December 31, 2008.

Please let me conclude the 2008 year with a modified reiteration of the Dec. 5 comments below. Those three small clips showing the Michelson Interferometer are indeed a mayor achievement. It is the beginning of a new era in physics. For the first time, one can at last examine what is going on inside this famous apparatus:

http://www.glafreniere.com/avi/The_Michelson_Interferometer.avi

You may compare with the unmoving instrument:

http://www.glafreniere.com/avi/The_Michelson_Interferometer_at_Rest.avi

And finally compare with the moving, yet uncontracted interferometer:

http://www.glafreniere.com/avi/The_Michelson_Interferometer_No_Contraction.avi

Those images are likely to induce a revolution in advanced research facilities and universities because they will seriously challenge all physicists, especially in optics, radio electricity, astrophysics, and more exactly anybody who is concerned with Relativity. GPS measures will become more and more accurate in the future, and one will have to admit that a gigantic parabola on earth as seen from moving satellites should appear contracted like this, even if it is not. The same gigantic parabola as a satellite should also appear contracted just the same, as seen from here, but not as seen by astronauts in orbit.

The goal is to explain reasonably why this occurs. Thus, volatile arguments such as space or time transformation will become very hard to deal with !

Lorentz's predictions prove to be true. The corner reflector, the beam splitter and the parabola as well must contract in order to maintain the system aberration-free. I also demonstrated a long time ago that diffraction patterns such a Young's, Fresnel's, and even the Airy disk undergo a similar contraction. As a consequence, the moving observer becomes unable to deduce his velocity from it. Surely, opticians will be capable of releasing far more accurate and nice images soon; but mine are definitely relevant. They cannot be doubted any more. Lorentz's hypothesis was wrongly discarded. It becomes acceptable again and fortunately, it is simple:

Let me repeat that Henri Poincare was obviously the origin of this mess. In 1901, well before Einstein's Special Relativity, which is surprisingly similar,  Poincare wrote (Electricity and Optics):

(Translation) "Then one imagined an additional hypothesis. All material bodies should undergo a length contraction along the motion of the earth (example according to 29 km/s, but the correct value should be 2x10^8). This strange property would seem a true thumb snap (a helpful hand) from nature in order to avoid that the earth's absolute motion was revealed. This cannot satisfy me and I guess that I must say how I feel about it right now: I think that, most probably, optical phenomena are dependent on relative motion of involved material bodies, light sources or optical devices, and this, not in accordance with any given aberration (Lorentz's g^2 or g^3), but rigorously. Our experiences will become more and more accurate and this principle will then prove to hold true. Do we need a new thumb snap, a new hypothesis each time we get closer ? Surely not: a well made theory should allow one to rigorously demonstrate a principle in just one step. Lorentz's theory still does not make it. Among all those which were proposed, it is the nearest to make it. Consequently, we can hope that it will be made perfectly satisfying without severely modifying it."

On the one hand, Poincare strongly rejects Lorentz's hypothesis about matter contraction without any solid argument. He only "feels" that it does not seem satisfying but he nevertheless writes quite arbitrarily that "Lorentz's theory doesn't make it".

On the other hand, once again without any solid argument, he writes that "optical phenomena are dependent on relative motion of involved material bodies". This relative point of view is the very basis of Relativity, and Lorentz pointed out that Poincare was the first man to use this word. As a matter of fact, optical phenomena just seem to be dependent on relative motion. The word "seem" makes all the difference and obviously, it is Poincare, not Lorentz, who firstly discovered Relativity. But it turns out that Lorentz's version is the correct one: in the future, Relativity should be called "Lorentz's Relativity".

Any reasonable person should admit that Lorentz's Relativity still holds true. Fortunately, there are no complicated differential equations to handle. However, one must understand very well Lorentz's special Doppler effect involving a slower frequency in order to maintain a constant transverse wavelength.

The error, for it is definitely an error, is that there is no true reciprocity. The interferometer at rest does not contract. The contraction occurs in accordance with its absolute velocity through the aether for mechanical reasons, because matter exhibits wave properties. Thus, matter is also submitted to the Doppler effect. It contracts the same way standing waves do. If the observer is at rest, his observations are correct. If he moves, he becomes unable to check his speed, but it only means that he is fooled. Both situations appear to be perfectly reciprocal but actually, they are not. Poincare's point of view is wrong because it does not take what is really going on into account.

What is more, Poincare also wrote in 1902 (La science et l'hypothèse, Science and Hypothesis): "Who cares if the aether really exists. This is a problem for metaphysicians. (...) Some day, the aether will probably be abandoned because it is unnecessary. Clearly, he was performing better in mathematics than in physics. It was indeed a very bad move to discard the aether hypothesis so rapidly, without firstly explaining how the light propagates. Maxwell did not explain the mechanical process, which is still unexplained. For now, the aether hypothesis remains a highly acceptable one.

In addition, Poincare and Einstein discussed optical phenomena in a moving frame of reference without taking the Doppler effect into account. This is weird. All the problem lies there. Relativity is solely the consequence of the Doppler effect, and Christian Doppler himself had already noticed that an observer placed on a flat train wagon could not hear this phenomenon in his environment, for example a little orchestra. On the contrary, he records a Doppler effect if the sound comes from an unmoving device. From his point of view, this device seems to move, but the illusion is only partial because he can feel the wind; he can even detect a contraction in the sound waves. But in the case of light and radio waves, all his experiments in order to measure the "aether wind" will yield a null result.

