E.Korkut “Contradictions of Experimental Methods for Measuring Speed of Light” www.syncretizm.

com

Contradictions of Experimental Methods

for Measuring Speed of Light
Emir Korkut, M.Eng.

Abstract

The generally accepted view of the scientific community is that the modern physics has
developed the experimental methods for measuring the speed of light. This paper aims to show that a
different interpretation of these experiments is possible, raising the question of whether indeed there is
strong evidence of the existence of light speed.

Introduction

It could be said that the assumption on the existence of light speed of about 300,000 km/s is
one of the core beliefs of the modern physics utilized for building the conception of the nature of light,
time, space, cosmological entities, the size and origin of the universe and so on.

Modern ideas about the nature of light have a long tradition of development that can be traced back to
ancient ideas of philosophers of the atomistic school. Without intention to go here into the detailed
historical descriptions, it can only be noted that – according to philosophers of the atomistic school
(Leucippus the first half of the fifth century BC, Democritus 460-370 BC, Epicurus 341-270 BC) – the
world is made of material entities, so-called atoms, the merging and splitting of which creates entire
nature. In line with this assumption, light is imagined as the current of atoms acting on our eyes. These
notions were subsequently taken over by Arab physicists in the early Middle Ages (Al-Kindi 801-873, 965
-1040 Alhazen, Avicenna 980 -1037), who further developed the ideas of discontinuous nature of light
through models of ray optics. According to this paradigm, it implies in itself that light is a certain set of
material objects, which travel from point A to point B by finite velocity. In the Middle Ages, similar
attitudes are accepted in Europe.

However, apart from the notion of the atomistic school about the nature of light, there were also
different assumptions about the nature of light that was not perceived exclusively as a phenomenon of
external nature completely separated from the visualization process. E.g. the Aristotelian physics
(Aristotle 384-322 BC) proceeds from a paradigm that nature is made of four elements or aggregate
states – solid, liquid, gaseous and thermal. Besides these four elements, there are more aethereal
aggregate states and light (quintessence) can be regarded as one of them. Practically, light is a kind of
aethereal aggregate state allowing transparency to our eyesight. And since aggregate states do not
move through space, but they determine it as a phenomenon – light itself does not travel through
space, but determines the quality of space, namely its transparency.
1
 E.Korkut “Contradictions of Experimental Methods for Measuring Speed of Light” www.syncretizm.com

According to a paradigm that optical phenomena do not separate from the visualization process, let us
analyze the experimental methods of the light speed measurement of modern physics.

Experimental methods of measuring the speed of light

The first numerical estimates of the magnitude of light

speed were determined by astronomical means. In the year 1676,
the Danish astronomer Ole Rømer (1644 - 1710) noted that the
time-span during which Jupiter obscures its moons was about 1000s
longer when Jupiter was farther distanced from the Earth (position
E2), than when Jupiter was closer to the Earth (position E1). It is
provided an interpretation that this happens because the light
needs more time to pass across the greater distance from Jupiter's
moon to the Earth in position E2, than in position E1. With such an
assumption, based on trigonometric proportions, it is possible to calculate the speed of light.

However, if the visualization process is involved in the interpretation of this phenomenon, we must note
that Jupiter does not have the same size in the sky in position E1 and position E2, because closer objects
are larger. The interpretation of the observed phenomena is being clarified, if we spot that the way of
obscuring the visual field by the moving screen depends on our perspective.

The object will sooner exit out of the shadow of moving screen, if we are closer to the screen. The other
way around is correct, too. We can move, and the screen can be static. The phenomenon when the
apparent speed of motion of objects is different, due to different perspective, is called the parallax. We
are on the Earth that rotates around its axis and due to parallax, the time of obscuration of Jupiter’s
moon is different in position E1 and in position E2.

Another astronomical method for measuring the light speed was

developed by the English astronomer James Bradley (1693-1762).
In the year 1729, he spotted that there was a difference between
the actual (1) and the observed (2) position of a certain star on the
sky. It is considered that due to the motion of the Earth, a shift in
the trajectory of light ray, which travels from the star to the
observer occurs. Thus, based on the known length of the telescope
tube, it is possible to estimate the speed of light.

2
 E.Korkut “Contradictions of Experimental Methods for Measuring Speed of Light” www.syncretizm.com

But if we study the image in the pinhole camera (camera obscura), one can notice that the opening
limits only the field of view on the part of the image. The more the screen is distanced from the opening,
the bigger part of the image is visible. A ray of light is a schematic representation of spatial position of
the image with respect to the human eye. It is impossible to separate the point of image from the whole
image, it is impossible to single out "ray of light" of certain star from the image of the entire celestial
sphere. The only thing that is possible is to limit the field of view on one image point. Bradley's
interpretation does not take into account that the displacement of the visual field due to Earth’s motion
occurs without delay and equally for the entire celestial sphere, and not just for a particular star, and
that the length of the telescope tube does not play any role in the way of displacement of the field of
view due to the change of our perspective.

Having thought that astronomical evidences of the light speed estimation did exist, the physical
methods for measuring the speed of light were developed. They are developed by the French physicists
Hippolyte Fizeau's (1819 - 1896) and Léon Foucault's (1819 - 1868).

