referring to is not wholly perfect, which I have deduced from conducting a satisfactory measurement of the observed path followed by the image of the line.)
And this is my promised 'brief' presentation of my current position on the topic--in a nutshell, let me tell you. But this is far from bringing this subject to a close yet.The events outlined in my presentation provide a rich source of inspirations and suggestions. And, to my mind, the first most important inspiration and suggestion I extracted from it I shall thus phrase:
Let it be known and understood that no spectrum can exist without a medium, for the spectrum is a visual manifestation of the inter action between objects and space, which is conducted through a common and mutual bonding entity: light (energy).
No comments:
Post a Comment