One finds three reasons.

1. The observer and his environment undergo a contraction.

2. All physical phenomena occur with a slower rate of time.

3. A time shift appears along the displacement axis.

This is what Poincare called the "Lorentz transformations". It should be emphasized that Lorentz borrowed his equations from Woldemar Voigt and that their primary purpose was to cancel the Doppler effect on Maxwell's equations. Lorentz finally removed a constant which appeared to be unnecessary because the correct Doppler effect involves a slower frequency (not a slower time!). It was the secret to obtain a constant wavelength along a transverse axis, hence no transverse contraction: y'=y; z'=z. So Lorentz was surely well aware that he was dealing with the Doppler effect.

The Michelson Interferometer really contracts. Lorentz was right.

December 5, 2008.

We are still working on Mr. Philippe Delmotte's fantastic computerized virtual medium, which was invented in June 2005. In November 2005, Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte also elaborated his own algorithm. Finally, the results are going well beyond our first expectations. Surely, all universities in the world will soon use it in order to experiment the Lorentz Transformations and Relativity (If they don't, well, they will really miss something important!)

Let me introduce three amazing movies showing how plane waves should propagate in the Michelson Interferometer.

http://www.glafreniere.com/avi/The_Michelson_Interferometer.avi

http://www.glafreniere.com/avi/The_Michelson_Interferometer_at_Rest.avi

http://www.glafreniere.com/avi/The_Michelson_Interferometer_No_Contraction.avi

Those demonstrations should mark the turning point of a totally new Physics. Now that they have become perfectly clear and undisputable, my goal is to send them all over the world and help interested scientists to obtain even more dramatic results. This may occur very fast because they will not have to reinvent the fundamentals, such as the optimized algorithm, damping/reflection management, Doppler effect, etc.

Now, any reasonable person should admit that Lorentz's hypotheses, especially matter contraction, clocks running slower, and "local hours" are highly relevant. Unfortunately, they were rapidly abandoned without any valid reason as soon as Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. The existence of the aether itself was also wrongly abandoned.

As a matter of fact, Relativity is true, but the causes still need to be explained. Relativity should not be a dogmatic theory. One does not need to be a genius to understand it any more because we could collect a lot of information about matter since 1905. Especially, Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein were not aware of matter's wave properties. In addition, we have developed powerful tools.

Matter contraction is an acceptable hypothesis.

Matter contraction cannot be rejected any more. It is the main reason why Relativity holds true. It becomes clear that Michelson's apparatus cannot reveal any variation whatever its speed or orientation. The observer becomes unable to estimate his velocity through an hypothetic but perfectly admissible wave medium. As a consequence, even the observer truly at rest with respect to this medium becomes unable to prove it either. The situation then appears fully reversible, reciprocal, indeed relative (Henri Poincare spoke about the "Relativity Postulate" in St-Louis, Missouri, USA, in 1904). The basic principle is amazingly simple: any observer is entitled to suppose that he is at rest; any other one whose speed or direction is different is considered to be moving.

The important point is that only one of them is truly at rest. In such a case, the other one is wrong. 

It should be emphasized that Poincare and Einstein did not admit this. But Lorentz did.

Some more insights about the Michelson Interferometer.

One can observe the following facts:

1. Waves propagating transversally with respect to the motion axis are tilted according to a theta angle = arc sin(v/c). This is a very useful data because sin(theta) indicates the normalized beta velocity and cos(theta) indicates the contraction factor suggested by Lorentz. This is no surprise. On the contrary, in spite of Lorentz's indication about "local hours", nobody seems to understand that this time offset makes it impossible for a moving observer to detect this angle. Apparently, the wave front is parallel to the motion axis!

Even Poincare was wrong on this because he never admitted matter contraction. He clearly states that two observers moving in the same frame of reference should record a time anomaly while trying to synchronize clocks. Actually, matter contraction will automatically correct the time offset, at least from their point of view. They will still think that they are at rest; they will then suppose that the aether doesn't exist.

2. The emitter's frequency must slow down according to Lorentz's contraction factor (the so-called "time dilation") in order to obtain a constant wavelength transversally (Lorentz's y’=y, z’=z ). The authors of the Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment did not take this into account. They only tried to rule out matter contraction by means of a special interferometer whose arm length was unequal. Clearly, they did not understand well the Lorentz transformations. This experience appears to be the worst ever because it wrongly lead to the abandon of the aether hypothesis. In fact, the aether becomes highly relevant again because matter itself exhibits wave properties. Surely, scientists will have to explain its mechanisms, on a mechanical basis. The light itself is still to be explained on the same basis, and thus people who rejected it (this evolution was subtle without any demonstration of it) were definitely bold, not to say irresponsible.