In the year 1849, Fizaeu watched the light source at the distance
of 8 kilometers through the rotating gear. He noted that at certain
speeds of rotation, the light source became visible, and at others
not. He gave the interpretation that it occurred because the light
ray got interrupted during propagation towards the observer.
From the relation between the speed of rotation (ν), the number
of teeth (N) and the known distance of the light source (d), it is
possible to determine what supposed to be the light speed, in
order that the gear interrupts the light ray on its path towards the
observer.

Foucault developed a similar method in 1850. Here also, we deal

with rotating parts. Rotating mirror Rm reflects the light ray J from
mirror M, and then back towards the observer. It is observed that
there occurs a shift in the output light ray L1, which depends on
the speed of mirror rotation. There is an interpretation that this
happens because the light ray travels certain time via the distance
3
 E.Korkut “Contradictions of Experimental Methods for Measuring Speed of Light” www.syncretizm.com

D, so it cannot be reflected from the rotating mirror Rm at the exactly the same angle (Θ) under which it
was previously reflected. Based on the input data, it is possible to calculate the speed of light.

However, if in the study of the above phenomena the process of visualization is being included, it must
be noted that a man is able to see separate images, only up to about 15 frames per second. After that,
impressions start to blend – the more, the faster images are being changed. This phenomenon is called
the stroboscopic effect, and on this principle the mood of work of zoetrope, or cinema and television is
based. E.g. as a result of stroboscopic effect, the rotating wheels of a carriage may seem to move in one
or another direction. A zoetrope with alternating black and white squares would give at certain speeds
the impression of the black or white square, like in Fizaeu’s experiment. A piece of ember rotated on an
iron rope would be seen as the expressive red circle, as the speed of rotation is being increased, as in
Foucault's experiment. Both Fizaeu's and Foucault’s methods completely neglect the fact that blending
of impressions of the image of light source occurs due to the stroboscopic effect and not due to
propagation of light through space.

Subsequently, based on these experiments, other physicists designed similar experiments, but they are
only modifications of the above ones, with faster interruptions of light impressions creating the illusion
that these are more accurate experiments (AA Michelson in 1926, A. Karolus and Mittelstaedt O. in 1928
E. Bergstrand in 1950 etc.).

Another group of experiments for measuring the speed of light includes experiments of measuring the
speed of radio-wave propagation (cavity resonance, interferometry and similar), and they are based on
the assumption that light is of electromagnetic nature and that light and electromagnetic waves are, in
fact, the same phenomenon. Therefore, let us consider the idea that light is of electromagnetic nature in
more details.

Light is of electromagnetic nature

The hypothesis that light is of electromagnetic nature was put forward by the Scottish
mathematical physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831 -1879). In 1864, Maxwell sets the system of
differential equations describing the properties of electric and magnetic fields. With no intention to go
into a detailed historical account of the way this hypothesis was developed, it can only be emphasized
that the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation through space (Hertz or radio waves) on the one
hand, as well as the speed of light propagation through space, on the other hand, was essential in the
4
 E.Korkut “Contradictions of Experimental Methods for Measuring Speed of Light” www.syncretizm.com

final conclusion that radio waves and light are, practically, the same phenomenon. Subsequently,
attempts to experimentally confirm this hypothesis occur, so it is observed that electromagnetism is
able to affect light in a way that the dielectric materials become optically active by illuminating (Kerr
effect), or the magnetic field changes the plane of polarization (Faraday effect) and similar.

However, if we examine the nature of light and radio waves qualitatively, one can notice that there are
substantial differences between these two phenomena. Here, only some of them will be mentioned:

• Electricity and electrical waves can be grounded. Light cannot be grounded, a lightning rod
grounds electricity not the light itself. Transparent objects do not become opaque by grounding.
• In the field of electricity, there is a possibility of electrical protection by electrical shielding.
Faraday’s cage does not prevent the penetration of light into the interior of a cage. The
objection that light passes through Faraday cage, because light has a very high frequency
comparing to the openings of a cage, does not take into account that Faraday cage can also be
made of the layers of transparent conducting films (TCFs).
• In the field of electromagnetic phenomena, there is a possibility of electromagnetic induction,
i.e. the appearance of electricity in a conductor that is moving in a magnetic field and vice versa.
Electromagnetic induction or any similar phenomenon does not exist in the luminous
phenomena. Light is not being induced in conductors, a radio antenna does not induce light.
• In the field of electromagnetic phenomena, the skin effect occurs, i.e. the concentration of
electricity on the conductor’s surface at high frequencies of radio waves. The skin effect does
not exist in light phenomena; light does not “concentrate” on the surface of the body.
• Most of electrical conductors are opaque. If light was of electromagnetic nature, it could be
“conducted” by metals.
• We see with the help of light, not with the help of radio waves.

Experimental confirmations that light is of electromagnetic nature are based on mistaken thesis. Based
on the fact that electrical and magnetic fields can affect light, one cannot make the reverse conclusion
claiming that light is of electromagnetic nature. One cannot claim that a man is of electromagnetic
nature just because electricity and magnetism can affect a man.

Light does not have electric or magnetic properties.

Conclusion

This paper aims to show that starting from a different paradigm about the essence of light, one
can conclude that the modern physics has no any experimental evidence that light speed exists.

Reference

The paper presents a somewhat modified content of the chapter "Speed of Light" of the book
"Newton through the Prism of Goethe", which can be downloaded from the site www.syncretizm.com