3. The moving version needs more images for tilted waves to reach the opposite side. This indicates that cyclic or repetitive events in the moving frame of reference occur with a slower rate of time. Those waves seem to move slower because their true direction is given by the theta angle (30° for a beta speed of .5). Because matter mechanics works by means of waves, all material events occur slower at high speed. For instance, if our galaxy was moving faster the Earth would take longer to execute a full rotation around the sun; clocks regulated in accordance with this motion would indicate slower hours. It is that simple. Why not just admit this instead of introducing an absurd and useless "time dilation"?

4. All of the interferometer elements (including the parabola, which transforms curved waves into plane waves) are undergoing a contraction. Then the beam splitter angle is not 45° any more. This general contraction of a moving frame of reference today appears to be a magnificent symphony to the glory of Lorentz. Even the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern obeys this law, once again making it impossible for the moving observer to deduce his velocity from it. The ultimate point is that standing waves also contract this way, on condition that the basic frequency slows down according to Lorentz's contraction factor. One must draw the conclusion that, if matter really contracts, the only valid explanation appears to be that this occurs because of its wave properties. This is a new fact. Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein were unaware of this. This easily explains their final but wrong interpretation, which needs to be reconsidered.

5. The "squashed parabola" moves at the same speed as the straight mirror located on the opposite side. This device reproduces Bradley's stellar aberration. What we observe is that it cannot reveal its absolute speed through the wave medium; it can reveal only the speed difference if there is one. This phenomenon was analyzed by Augustin Fresnel but he failed to explain correctly it because he was not aware of the Lorentz Transformations.

6. I used the "hard reflection" option for those experiments, which is well known to produce a phase inversion on light waves and on radio waves as well. However, this experience indicates that it is no longer true for the beam splitter; I think that the results should be similar using genuine beam splitters or 45° oblique plane reflectors capable of reflecting only 50% of a wave beam. The animations shows that waves are undergoing a pi/2 phase shift (1/4 of a period in advance) when they reach the other side of the mirror on condition that the transmission ratio is 50%. This phenomenon sheds some new light on the fact that the beam is finally almost totally reunified when exiting the apparatus. The faint residual beam which returns to the source appears to be mainly a consequence of the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern, which also produces variable phase shifts especially along optical axes.

Many people are not well aware of Michelson's discovery about the surprising faster round trip on a transverse axis. Below is a simple, yet instructive demonstration. It shows that, on condition that the interferometer does not contract (in actuality, it does!), a time difference appears between signals propagating axially and transversally on a go and return trip. This is a fundamental property of the Doppler effect; it was called "the aberration" by Lorentz and Poincare; I managed to make the third movie "No Contraction" in order to show what would occur in such a case. It turns out that the light beam direction would also frankly deviate off-axis because the beam-splitter angle is incorrect. I read somewhere that Lorentz was aware of this deviation; he wrote to Michelson and invited him to reconsider his calculus.

http://kabinet.fyzika.net/aplety/relativita/Michelson%20Interferometer.htm

November 10, 2008.

This is the second invitation to download my new program on the Wave Mechanics. The source code is compatible with all FreeBASIC compilers including version 0.20.0 (2008).

WaveMechanics05.bas        WaveMechanics05.exe

You may examine, compile and even modify this program thanks to the fbide editor. Below is an Avi file (4.65 MB, codec DivX, Mpeg-4) showing the whole scene including the parabola. In my opinion, this phenomenon is especially revealing.

http://glafreniere.com/avi/radiation_pressure.avi

This animated Gif shows only a small area:

The central core should be circular but it is rather elliptic.

Additionally, it is moving rightward because of the unequal wave amplitude.

It may seem quite impossible that one's fingers, considering that they are made of waves, could still knock at the door without going through it all the way. This is an interesting but still incomplete demonstration that waves are capable of interaction. 

In the case of an ellipse, the distance to any point of the curve and then to the other focal point is constant. Thus, waves emitted from the first focal point should attain the second one without any phase offset. Apparently, this should produce perfectly circular standing waves.

However, because one half of the energy is emitted towards a smaller portion of the ellipse, the amplitude difference makes it so that the second standing wave core becomes elliptic. Moreover, it moves rightward. The important point is that the ellipse forces the second focal point to stay immobile; but in the case of the electron it is rather a stand alone independent system. More waves incoming from any direction should modify the core and cause it to move. This strongly suggests that radiation pressure on matter waves is possible. This leads to the action and reaction law which is at the basis of Matter Mechanics. 

We are working on models showing that this phenomenon should be surprisingly intense. Between two electrons, there is always a field of force made of standing waves whose amplification produces strong convergent waves towards both sides. As a matter of fact, standing waves alternately compress then depress the wave medium in such a way that waves traveling through them are faster, and then slower. This produces a lens effect and the energy is finally transmitted to both electrons.

September 23, 2008.

Please download my new program on the Wave Mechanics:

WaveMechanics05.bas        WaveMechanics05.exe

This program deserves careful attention. Now, one can observe waves undergoing hard or soft reflection on all kinds of reflectors. There are three display options for amplitude, energy, and also standing waves, thanks to Mr. Marcotte's new calculus using the Lagrangian. Reversing the wave direction (they return to their origin) or transform traveling waves into standing waves is possible. A special function was added in order to check the reflector gain, for example that of a corner reflector, which is surprisingly effective. One can also observe why a parabola produces straight waves, allowing them to stay inside a narrow energy beam.

Dealing with soft reflection on a curved reflector was quite a challenge. I really had to include soft reflection because it is most often the case for sound. So I hope that acousticians will love it.

However, light and radio waves rather undergo a hard reflection with a pi or lambda / 2 phase shift. The program makes this phenomenon well visible by inverting green and red color. Hard reflection is much simpler to deal with. Fortunately most of my demonstrations, for example the Michelson experiment, will need it.

Sorry for the delay. A new compiler for FreeBASIC (version 0.20.0b) was released with some new requirements such as no more Gosub keywords, and all variables including integer now must be declared. This program needs dozens of variables pre-processed through many Subs in order to obtain the fastest display results. It would be quite weird (and unnecessary) to transmit so many variables through parenthesis with byVal and byRef specifications, so I finally decided to make all of them shared.

This new program should be compatible with previous FreeBASIC compilers. This is the good news. But all previous programs available in this site will not work using the new compiler unless the two command lines below are added:

#lang "fblite"

Option Gosub

This will tell the compiler to proceed anyway with Gosub commands and undeclared variables.

The sky is the limit.

This program can do much more because it is truly a powerful laboratory which may be improved again and again. This is only a beginning. Programmer squads in Universities can do infinitely better and faster using appropriate programming resources, graphic cards and multiple processors.

Matter exhibits wave properties, but up to now this had not been really considered. Matter does contain true waves. Especially, the Lorentz Transformations clearly indicate that Relativity is linked to the Doppler effect. I already made several French programs showing this clearly.

One should realize that a wave is not an equation, it is a mechanical phenomenon. Philippe Delmotte's and Jocelyn Marcotte's algorithms amazingly reproduce it. They will allow us to prove that a wave can influence another one. It is especially true for spherical standing waves. Such an action and reaction effect was never predicted by equations. Now, the door is open to totally new mechanics fully compatible with Newton's: the Wave Mechanics.

Matter is made of waves. It is that simple.

July 28, 2008.

Here is another complementary program showing how to produce a variety of reflection and damping effects. One can even obtain adjustable transparent mirrors or amplification screens, and all those procedures are compatible with Mr. Marcotte's 8 neighbor 2-D optimized algorithm. 

WaveMechanics05_Reflections.bas        WaveMechanics05_Reflections.exe

The goal is to show that MM Philippe Delmotte's or Jocelyn Marcotte's algorithms are very simple to deal with. Most of these effects need not more than two elementary variable modifications.

July 20, 2008.

We are about to release a new program which will surely be a must in the future for everybody interested in waves.

Below is a complementary program. It contains basic procedures and should be useful for those who simply cannot wait.

WaveMechanics05_Wave_Generator.bas        WaveMechanics05_Wave_Generator.exe

Clearly, MM Philippe Delmotte's and Jocelyn Marcotte's algorithms yield flawless, perfect results. They do work in accordance with Huygens' Principle and Fresnel's integrals. This is very comforting because the waves are simply standard, normal waves. Our new laboratory reveals itself to be a great, indeed respectable one, and now the experiment results can hardly be disputed.

The 2-D Wave Generator

The goal is to obtain a powerful laboratory capable of experimenting any wave phenomenon. So the very first step is to generate waves inside the virtual medium (a two-dimensional one here, hence circular waves, not spherical). Thanks to my previous programs using the Huygens Principle, and more recently Ether06 below (to be translated soon), I was well aware that the 2-D core diameter exhibits a 3/4 wavelength diameter instead of the full lambda core for spherical waves.

Ether06.bas    Ether06.exe

The medium reacts rather capriciously to any energy input. It must be very smooth and progressive, so I desperately tried all kind of distribution curves inside a 3/4 lambda circle. Finally, I realized last week that the simpler solution, the elementary sine curve inside a 1/2 lambda circle instead of 3/4, could also be the best one. As a matter of fact, the results perfectly mach the curves given by the Huygens Principle, and the smaller circle is much faster to scan (1.5^2 = 2.25 less surface).

Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte's optimized algorithm.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that Mr. Marcotte's algorithm in one dimension, which is obviously the simpler and most efficient one, was invented in January 2006. I challenge anybody to find any consistent proof indicating that it existed in 2005 or before. It should be put down exactly in the following form and sequence:

past(x) = present(x)

present(x) = trend(x)

trend(x) = present(x–1) + present(x+1) – past(x)

Please stop repeating that it existed well before unless you do have this proof. There should be a maximum of 8 variables without any additional procedure. I acknowledge that many algorithms existed before, especially Mr. Philippe Delmotte's one, which also yields perfect results. Unfortunately, Mr. Paul Falstad does not know the name of the author of his method. I could check that all those algorithms contain additional variables or procedures, and sometimes the results are wrong or problematic.

But secondly, Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte went further. During the same year 2006, he elaborated a more complex but very efficient 2-D version using 4 additional neighbors on the diagonals, but with half of their influence only. This is an application of the normal square of the distance law. The diagonal neighbors being 1.414 times farther, their influence is indeed theoretically two times weaker.

I would like to apologize here to Mr. Marcotte for not realizing during at least two years that his enhanced method is really great. While using only 4 neighbors, the energy transfer on the diagonals is reported to the next sequence. This produces more or less squarish waves, especially near the pulsating center and for very short wavelengths. I did myself try to use 8 neighbors, but this did not significantly accelerate the waves. Mr. Marcotte's magnificent idea was to take the central energy into account on a negative basis, as it had already been observed that the positive value could rather produces variable but slower speed, which is useful for simulating lenses.

Finally, in spite of its complexity, this optimized algorithm is still faster because the wave velocity is accelerated to 1 pixel per loop exactly instead of .707. What is more, this procedure is transposable in 3-D. Then it also yields a velocity of one pixel per loop, which is very comforting and convincing. In such a case, one must use the square root of 3 for the neighbors placed on the vertices of a cube. This leads to an even more complex but highly dependable calculus using three different levels of influence and 26 neighbors. During the same year 2006, Mr. Marcotte used this optimized algorithm in order to reproduce my 3-D Doppler moving electron. It was definitely a memorable World's Premiere.

The c = 1 normalized speed.

The interesting point for me is that this 1-pixel velocity is consistent with Henri Poincare's c = 1 normalized speed of light. This convention allowed him to elaborate a considerably simplified version of the Lorentz transformations. So we will use the simplified equation set without any additional correction, making our demonstrations much more convincing. Here is a copy from Poincare's 1901 (four years before Einstein!) book "Electricity and Optics" :

Actually, this is a simplification of the Voigt Transformations (1887), where Voigt's constant "l" is useless. Lorentz found that it could be removed from the equation set because the null result for the Michelson interferometer is obtained only if  l = 1. 

I myself found that the normal Doppler effect occurs when l = g (This is Lorentz's g contraction factor, see below). If l = 1 according to Lorentz, the simpler equation set rather involves a slower frequency. I also found that one must swap x, x' and also the t, t' variables in order to produce this slower Doppler effect. Lorentz and Poincare preferred the inverted version in order to obtain a perfect invariance when applying them to Maxwell's equations. In practice, this simply will modify the x coordinates and the t period or phase (not the time!) of the Wave Generator in the program available above. More exactly, those equations simply describe the electron behavior at high speed. Thus, speaking of space contraction and time dilation appears ridiculous. This interpretation was certainly the most catastrophic error in Physics ever. No doubt, it originated from Poincare's reticence about matter contraction, which was Lorentz's bright idea at that time.

The inverted Lorentz transformations produce a Doppler effect instead of correcting it.

The x and t symmetric equations on the right hand side were adapted from Poincare's version. 

I discovered a new improved damping screen.

The wave algorithm simply transfers energy from one "granule" to its neighbors without any loss, with the inevitable consequence that the waves undergo a hard reflection when they reach the medium limits. Most often, the reflections must be eliminated and Mr. Philippe Delmotte succeeded as soon as 2005, thanks to a relatively wide damping zone (100 pixels or more). It is a tough and time consuming method, though.

Fortunately, I had to review the whole set of screens and mirrors because Mr. Marcotte's optimized algorithm works differently. I accidentally found an amplifier screen and a phase inverter. I also noticed that one must use progressively the soft reflection instead of the full damping procedure when the incidence angle becomes important. So I followed this Ariadne's thread and I finally elaborated last week a very simple damping screen which is successfully in use in the above-mentioned program.

But unfortunately, this damping screen becomes more difficult to deal with when the incidence angle cannot be known for sure. This is especially the case when the source is moving, when there are many sources, or when other reflections occur. The situation near the reflection point surely can be analyzed, but the smaller error produces a faint reflection which complicates ulterior interventions and finally ends up with a disaster. I am confident that a simple and trouble-free all-azimuth damping screen is possible, but I am afraid that finding it requires a better I.Q. than mine.

June 13, 2008.

Below is my fourth program on the Wave Mechanics. This one explores the capabilities of Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte's wave algorithm, which was created in June 2006. We worked closely together and the final result appears quite remarkable. We can now very easily generate and handle all kinds of waves. We also elaborated more simple and efficient procedures. This invention has now reached a very high degree of perfection.

WaveMechanics04.bas        WaveMechanics04.exe

Please note that Mr. Marcotte does not necessarily agree with my own theories about the wave nature of matter. The important point is that this algorithm produces absolutely normal waves. No theory there. No fantasy. Just waves.

Thus, I am confident that people interested in waves, especially opticians and acousticians, will realize soon that MM. Philippe Delmotte and Jocelyn Marcotte invented something important. This new computerized virtual wave medium proves to be a powerful tool, a genuine laboratory. Scientists will obtain a much better comprehension of all wave phenomena. There is a huge difference between theory and practice because facts are not disputable. Although virtual facts may appear quite evanescent, this wave algorithm will on the contrary yield very reliable results. As a matter of fact, all wave phenomena can otherwise be experimented through material waves such as sound, and yield the same results. For instance, hundreds of loudspeakers connected to the same sinusoidal source and evenly distributed on a circular spherical surface will produce a genuine (but noisy) Airy disk. The Huygens Principle (Fresnel integrals) can also predict this but scientists will finally prefer the algorithm because it is much easier to handle.

Let's face it: physics deviated from its logical course one hundred years ago because this tool was absent. Look at this:

Michelson_orthogonal_forward_51_angle.avi

The virtual medium can easily reproduce what is really going on inside the Michelson interferometer. I simply applied the Lorentz transformations. In 1895, Lorentz was on the right track, but he finally gave up on matter contraction because all scientists (especially Poincaré and Einstein) rejected this idea.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Thanks to this algorithm, I will slowly but surely produce more and more demonstrations. I admit that my hypotheses about the wave nature of matter definitely look weird, but they will prove to be correct and consistent with Lorentz's Relativity.

From my point of view, here is what is really weird. Since one hundred years, thousands and thousands of scientists studied and spoke about motion and Relativity without ever taking the Doppler effect into account. So I strongly suggest that you firstly examine my Time Scanner and compare the results to the Lorentz transformations (as seen by Lorentz himself). No doubt, Relativity is all about the Doppler effect, is it not so complicated, and our new virtual medium can handle it magnificently.

May 3, 2008.

I am proud to release two new programs explaining the basics of the Wave Mechanics:

WaveMechanics02.bas        WaveMechanics02.exe

WaveMechanics03.bas        WaveMechanics03.exe

The goal was to perfectly reproduce all wave phenomena. I also managed to make the source code the simplest and the clearest possible. Some previous programs which were created two or three years ago in order to test Mr. Philippe Delmotte's algorithm were a bit more complicated. In addition, one could not always obtain perfect results while dealing with problems such as residual reflection. But now the programs work beautifully.

Opticians and acousticians should be highly concerned about the amazing capabilities of this virtual medium, which also works in a two or three dimensional space. In my opinion, a similar but more elaborated algorithm should be be capable of reproducing the free atomic electron behavior for very high frequencies. Clearly, such frequencies are not only caused by an electron flow. Free electrons are mainly moving to and fro on a very short distance. They all together become a genuine and independent wave medium, creating an electronic wave. I also predict that there is no true light propagation inside transparent material such as glass or optical fiber. In such a case, energy transmission is caused by similar electronic oscillations. However, because inner atomic electrons are involved, they can also oscillate in a circular motion in order to produce polarization rotation as well as axial.

It should be emphasized that genuine waves are the result of a mechanical process. Delmotte's algorithm clearly shows that they definitely do not always behave the way mathematicians used to explain. For instance, any fractional step (such as one introduced by a given mechanism) produces quantum effects which become well visible for sawtooth or square waves. Such waves contain harmonics, hence shorter wavelengths which are progressively left behind because they propagate slower. Some energy is also converted into static vibrations, some sort of "heat". We will also show that waves, especially standing waves, can act and react. Thus, matter being made of waves, it surely can act and react the way Newton discovered. A wave is not an equation, it is a physical phenomenon. Physicists should think mechanics. They should be aware that mathematics are just a tool, not a transcendental cause which rules the universe. It is a very bad idea to use mathematics when one simply ignores what is really going on.

Clearly, the Wave Mechanics explains matter mechanics. It is a well known fact that kinetic energy can be stored into fields of force as potential energy. Those are matter's most important properties. Standing waves indeed contain energy, and this strongly suggests that fields of force could be made of standing waves.

This is undisputable: traveling waves do transport energy, and standing waves do contain energy. Physicists discovered not so recently that any intermediate situation also exists: partially standing waves, or standing waves which are actually moving at variable speeds because of the Doppler effect. Let's face it: matter can move, it thus can transport its own energy inside its standing waves, and this energy should be higher (Lorentz's mass increase) because of the wave compression as a result of the Doppler effect. This perfectly explains kinetic energy and Newton's mechanics, even for very high speeds where the Lorentz transformations must be taken into account. This is obvious because the Lorentz transformations are nothing else and nothing more than a Doppler effect. Finally, this also explains Relativity. 

All phenomena can be explained by waves. Thus they can all be explained and demonstrated using this wonderful laboratory.

April 18, 2008.

I invented a new way to produce sounds. Synthesizers do generate similar sounds, but now it becomes possible to let them evolve in order to imitate how true natural waves behave.

While working on the next program from my series on the Wave Mechanics, I noticed that sawtooth waves were not stable. They finally looked much like true sounds, for example that of an organ pipe which contains harmonics, or multiples of the basic frequency. Below is a provisional version which was modified in order to show this:

WaveMechanics03_test.bas        WaveMechanics03_test.exe

Square or sawtooth waves (for instance) truly evolve and progressively eliminate higher harmonics. The result is a natural complex structure capable of imitating that of most music instruments.

The point is that one can easily generate a specific artificial waveform and let it evolve through Mr. Delmotte's algorithm for a few seconds in order to obtain the more natural structure. Then the data can easily be copied to a .wav file. Many sounds and frequencies can be generated simultaneously. I am quite sure that such sounds would be especially enchanting and melodious.

I suppose that this invention was admissible for a patent. I have no money for this, so there is one more now in my drawers among hundreds of them. Some day, Yamaha or others will finally realize that those ideas were interesting, but I will not be in the picture. Sic transit gloria...

April 8, 2008

Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte and Mr. Anselme Dewavrin discovered how to make Euler's method more accurate. Up to now, mathematicians warned that this method yields only approximate results.

For example, one can obtain the sine for 45° this way:

1. Use a 360° scale in order to obtain integers.

2. The required step was once given by:

step = 2 * pi / 360

This step is inaccurate, though. Mr. Dewavrin found the correct one in October 2006, but his formula was too complicated.

Correction on April 17, 2008

A reader informed me today that he had found a simpler formula. He also pointed out that Euler himself was surely aware that his method could yield fairly good results. There is still a small uncertainty remaining for the same reason that one simply cannot draw a perfect sine curve using straight lines.

The correct step (in radians) is given by:

step  =  2 * sin(pi / 360)

3. Also in October 2006, Mr. Dewavrin discovered a simplified algorithm capable of listing the whole sine and cosine scale (hence sinusoidal oscillations) using two iterative program lines only:

sine = sine + cosine * step 
cosine = cosine – sine * step

4. One should initialize the sine to 0 but not the cosine to 1 as it would seem logical. Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte discovered last week that the cosine needs a slight advance in order to cancel the retardation firstly introduced by the algorithm. The correct cosine initialization is given by:

cosine = Cos(step / 2)

Then the sine scale becomes perfectly accurate up to 9 digits for double precision variables. The cosine scale is also perfectly accurate, yet all angles are 1 / 2 shifted as a result of cosine initialization offset. Below are two programs showing this:

Euler.bas        Euler.exe

Improving_Euler_s_method.bas      Improving_Euler_s_method.exe

Nobody can state that Euler's method is inaccurate any more. It does firstly introduce a specific error, but this error is foreseeable and verifiable. So one may add the equivalent correction which will cancel it (well, almost). Here, one obtains a surprising accuracy up to 9 digits, which is fantastic.

Such achievements are important for us because oscillations are the very basis of waves' behavior. Each new element helps us to understand what is truly going on. We already created or improved algorithms reproducing virtual waves, but some of the effects are still to discover. Especially, genuine waves (not equations) are never perfectly sinusoidal, and this strongly suggests that they may not behave exactly the way equations indicated. It should be emphasized that Mr. Philippe Delmotte's and Jocelyn Marcotte's virtual wave algorithms use a similar step, so they are likely to produce the same unpredictable effects.

It turns out that any granular medium (made of electrons, atoms or molecules, for example) clearly exhibit quantum properties. As explained above, energy transmission must be performed in a step-by-step process, and the step vs. wavelength ratio is not linear. A specific energy transmission constant should be considered. This means that ultrasonic waves behave differently for shorter wavelengths where very few molecules are involved.

Clearly, genuine waves do not behave exactly the way equations indicate. They truly exhibit unusual and surprising properties. Especially, waves can act and react with other waves, and such a behavior was surely not foreseeable using wave equations. Thus, being made of standing waves, two material bodies can act and react according to Newton's laws.

March 17,  2008

Mr. Anselme Dewavrin discovered in Decembre 2006 an algorithm which produces oscillations. It derives from the I.I.R. (infinite impulse response) electronic filter and also from Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte's algorithm, which produces computerized virtual waves. These three program lines must be repeated in a computer loop:

y1 = step * y3 – y2
y2  =  y3
y3  =  y1

step  =  sin(4 * pi / lambda) / sin(2 * pi / lambda)

I found yesterday that the equivalent step also works for Euler's method:

step  =  sqr(2 – (sin(4 * pi / lambda) / sin(2 * pi / lambda)))

instead of : 

step  =  2 * pi / lambda

So this new calculus was integrated to my new program (see March 14 below):

WaveMechanics01.bas      WaveMechanics01.exe

Surprisingly, in October 2006, Mr. Anselme Dewavrin was also the discoverer of another oscillation algorithm based on Euler's method. It is amazingly simple:

sine  =  sine – cosine * step
cosine = cosine + sine * step

step  =  sqr(2 – (sin(4 * pi / lambda) / sin(2 * pi / lambda)))

Although Euler's method is not accurate, the program indicates that it can now deliver the exact wavelength thanks to this new calculus for the step. But the sine and cosine magnitudes are still not perfectly accurate, though. I presume that this residual anomaly will also be corrected some day, making Euler's method finally "perfectly accurate".

March 14, 2008

Below is the first one of a series of FreeBASIC programs on wave behavior. They will especially demonstrate that waves and standing waves are capable or interaction. Thus, because matter is made of standing waves, its whole mechanics will become obvious.

WaveMechanics01.bas      WaveMechanics01.exe

I already wrote 21 programs in French and the goal is to translate them all before releasing new ones.

As a science, the Wave Mechanics is all about Matter Mechanics. Waves explain all: energy, forces, action and reaction, motion, inertia, etc. I wrote somewhere that today's invasion of physics by mathematicians is a plague. A wave is not an equation. It is a mechanical phenomenon which can be more or less predicted by an equation, which remains an approximation despite its perfection. The real thing is much better. In my opinion, Mr. Philippe Delmotte's and Jocelyn Marcotte's computerized virtual mediums are perfect.

I strongly suspect the so-called "error" of Euler's method to be actually the most basic property of waves. Because energy transmission is performed step by step in all well known waves such as sound, this obviously "quantum-like" anomaly (especially for shorter wavelengths) should be present.

It turns out that true waves are not perfect. As a consequence, matter standing waves should oppose a very weak resistance to traveling waves emitted by all matter in the universe. They should be progressively scattered. The result after millions and millions of wavelengths is matter's standing wave amplification. Thus matter standing waves can constantly emit energy without fading out.

February 20, 2008

The page on fields of force was updated.

This is the debut of a new era. The unification of forces is now complete. Energy, forces and matter mechanics are systematically linked to fields of force. Here is the electrostatic field responsible for the Coulomb force, the simplest and most common field of force:

The "biconvex" ellipsoid electrostatic field of force generated by two electrons.

All distances between antinodes and electrons are integer multiples of the wavelength.

This is possible thanks to the ellipse's amazing properties (see below).

The field is the result of the wave addition between two electrons or positrons. Like electrons and matter, it is made of standing waves whose amplification returns energy equally towards both particles. The force is exerted equally in two opposite directions as a result of the radiation pressure.

As seen from this field's point of view, there is no action and reaction any more, but rather two opposite and equal actions. So Newton's well known third law is still valid but it should rather be called the principle of Double Action.

Moving matter undergoes a mass gain as kinetic energy according to Lorentz's gamma factor. When two electrons collide, the field of force becomes an energy reservoir which is capable of accelerating them back in opposite directions. Thus, a collision between two billiard balls creates billions of temporary fields of forces whose total energy according to mc^2 is finally returned to the balls. The calculus below could be achieved thanks to the active and reactive mass method, which is based on Lorentz's Doppler effect.

This calculus is not disputable because it matches all well accepted and verified observations. 

M = a + r

T = M₁ + M₂

Total constant energy (law of conservation of energy) = M₁ + M₂ + delta

The field's energy (delta) is given by:

Delta = Total energy – (M₁ + M₂)

As far as I know, I was also the first one (in 2002) to point out that all of the ellipse's magnitudes are directly linked to the Lorentz transformations. Below is my most recent diagram:

January 21, 2008

A decisive test was added to the second page on Lorentz's Relativity. One can check that the Lorentz transformations prevent moving observers from detecting their absolute speed with respect to the aether. They will rather transpose the Lorentz transformations to the system at rest.

I am especially proud of these diagrams because they display the situation as seen by A and B in accordance with both Lorentz and Einstein. Thus the results are not disputable. Below are the four separated images:

http://www.glafreniere.com/images/relativity04a.gif

http://www.glafreniere.com/images/relativity04b.gif

http://www.glafreniere.com/images/relativity04c.gif

http://www.glafreniere.com/images/relativity04d.gif

Lorentz's reversed equations below are not disputable either because they are also consistent with both Lorentz and Einstein's point of view. I am very surprised that nobody ever put them down this way.

Clearly, Lorentz's point of view is valid as an alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity. If the transformations really occur, a moving observer cannot establish his true speed anyway. All observers must deal with a perfect reciprocity. Einstein was correct on the principle, but he was wrong on the true events.

Relativity is definitely true. It is not a theory any more. It is possible because moving matter and forces are involving waves. Now, there is a new theory to discover: the New Mechanics. It is much more important than Relativity because it is how matter truly behaves.

Matter mechanics is solely the result of Lorentz's very special Doppler effect applied to electrons.

Matter structure is solely the result of Fresnel's diffraction patterns for multiple emitters. 

January 12, 2008

The second page on Lorentz's Relativity was updated again. I added a clock synchronization procedure which is consistent with the Lorentz transformations.

The calculus is quite simple. Now Relativity can be easily demonstrated. It is not a dogmatic and complex theory any more. Starting from now, scientists can no longer ignore this hypothesis because it works, and also because everybody can examine it and understand it.

I will add many similar experiences, but making all this simple needs a lot of thinking. I am prepared to work on this for a long time, but it is worth the effort because Lorentz's Relativity leads to the New Mechanics, which is much more important. 

January 3, 2008

The first page on Lorentz's Relativity was updated. After so many years of intense thoughts, I finally affirm that the Lorentz transformations and Relativity are strictly based on the fact that the electron frequency slows down in accordance with Lorentz's contraction factor:  g = sqr(1 – beta ^ 2).

The electron frequency slows down according to Lorentz's factor.

This phenomenon alone causes the Lorentz transformations and explains Relativity.

This is truly the "formula of the century". It turns out that the Lorentz transformations are much more important than Relativity (which is all about mystification) because they explain matter mechanics. Matter true behavior is important, indeed capital, and Newton's laws can now be upgraded by adding the Lorentz transformations effects and the mass gain, which is responsible for kinetic energy according to the gamma factor (1 / g).

There is no "General Relativity". Gravity is definitely not linked to Relativity. It is just a force like other ones, which all act through fields of force, albeit they are submitted to the Lorentz transformations.

The second page on Lorentz's Relativity was partially updated. The goal is to examine many situations and experiments (such as the Michelson interferometer) which systematically yield a null result. Finally, one should draw the conclusion that one's velocity with respect to the aether is not measurable.